Runner that slapped reporters ass, is facing criminal charges

El_Duderino 09

IAMAMORON wrote: »

It saddens me that the days of slapping and tickling are over.

" slap and tickle is dead and gone "

Right. Amongst non consenting people it's dead and gone. People who consent can do whatever they want together.

jimgoose

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Right. Amongst non consenting people it's dead and gone. People who consent can do whatever they want together.

It's been my experience that many women actually rather like having their arses smacked and even squeezed, but are very particular about who does it.

Reviews and Books Galore

Ironicname wrote: »

I don't doubt that for a second.

I'd wager scenarios where you voice your opinion are especially humiliating.

Okay, irregardles of everything else, that's a great reply.

Reviews and Books Galore

Penn wrote: »

I think it'd be assault because the intent in kicking a man in the balls is to hurt them, whereas the intent in slapping a woman on the arse has sexual overtones to it. He wasn't trying to slap her on the back or shoulder as he claimed, the only way you hit the arse like that is if you're aiming for it, and he was doing so for his own pleasure or he thought it'd be funny. But ultimately slapping a woman on the arse is has enough sexual connotations to it that kicking a man in the balls doesn't.

Either way, he slapped a woman on the arse. He'll not get jail time, probably just a fine or a few hours community service or something. He did slap her on the arse though and he chose to do so, so the consequences are his bear regardless of what some people's opinion of the woman are.

Why isn't sexual? why are you putting sexual overtones on teh man vs the woman?

jimgoose

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Why isn't sexual? why are you putting sexual overtones on teh man vs the woman?

Are you seriously suggesting that a hoof to the veg is ever a "playful", sexual gesture? And that a smack on the arse isn't?? :pac:

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would be interested to see where it says that in the law. Also, what is the legal definition of necessary?

Genuinely.

I think there are plenty of places where laws conflict in the strictest sense. But changing a nappy is normal duty of someone in charge of a baby, so changing a nappy in the normal way is just classed as normal care for a child even though it might well involve touching the child's genitals as part of normal cleaning.

I'm.not a legal expert so maybe someone will clear it up.

On any case I don't think the guy was fulfilling any kind of duty when he slapped her arse. He was just slapping her arse.

Reviews and Books Galore

kg703 wrote: »

It’s not feminist nonsense. Why do you think you are entitled to put your hands on someone? Women don’t like being slapped on the arse by strange men it’s creepy and disgusting. A kick to the nuts is an acceptable response to someone grabbing or slapping my arse so keep that in mind before you do that to someone.

Only my husband and close friends can participate in arse slapping

Okay, so the next time a woman touches me in a way I don't like, I am going to stamp on her uterus.

jimgoose

kg703 wrote: »

...A kick to the nuts is an acceptable response to someone grabbing or slapping my arse...

No, it isn't. It is a completely disproportionate response as well as being very illegal.

Reviews and Books Galore

jimgoose wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that a hoof to the veg is ever a "playful", sexual gesture? And that a smack on the arse isn't?? :pac:

Actually, it kind of was in high school.

Penn

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Why isn't sexual? why are you putting sexual overtones on teh man vs the woman?

Man kicking woman in crotch and woman kicking man in crotch = No difference

Man slapping woman's arse and woman slapping man's arse = No difference

Man slapping woman's arse and woman kicking man in crotch = Difference. It's a different action generally for a different reason with a different intent. It's a complete false equivalency.

Reviews and Books Galore

Penn wrote: »

Man kicking woman in crotch and woman kicking man in crotch = No difference

Man slapping woman's arse and woman slapping man's arse = No difference

Man slapping woman's arse and woman kicking man in crotch = Difference. It's a different action generally for a different reason with a different intent. It's a complete false equivalency.

Legally, it's touching someobodies genitalia without consent. Again, your putting sexual overtones on an act vs another act.



This is silly so I won't be replying to any more comments on this.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think there are plenty of places where laws conflict in the strictest sense. But changing a nappy is normal duty of someone in charge of a baby, so changing a nappy in the normal way is just classed as normal care for a child even though it might well involve touching the child's genitals as part of normal cleaning.

I'm.not a legal expert so maybe someone will clear it up.

On any case I don't think the guy was fulfilling any kind of duty when he slapped her arse. He was just slapping her arse.

Jesus, that is close to admitting that you have an opinion outside of the law!!!!

So (and without trying to sound like that woman from Channel 4), "what your saying is"... there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual?

If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm?

Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?

threeball

jimgoose wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that a hoof to the veg is ever a "playful", sexual gesture? And that a smack on the arse isn't?? :pac:

No he's saying why is she attributing sexual intent to the smack in the arse. Theres nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus, that is close to admitting that you have an opinion outside of the law!!!!

So (and without trying to sound like that woman from Channel 4), "what your saying is"... there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual?

If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm?

Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?

The law as it stands in the place where this took place makes no mention of intention. whether you claim your intent was sexual or not is irrelevant. you keep going back to this and it is irrelevant. All that is relevant isL Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent. and please dont go back to that nonsense about children. it isn't relevant.

ohnonotgmail

threeball wrote: »

No he's saying why is she attributing sexual intent to the smack in the arse. Theres nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning.

which is entirely irrelevant.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

which is entirely irrelevant.

So a kick to the balls is sexual assault?



To take it further, a woman touching a man on the arm, hands, or chest is sexual assault as women see biceps and chest in a sexualised manner in the same way men see an arse in a sexual manner?

jimgoose

threeball wrote: »

No he's saying why is she attributing sexual intent to the smack in the arse. Theres nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning.

An attractive young woman gets a slap on the arse from a passing man and you make out there's "nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning"?? On what sodding planet? :pac:

threeball

Penn wrote: »

Man kicking woman in crotch and woman kicking man in crotch = No difference

Man slapping woman's arse and woman slapping man's arse = No difference

Man slapping woman's arse and woman kicking man in crotch = Difference. It's a different action generally for a different reason with a different intent. It's a complete false equivalency.

No a man never slapped a woman on the arse with an intent to hurt them, its always sexual?

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

So a kick to the balls is sexual assault?



To take it further, a woman touching a man on the arm, hands, or chest is sexual assault as women see biceps and chest in a sexualised manner in the same way men see an arse in a sexual manner?

I've already posted the relevant definition of sexual battery (not assault) as it is applies where this took place. perhaps you might want to take a look at it.

threeball

jimgoose wrote: »

An attractive young woman gets a slap on the arse from a passing man and you make out there's "nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning"?? On what sodding planet? :pac:

She wasn't referring to the incident, she was speaking about a smack on the arse in general. Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that

jimgoose

threeball wrote: »

She wasn't referring to the incident, she was speaking about a smack on the arse in general. Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that

What in the gasflowed fuck is that about? I don't touch people's arses in the pub, or anywhere else! :pac:

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The law as it stands in the place where this took place makes no mention of intention. whether you claim your intent was sexual or not is irrelevant. you keep going back to this and it is irrelevant. All that is relevant isL Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent. and please dont go back to that nonsense about children. it isn't relevant.

With all due respect, I was talking to someone who has stated on multiple occasions that the law is the law and should be treated as such.

And to respond to you, why is it irrelevant with regards to children? Unless you agree, that common sense should be applied to law even if it contradicts the law.

"Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent."

Where do you draw the line then? It doesn't apply to children. Ok. Does it apply to an Aunt vs Niece, both of whom are of age where an aunt is encouraging a niece to collect an award?

Of course it shouldn't.

But if you cant tell me where the line is, the phrasing of the law is an ass (pun intended)

So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?

My point was not that parents SHOULD be charged with sexual battery, it was to highlight the ambiguous way in which it is phrased and the way certain posters think it should be applied.

AustinLostin

threeball wrote: »

Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that

lol what, who does this. I will start to do arse tippy taps to herald my entrance.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

With all due respect, I was talking to someone who has stated on multiple occasions that the law is the law and should be treated as such.

And to respond to you, why is it irrelevant with regards to children? Unless you agree, that common sense should be applied to law even if it contradicts the law.

"Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent."

Where do you draw the line then? It doesn't apply to children. Ok. Does it apply to an Aunt vs Niece, both of whom are of age where an aunt is encouraging a niece to collect an award?

Of course it shouldn't.

But if you cant tell me where the line is, the phrasing of the law is an ass (pun intended)


So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?

My point was not that parents SHOULD be charged with sexual battery, it was to highlight the ambiguous way in which it is phrased and certain posters think it should be applied.

It is not common sense. It is public policy. Public policy that parents should be allowed to do what is necessary to raise their children. whether that is changing a nappy or bathing them or slapping them on the arse the law recognises that all these are necessary and the law should not interfere as they are perfectly normal things to do for a parent. running up to a complete stranger and slapping them on the arse is not a normal thing to do.

So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?

There is no need to prove this at all. the law does not require it.

Penn

threeball wrote: »

No a man never slapped a woman on the arse with an intent to hurt them, its always sexual?

I put the word "generally" there for a reason. Likewise, some men enjoy getting kicked in the balls by women, so that can be sexual too.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual?

If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm?

Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?

Well, if the guy was fulfilling some higher duty when he slapped her arse, then maybe he should use that as his defence. If he was slapping a poisonous spider off her arse for example. But he wasn't so it isn't relevant.

I think they should just go ahead and prosecute in accordance with the law. He'll either be found guilty or not and be sentenced accordingly.

Maybe slapping arses is actually a bit more serious than you take it to be.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is not common sense. It is public policy. Public policy that parents should be allowed to do what is necessary to raise their children. whether that is changing a nappy or bathing them or slapping them on the arse the law recognises that all these are necessary and the law should not interfere as they are perfectly normal things to do for a parent. running up to a complete stranger and slapping them on the arse is not a normal thing to do.

.

Ok, I'll concede the parent thing for the purpose of this conversation, but what about an aunt? By the letter of the law, is she not a sexual criminal?

My point is again, not to lessen or negate what the man did (which I completely am against btw) it is to highlight how ambiguous the law is and that common sense should prevail.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, if the guy was fulfilling some higher duty when he slapped her arse, then maybe he should use the t as it's defence. If he was slapping a poisonous spider off her arse for example. But he wasn't so it isn't relevant.

I tho k they should just go ahead and prosecute in accordance with the law. He'll either be found guilty or not and be sentenced accordingly.

Maybe slapping arses is actually a bit more serious than you take it to be.

Ah ok, you are back to just saying "the law is the law".

Shame. I thought you were starting to think for yourself.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I've already posted the relevant definition of sexual battery (not assault) as it is applies where this took place. perhaps you might want to take a look at it.

Yeah, people should be able to make a coherent reply and argument tbh.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, I'll concede the parent thing for the purpose of this conversation, but what about an aunt? By the letter of the law, is she not a sexual criminal?

My point is again, not to lessen or negate what the man did (which I completely am against btw) it is to highlight how ambiguous the law is and that common sense should prevail.

If the aunt is acting in loco parentis then no, she is not a sexual criminal.

El_Duderino 09

threeball wrote: »

She wasn't referring to the incident, she was speaking about a smack on the arse in general. Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that

That's not how I say hello to friends but you can do as you please with your mates.

But I think you're avoiding the crucial part of that scenario which is the fact that they're you're friends, not strangers and it's in the pub so its a specific context (assuming that's part of your craic within your friends group on the pub).

Would you approach strangers or work colleagues in work and slap their arse to announce your arrival?

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Okay, so the next time a woman touches me in a way I don't like, I am going to stamp on her uterus.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Yeah, people should be able to make a coherent reply and argument tbh.

Well your posts have been a shining example of same.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well your posts have been a shining example of same.

I agree. It's good to highlight the differences and is part of a coherent argument. Much better than stating an opinion, somebody asks you a question, and you do not form any kind of argument in return :P



I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.

bfa1509

"The point here is that he took my power and I'm trying to take it back"

So like many others, she used the power of her ass to get a job in media

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I agree. It's good to highlight the differences and is part of a coherent argument. Much better than stating an opinion, somebody asks you a question, and you do not form any kind of argument in return :P



I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.

he hasn't received any punishment. He will be charged with a misdeameanor so his punishment will be minor.

jimgoose

Quadrature40 wrote: »

So it's not sexual assault if it's an ugly woman?

That isn't what I said, and you know well that isn't what I said.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah ok, you are back to just saying "the law is the law".

Shame. I thought you were starting to think for yourself.

Well, is the law not the law?

You're free to campaign to get Georgia law (or Irish law) to reflect your views. In the mean time, if you don't understand why it's sexual assault to slap strangers arses, I suggest you just don't slap strangers arses.

I'm fine with arse slapping strangers being classed as sexual assault. It ought to be at the low end of sexual assault, obviously.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he hasn't received any punishment. He will be charged with a misdeameanor so his punishment will be minor.

He will be seen as a rapist, he will probably lose his job, his family will have a difficult time due to the loss of income, and he will have to face a media hate campaighn by 'Gloria Alfred' who is pretty much a lawyer that started metoo.



His punishment is absurd.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

He will be seen as a rapist, he will probably lose his job, his family will have a difficult time due to the loss of income, and he will have to face a media hate campaighn by 'Gloria Alfred' who is pretty much a lawyer that started metoo.



His punishment is absurd.

maybe by you but i dont think anybody else will see him that way.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.

I'd say you defending the guy is about right given your posting history. I'm not at all surprised you're defending him and I've no idea why you're surprised.

He hasn't had any legal punishment as yet and may not receive any at all. I suppose there are social consequences to your actions and actions caught on camera are there for all to see.

jimgoose

Quadrature40 wrote: »

That's what your statement implies.

Only to Strawy McStrawman, the strawiest strawman in Strawmanville.

ohnonotgmail

Quadrature40 wrote: »

I think you've mistaken after hours for a legal forum. The discussion many are having relates to what should be acceptable, what shouldn't be acceptable, what should be calossifed as sexual assault and what shouldn't be classified as sexual assault. Nobody here is going to campaign for any legal changes, it's just a discussion.

and slapping a stranger on the arse is not acceptable. good talk.

bfa1509

I think it all depends on the mine you step on and at what time.

During the summer I had a pint in each hand walking back from the bar. Two girls I didn't know, one with a belly top on started shouting "Ah thanks for the pints" I said nothing, bent over and gave the girl with the belly top a giant raspberry square on the belly! The two of them laughed, then the other girl pulled up her top and said "do me, do me!". I bent over and as I was doing her, she yelped and pushed me away. My first thought was "oh sh!t, she's probably going to accuse me of something" But when I looked at her I realised that I spilled a full pint of Guinness down her leg...

Thinking back, I feel stupid now seeing the type of trouble people get in. But at the time, it was late, everyone was drunk and it was funny as hell. I have never slapped a girl on the ass but I have been slapped on the ass by women at least 10 times on nights out.

dubstarr

Deleted User wrote: »

With all due respect, I was talking to someone who has stated on multiple occasions that the law is the law and should be treated as such.

And to respond to you, why is it irrelevant with regards to children? Unless you agree, that common sense should be applied to law even if it contradicts the law.

"Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent."

Where do you draw the line then? It doesn't apply to children. Ok. Does it apply to an Aunt vs Niece, both of whom are of age where an aunt is encouraging a niece to collect an award?

Of course it shouldn't.

But if you cant tell me where the line is, the phrasing of the law is an ass (pun intended)

So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?

My point was not that parents SHOULD be charged with sexual battery, it was to highlight the ambiguous way in which it is phrased and the way certain posters think it should be applied.

Im close to banging my head off the wall.I might get more sense out of it.

Children cant give consent,thats why parents are in charge,
Thats why you cant have sex with children because of lack of consent.And because its disgusting even to think of it.You are sexualising normal things that adults have to do to children.Like changing nappies.THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

We cant prove the man was acting in a sexual manner.Only he knows that.

But IF HADNT SLAPPED HER ARSE,NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

He will be seen as a rapist, he will probably lose his job, his family will have a difficult time due to the loss of income, and he will have to face a media hate campaighn by 'Gloria Alfred' who is pretty much a lawyer that started metoo.

His punishment is absurd.

Maybe we should just put him in the electric chair and stream it live on Twitter. The outrage mob will settle for no less.

ohnonotgmail

Treasure Sticky Weirdness wrote: »

Maybe we should just put him in the electric chair and stream it live on Twitter. The outrage mob will settle for no less.

you really need to cut out the fantasies.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, is the law not the law?

You're free to campaign to get Georgia law (or Irish law) to reflect your views. In the mean time, if you don't understand why it's sexual assault to slap strangers arses, I suggest you just don't slap strangers arses.

I'm fine with arse slapping strangers being classed as sexual assault. It ought to be at the low end of sexual assault, obviously.

You have stated this line numerous times to anyone who disagrees with your "hey, the law is the law" stance and it is insidious, dishonest and an ugly way of arguing.

"I suggest you just don't slap strangers arses"

The vast, vast majority of people who have spoken to you here are not in any way condoning what went on. We are simply saying the phrasing of the law, the severity of the consequences of a criminal charge being levelled and the absolute ambiguity of what is deemed as sexual battery is not representational to the crime committed.

If you wish to continue to argue in bad faith and just resort to "hey, aren't laws the law" when questioned instead of giving opinionated answers, then why the hell are you on a discussion board?

We have reached an impasse here and we won't find common ground so I won't waste either of our time by engaging with you further.

dubstarr

Treasure Sticky Weirdness wrote: »

Maybe we should just put him in the electric chair and stream it live on Twitter. The outrage mob will settle for no less.

Yes thats not over the top at a;;:rolleyes:

dubstarr

dubstarr wrote: »

Im close to banging my head off the wall.I might get more sense out of it.

Children cant give consent,thats why parents are in charge,
Thats why you cant have sex with children because of lack of consent.And because its disgusting even to think of it.You are sexualising normal things that adults have to do to children.Like changing nappies.THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

We cant prove the man was acting in a sexual manner.Only he knows that.

But IF HADNT SLAPPED HER ARSE,NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

I'm aware children can't give consent.

I never once sexualised anything. I said, by the letter of the law, intentionally touching the buttocks of anyone without their consent, could be construed as Sexual Battery.

I also stated on numerous occasions that I didn't consider discipling a child to be Sexual Battery and common sense should prevail which is why I think the definition of Sexual Battery is too ambiguous and open to too much interpretation.

I never mentioned changing nappies.

I ALSO AGREE THAT THE MAN WAS AT FAULT. But if we can't prove why he did it, I think it's ridiculous to automatically assume it was sexual so perhaps battery would be more appropriate a charge.

So perhaps instead of banging your head against the wall, read what I have said instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions.

El_Duderino 09

Quadrature40 wrote: »

I think you've mistaken after hours for a legal forum. The discussion many are having relates to what should be acceptable, what shouldn't be acceptable, what should be calossifed as sexual assault and what shouldn't be classified as sexual assault. Nobody here is going to campaign for any legal changes, it's just a discussion.

Ok. See the last sentence in the post you quoted for my opinion.