Runner who slapped reporter’s butt in road race arrested for sexual battery

That reporter is a democrat piece of trash.

boring, correct answer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"I'm comfortable with any person whose butt was slapped, in jurisdictions where it violates the law, filing charges under the legal system."

In some countries' jurisdictions the penalties under their legal system for "butt-slapping" would be stoning or flogging (Sharia law). But that wouldn't apparently matter to you, because you appear to be indifferent as to whether the law is a good or bad law; it is enough that it exists. Like the Prohibition laws, or the laws that once treated human beings as someone's property?

You started by conflating my comfort with bringing charges to my comfort with the punishment (in foreign countries no less). These are not the same. Be better.

You simply duck the point; that a law exists is sufficient for you to support its enforcement, regardless of whether it is a good or bad law - and I gave examples of laws that once existed in the US that were removed from the books. That isn't "conflating" anything; it is a quite logical inference from what you have said.

trollism wrote:

Motion Sick Mick wrote:

Having started my athletic career playing football, basketball, and baseball...slaps on the hinder for making a tackle, taking a charge, or hitting a home run - NEVER did I think the congratulatory slap was sexual or assaulting.

Because you consented to it. It's not complicated.

So you're fine with people slapping you, that's good for you.

If you were out with female family members, would you be happy for completely random to approach them and feeling them up with no warning? Would you be ashamed of them if they weren't happy about it?

I feel there is a huge difference between a simple slap to a person's seat vs. someone "feeling up" a person. That appears to be the difference here - the definition/view of a simple slap. If the slap would have been to the reporters back or shoulders should the guy been arrested for physical assault, or assault and battery? Should NO touching of another person become a new NATIONWIDE LAW?!?!? Have you watched professional sports lately? A guy does something good and his team pushes and shoves him like they hate the guy, but it is the complete opposite...it's a crazy world we live in!

It is not remotely appropriate to infer that agreeing with the right to bring charges is agreeing with the punishment.

Be better.

Serious Question to Defenders of the Dude wrote:

There is a law against what he did, so if she chooses to press charges that's well within her rights, and is really the only real deterrent for this kind of act.

A prosecutor does not have to charge someone just because someone else "presses charges," i.e., asks the prosecutor to file charges. The decision doesn't belong to the victim.

The victim does have a remedy, though. She can sue the guy for battery.

In the early 1990s I had no idea that the Internet would mean (1) endless deliveries from Amazon to my door and (2) a world ruined by online hyperbole and tribalism.

It IS possible to be too connected and to be too 'involved'. Most everyone I know under the age of 30 has been poisoned by forces all too visible in instances like this.

boring, correct answer wrote:

Poster #431 wrote:

One (four) simple question(s):

Are you comfortable with the idea of having literally every person who has smacked someone else's butt - unprovoked and without consent - arrested for sexual battery and have smear campaigns against them?

I'm comfortable with any person whose butt was slapped, in jurisdictions where it violates the law, filing charges under the legal system.

Poster #431 wrote:

Or perhaps let me phrase it in another way. Is following the letter of the law to a T, for EVERY law an absolute necessity? Or are there some laws that perhaps cast a wider net than is absolutely necessary (with good intent)?

No, following the letter of the law to a T for EVERY law is not an absolute necessity.

Poster #431 wrote:

Do you people understand nuance?

Yes.

You got me, it was more than one question. Let's go one at a time. #1 you did not answer. #2 we agree on. #3 you did not answer but it stands to reason based on your #2 answer that we agree. #4 you answered but based on your other responses it appears you have lied.

What I'm gathering (and don't let me put words in your mouth) is that we should be empowering people to pull the victim card at their leisure when the reality is that the exact same act performed on someone else may not feel victimized by it? In other words we need to cater to the lowest social common denominator. People who are so fragile they can't take a mild act of mischief and need to be hyper-dramatic about it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Since when is your ass a sex organ?

If you aren't gay or trans and haven't any other mental disorders, you only use it to poop.

I do not agree that understanding nuance is not at ends with believing an aggrieved person can bring charges.

If this "mild act of mischief" is found to be an act of breaking the law and the accused is convicted then I think you should take issue with how the law is written and not the victim who asked for the law to be applied.

Armstronglivs wrote:

boring, correct answer wrote:

You started by conflating my comfort with bringing charges to my comfort with the punishment (in foreign countries no less). These are not the same. Be better.

You simply duck the point; that a law exists is sufficient for you to support its enforcement, regardless of whether it is a good or bad law - and I gave examples of laws that once existed in the US that were removed from the books. That isn't "conflating" anything; it is a quite logical inference from what you have said.

I think a law against striking other people without their consent is a good law. In this case, rather than simple battery, if he struck her across the face or back, he is charged with sexual battery, because he touched her in a place listed in the Georgia law. The actual punishment is decided by a judge upon conviction. In this case, the punishment would probably not be terribly severe.

Do you seriously think laws against striking or touching other people should be overturned? FYI here is the legal definition of battery which, I'm pretty sure is illegal in all 50 states: "In criminal law, this is a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another person without that person's consent."

boring, correct answer wrote:

It is not remotely appropriate to infer that agreeing with the right to bring charges is agreeing with the punishment.

Be better.

I don't have to. You haven't risen to a credible argument. Once you agree to the bringing of charges you accede to whatever penalty is applicable. But you apparently can't think quite that far ahead.

Firstly, no I don't think that there should be no laws against various forms of assault.

"Harmful or offensive contact". The first requires that injury of some kind occurs, the second that the contact involved is by its nature "offensive" and not simply that it has caused offence to a particular individual - it is not a subjective test as defined by the attitude of the victim alone. The act involved would require to be construed by most people as injurious; it could not be deemed trivial or of minor significance. That is what this case risks.

gg6e wrote:

KudzuRunner wrote:

You're talking about Charles Murray's voided appearance at Middlebury, I presume:

Typical deflection, try to act there's "one incident", when they are literally piling up.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/semester-of-violence-physical-attacks-on-conservative-college-students-keep-piling-up/

I wasn't trying to deflect. I was merely trying to cite one example of a trending problem that happens to bother me a lot. Which means that I'm on your side, basically, but you're so filled with channelized aggression and unconscious narcissism that when I merely cited one instance of a social problem--agreeing with outofproportion!--rather than making what you felt was the necessary response, you saw red.

A pity. Do you alienate your friends like this all the time, or was this a one-off?

Armstronglivs wrote:

boring, correct answer wrote:

It is not remotely appropriate to infer that agreeing with the right to bring charges is agreeing with the punishment.

Be better.

I don't have to. You haven't risen to a credible argument. Once you agree to the bringing of charges you accede to whatever penalty is applicable. But you apparently can't think quite that far ahead.

I will very simply point out how idiotic that line of “thinking” is.

Your statement above would mean that people who are against capital punishment would not be able to be in support for bringing charges in murder cases, because once they agree to the bringing of charges they accede to whatever penalty is applicable.

Yeah, it’s that dumb.

do not touch wrote:

suppress = success wrote:

Slapped a butt and now his life is ruined.

Outrage culture is going to inadvertently turn us into a nation of serial killers.

How is his life ruined? If you're not prepared to go to jail for a year and have a big fine, maybe you should not take it upon yourself to harmlessly slap someones butt in a joking manner.

fixed

boring, correct answer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I don't have to. You haven't risen to a credible argument. Once you agree to the bringing of charges you accede to whatever penalty is applicable. But you apparently can't think quite that far ahead.

I will very simply point out how idiotic that line of “thinking” is.

Your statement above would mean that people who are against capital punishment would not be able to be in support for bringing charges in murder cases, because once they agree to the bringing of charges they accede to whatever penalty is applicable.

Yeah, it’s that dumb.

You are a practised bullsh*tter. But not a very good one. The analogy fails because you have made no argument against penalty, in the way that some are opposed to capital punishment on principle. You have offered no objection to the possible penalties for an assault case like this; you have therefore implicitly accepted what is available to a court to impose under the law once you have accepted it is appropriate to put the matter before a court. It is disingenuous to say you could subsequently be opposed on principle to the penalty imposed; those penalties are on the books and you have made no objection to them. You haven't argued as such for a person's right to take the matter to court but that it is acceptable for them to seek prosecution in those jurisdictions where those laws exist; it isn't possible to be indifferent to the possible penalties unless you either don't care or are ignorant of them. That could well be it. I would say, be better - but I don't think you are up to it.

I pointed out very clearly how absurd your contention is that support of a victim’s right to bring charges is implicit acceptance of the possible penalties. That is not a logical conclusion.

Be better.

WreckedWorldPlus wrote:

In the early 1990s I had no idea that the Internet would mean (1) endless deliveries from Amazon to my door and (2) a world ruined by online hyperbole and tribalism.

It IS possible to be too connected and to be too 'involved'. Most everyone I know under the age of 30 has been poisoned by forces all too visible in instances like this.

An absolute gem of an observation lost in the haze. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

WreckedWorldPlus wrote:

In the early 1990s I had no idea that the Internet would mean (1) endless deliveries from Amazon to my door and (2) a world ruined by online hyperbole and tribalism.

It IS possible to be too connected and to be too 'involved'. Most everyone I know under the age of 30 has been poisoned by forces all too visible in instances like this.

This post is just too prescient. I actually do not think this guy deserves a pass, but I am frightened by the sense of glee that most people seem to have with these scenarios. I think it is capital-P Pride - the utmost evil - run amok. I worry about people's souls.

The worst part is that most people under 30 don't know there is another way, so they will continue to live lives of rage, fear, anxiety, isolation, and depression due to this phenomenon.