Runner commits sexual assault in a race. Race is photo'd/video'd. He gets caught.

That isn't quite correct. The police firstly have a discretion as to whether to press charges, depending on the nature of the evidence and the seriousness of the charges. Secondly, while the technical ingredients of the charge can be satisfied the court may also decide the offence doesn't warrant serious penalty, particularly if there are mitigating factors involved. The charges could even be dismissed.

It is technically an assault simply to touch someone else without their consent, but you won't see charges laid. (It is also technically an assault without a blow being landed - if the victim has a reasonable fear they will be struck.) You may think it is "mental gymnastics" but legal matters are very rarely black and white (and I say that as one whose professional training was in law).

In this case I could well see a court taking the view that the offence was at the minor end of the spectrum - a lawyer could easily argue it as such. The penalty is unlikely to match the highly publicised indignation of the reporter and those who choose to characterise the offence as an outrage.

But we have entered the realm here of sexual politics, where values and beliefs - and who you stand with - define the issues rather than the facts. The polarisation of opinion on a site such as this demonstrates this. Yet if a matter involving a proven sexual violation had occurred - in common parlance, a rape - I would expect the consensus to be overwhelmingly for the victim. By trying to categorise lesser forms of conduct as serious that consensus is lost in the political shouting that takes over.

Vaporfly wrote:

[quote]Sub Elitist wrote:

Guy apologized, but she continues her witch hunt and is "glad" to destroy his life.

I'm not sure you understand what the term "witch hunt" actually means. Please try to be smarter.

I have engaged in no sexual politics. I have merely questioned those who find it absurd that a person who finds themselves to be the victim of a crime to seek legal remedy.

It kind of depends on what we mean by "victim". I have similarly been a "victim" of the same act by women - like many guys have - but didn't see myself as a victim. The term implies the suffering of harm. I get the reporter was offended - and in the circumstances so she should be - but beyond that, what was the harm suffered? I would expect a legal remedy to be sought if the matter was serious and no other course was appropriate. It is difficult to see how this qualifies. The offender has been publicly shamed and delivered an apology. Is a criminal conviction necessary?

Again, it's very simple. That's for law enforcement to decide whether it warrants bringing charges and the court to decide whether criminal conviction is necessary. Not for your mental gymnastics to dictate.

Armstronglivs wrote:

under a bridge wrote:

I have engaged in no sexual politics. I have merely questioned those who find it absurd that a person who finds themselves to be the victim of a crime to seek legal remedy.

It kind of depends on what we mean by "victim". I have similarly been a "victim" of the same act by women - like many guys have - but didn't see myself as a victim. The term implies the suffering of harm. I get the reporter was offended - and in the circumstances so she should be - but beyond that, what was the harm suffered? I would expect a legal remedy to be sought if the matter was serious and no other course was appropriate. It is difficult to see how this qualifies. The offender has been publicly shamed and delivered an apology. Is a criminal conviction necessary?

1) It is at least debatable that the offender has in any meaningful way "been publicly shamed". Part of the problem is that this behavior is often regarded as nothing more than "boys will be boys." It seems quite possible that he is having a good laugh over this "public shaming" and receiving congratulatory pats on the back from his good old boy friends.

2) This sort of thing is part of why women never feel safe and never feel fully empowered within our society. At any moment, any sense of power/authority can be stripped from any woman by a man willing to be obnoxious in this or in any number of similar manners. It is a much bigger deal than "a bit of rudeness" and it is quite possible that having the law come down hard repeatedly for such things is exactly what it will take to change this.

3) If I were there and if that were my wife or my daughter I would have thrashed the perp and not stopped thrashing him until he was at least in fear of his life. I assume that you would approve of my behavior there as a better remedy than criminal charges being brought against him.

"3) If I were there and if that were my wife or my daughter I would have thrashed the perp and not stopped thrashing him until he was at least in fear of his life. I assume that you would approve of my behavior there as a better remedy than criminal charges being brought against him."

And what if he or his friends had a mind to thrash you back? Your belief that a response of extreme violence is justified is far more disturbing than anything done by the offender.

under a bridge wrote:

Again, it's very simple. That's for law enforcement to decide whether it warrants bringing charges and the court to decide whether criminal conviction is necessary. Not for your mental gymnastics to dictate.

The charges originate with a complaint. So the initiating of criminal proceedings lies with the "victim" and not the police, who have simply acted on her complaint. To seek a criminal penalty was her therefore her choice. The "mental gymnastics" part - which are in fact the workings of the law and not my imagination - will take over if it goes to court and is argued over by lawyers before a judge. But you are clearly happy that the act involved should be treated as a crime and possibly result in criminal penalty, even though the complaint need not have been brought before a court - as it never is when women commit the same act.

The sex of the victim doesn’t matter in the application of this law. Show me where a man can’t do the same, or where I have criticized a man attempting to do the same. You cannot.

You have erroneously inferred what would make me happy based on my attacks on those talking nonsense.

under a bridge wrote:

The sex of the victim doesn’t matter in the application of this law. Show me where a man can’t do the same, or where I have criticized a man attempting to do the same. You cannot.

You have erroneously inferred what would make me happy based on my attacks on those talking nonsense.

You are clearly quite happy to see these acts treated as a criminal matter. Yet even though the law does not refer to gender it is interesting that we know of no instance where a male has brought charges against a female for the same act, which might occur in any bar anywhere in the US over a weekend. To treat it as a crime risks diminishing those acts which we know cause serious harm to their victims, and not simply an aggrieved sense of self-importance.

Armstronglivs wrote:

under a bridge wrote:

The sex of the victim doesn’t matter in the application of this law. Show me where a man can’t do the same, or where I have criticized a man attempting to do the same. You cannot.

You have erroneously inferred what would make me happy based on my attacks on those talking nonsense.

You are clearly quite happy to see these acts treated as a criminal matter. Yet even though the law does not refer to gender it is interesting that we know of no instance where a male has brought charges against a female for the same act, which might occur in any bar anywhere in the US over a weekend. To treat it as a crime risks diminishing those acts which we know cause serious harm to their victims, and not simply an aggrieved sense of self-importance.

Multiple unsubstantiated claims in a single paragraph:

1) "You are clearly quite happy to see these acts treated as a criminal matter"

2) "To treat it as a crime risks diminishing those acts which we know cause serious harm to their victims"

You are flailing now. I would think the person with the aggrieved sense of self-importance is the person who thought they could smack a strangers' ass while they are working. To each their own.

So, if my comments are "unsubstantiated" (and therefore implicitly incorrect) we can infer that you are in fact not happy to see the act being treated as a criminal matter? Also, you don't see that it risks diminishing those acts we view as serious? Forget mental gymnastics - with contortions like that I would be surprised if you could put your pants on the right way.

You also fail to get that the response to a perceived wrong can be just as indicative of character as the wrong itself.

I'm understanding of the woman bringing charges. You're proposing a false dichotomy where I have to be happy or upset that it is being treated as a criminal matter. People who don't see the world as a dichotomy are able to understand nuance and how something charged under the same law could be more severe and carry greater consequences, thereby not diminishing the seriousness of it. Yes, quite the contortion.

A person's response to something can be indicative of character? No sh!t. Thanks for that enlightenment. For instance, a poster using intellectual dishonesty to say that Alex is "glad to ruin the man's life" instead of what she actually said is indicative that the poster has poor character. Such was the case in my first post that you took issue with (but not his misquote, which you did not take issue with).

Ah - so you "understand" why the reporter has brought charges - well, so do many of us - but what you thereby avoid saying is whether she is doing the right thing. Yes, that is a verbal contortion. But you thereby leave open the possible inference that you may not agree with her choice - which is where I would place myself. I doubt that you and I are in agreement about that.

Your comment about the character of another poster is a red herring. The poster is not a party to the events at issue.

Armstronglivs wrote:

under a bridge wrote:

How would I possibly know that figure?

If the reporter was a man I'd still not be upset that the law is being applied and would still call out that the previous poster was intellectually dishonest in the wording provided.

I think the answer to my question above is likely to be none. I wonder why?