Making up some story about how he tried to slap her shoulder and accidentally slapped her butt isn't an actual apology. He's a liar on top of being a loser.
Making up some story about how he tried to slap her shoulder and accidentally slapped her butt isn't an actual apology. He's a liar on top of being a loser.
low expectations wrote:
Making up some story about how he tried to slap her shoulder and accidentally slapped her butt isn't an actual apology. He's a liar on top of being a loser.
He wasn't trying to lie. He was going to tell the truth like many other people, but accidentally lied. He wasn't sure how he lied or if we took offense at his lie, but if he had seen our faces when we saw his lie then he definitely would have stopped lying and offered an apology because he would never knowingly lie.
low expectations wrote:
Making up some story about how he tried to slap her shoulder and accidentally slapped her butt isn't an actual apology. He's a liar on top of being a loser.
You are a practical idiot. With her "stole my power" routine and her money hungry appetite, it is completely normal for the guy's apology to be this way from advice of his lawyer or he could be telling the truth. The court system and she would screw over this guy even more if he gave the type of apology you are thinking of. It is wise advice not to apologize in the way you are thinking.
You are just a sheltered simpleton who have no idea how the court system or SJWs work when you give them even more rope. Haven't you ever heard of the lawyer advice not to talk to the police or admit anything?
You Are a Practical Idiot wrote:
low expectations wrote:
Making up some story about how he tried to slap her shoulder and accidentally slapped her butt isn't an actual apology. He's a liar on top of being a loser.
You are a practical idiot. With her "stole my power" routine and her money hungry appetite, it is completely normal for the guy's apology to be this way from advice of his lawyer or he could be telling the truth. The court system and she would screw over this guy even more if he gave the type of apology you are thinking of. It is wise advice not to apologize in the way you are thinking.
You are just a sheltered simpleton who have no idea how the court system or SJWs work when you give them even more rope. Haven't you ever heard of the lawyer advice not to talk to the police or admit anything?
Cowardly act and cowardly fake apology. Not a real man. Keep victim-blaming though!
You Are a Practical Idiot wrote:
You are just a sheltered simpleton who have no idea how the court system or SJWs work when you give them even more rope. Haven't you ever heard of the lawyer advice not to talk to the police or admit anything?
To be fair, that was one of the most eye-roll inducing non-apologies that I have ever heard. I'd fire the lawyer who came up with that story.
low expectations wrote:
Cowardly act and cowardly fake apology. Not a real man. Keep victim-blaming though!
Yeah, and you stole my power. She gave some of the most cringeworthy SJW speak I have ever seen.
You Are a Practical Idiot wrote:
low expectations wrote:
Making up some story about how he tried to slap her shoulder and accidentally slapped her butt isn't an actual apology. He's a liar on top of being a loser.
You are a practical idiot. With her "stole my power" routine and her money hungry appetite, it is completely normal for the guy's apology to be this way from advice of his lawyer or he could be telling the truth. The court system and she would screw over this guy even more if he gave the type of apology you are thinking of. It is wise advice not to apologize in the way you are thinking.
You are just a sheltered simpleton who have no idea how the court system or SJWs work when you give them even more rope. Haven't you ever heard of the lawyer advice not to talk to the police or admit anything?
So you agree, he hasn’t actually apologized.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
I would have no problem with that woman in the bar being arrested.
Let me ask you this, if a young male reporter was on the air reporting and an older woman brazenly walked up to him and grabbed his crotch, would you have a problem with her being arrested.
Please answer.
So you consider the young woman is effectively a criminal and should be penalised by the courts for what she did. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and particularly in social settings where there is alcohol. So why do you think charges are almost never brought (and especially against women)?
I'm not really interested in discussing your hypothetical example. It isn't what happened to the female reporter; she wasn't grabbed by the crotch, which I consider more serious than a passing tap on the backside (and the courts would likely view it the same way). It is also different from the social incident involving the young woman in the bar. Who knows - it could have been an invitation to the young man who approached her?
Of course I accept there are situations where it is clear a person has been treated badly and harmed in some way, for which a legal response is justifiable. But I wouldn't set the bar so low as to say that anything that is unwelcome or even upsetting should result in a prosecution. Are we really that fragile now?
Actually my example was closer to the situation that this thread is about than the bar example.
If you are a stranger to someone, keep your damn hands to yourself, don't touch or hit a crouch, breast or buttocks of someone you don't know. If you take that liberty you rightfully risk legal ramifications. You just have no right to touch someone like that. (We are not talking jail here or anything)
I really don't see what the discussion is about. It's just not OK.
el hombre wrote:
So you agree, he hasn’t actually apologized.
He has already apologized more than your dad did when he cheated on your ugly mom.
America is not a good place to do apologies, it is the #1 sue you place in the world and especially more do if you are dumb enough to "apologize".
Also the reporter is greedy and wants a huge amount of money and fame and doesn't care about an apology.
Conundrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you consider the young woman is effectively a criminal and should be penalised by the courts for what she did. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time, and particularly in social settings where there is alcohol. So why do you think charges are almost never brought (and especially against women)?
I'm not really interested in discussing your hypothetical example. It isn't what happened to the female reporter; she wasn't grabbed by the crotch, which I consider more serious than a passing tap on the backside (and the courts would likely view it the same way). It is also different from the social incident involving the young woman in the bar. Who knows - it could have been an invitation to the young man who approached her?
Of course I accept there are situations where it is clear a person has been treated badly and harmed in some way, for which a legal response is justifiable. But I wouldn't set the bar so low as to say that anything that is unwelcome or even upsetting should result in a prosecution. Are we really that fragile now?
Actually my example was closer to the situation that this thread is about than the bar example.
If you are a stranger to someone, keep your damn hands to yourself, don't touch or hit a crouch, breast or buttocks of someone you don't know. If you take that liberty you rightfully risk legal ramifications. You just have no right to touch someone like that. (We are not talking jail here or anything)
I really don't see what the discussion is about. It's just not OK.
No, like most here you don't get what the discussion is about. It is not a defence of what the guy did or an argument that groping is ok (it isn't), it is whether in all instances such as this that criminal action is warranted. The laying of charges was a choice and not an inevitable consequence. Do we always need to make a criminal of someone because they have behaved like a jerk and offended us?
He made a criminal of himself.
Updated reading of this thread:
A: you’re stupid
B: you’re stupid
And so on...
Armstronglivs wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
Actually my example was closer to the situation that this thread is about than the bar example.
If you are a stranger to someone, keep your damn hands to yourself, don't touch or hit a crouch, breast or buttocks of someone you don't know. If you take that liberty you rightfully risk legal ramifications. You just have no right to touch someone like that. (We are not talking jail here or anything)
I really don't see what the discussion is about. It's just not OK.
No, like most here you don't get what the discussion is about. It is not a defence of what the guy did or an argument that groping is ok (it isn't), it is whether in all instances such as this that criminal action is warranted. The laying of charges was a choice and not an inevitable consequence. Do we always need to make a criminal of someone because they have behaved like a jerk and offended us?
No we don't always need to pursue legal action against someone who broke the law AND behaved like a jerk.
In this instance, that guy who brazenly and publicly both acted like a jerk AND broke the law deserved it.
Agreed?
mwebsters wrote:
He made a criminal of himself.
If that is so there are a lot of "criminals" walking around amongst us who never face charges. Many of them also happen to be women. But most people don't choose to bring charges for bottom touching.
But you're getting ahead of yourself when you say "he made a criminal out of himself". He hasn't committed a crime until a court says he has. It may not. Furthermore, it is the decision to lay charges by the complainant that initiates this process. So her intent is that he be declared a criminal by a court and suffer a penalty. One hopes this goes some way to alleviating the serious harm she has apparently suffered.
Conundrum wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
No, like most here you don't get what the discussion is about. It is not a defence of what the guy did or an argument that groping is ok (it isn't), it is whether in all instances such as this that criminal action is warranted. The laying of charges was a choice and not an inevitable consequence. Do we always need to make a criminal of someone because they have behaved like a jerk and offended us?
No we don't always need to pursue legal action against someone who broke the law AND behaved like a jerk.
In this instance, that guy who brazenly and publicly both acted like a jerk AND broke the law deserved it.
Agreed?
If I was his defence counsel I would not agree. You have simply assumed the view of the complainant.
But I am not his counsel. However I would not agree with you for another reason. I have experienced the same kind of uninvited attention on several occasions from women. I know other men who have similarly been groped. None of us felt it necessary to consider bringing charges. It was sufficient to tell someone to back off if we didn't like it. Rudeness - which is how I experienced it at the most - can be put in its place without seeing oneself as a victim and the other person as a criminal.
I understand the reporter is upset at what happened. But I see her choice to prosecute as unnecessary and an over-reaction - in those particular circumstances. There will be situations where a prosecution may well be justified. I don't think this is one of them.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
No we don't always need to pursue legal action against someone who broke the law AND behaved like a jerk.
In this instance, that guy who brazenly and publicly both acted like a jerk AND broke the law deserved it.
Agreed?
If I was his defence counsel I would not agree. You have simply assumed the view of the complainant.
But I am not his counsel. However I would not agree with you for another reason. I have experienced the same kind of uninvited attention on several occasions from women. I know other men who have similarly been groped. None of us felt it necessary to consider bringing charges. It was sufficient to tell someone to back off if we didn't like it. Rudeness - which is how I experienced it at the most - can be put in its place without seeing oneself as a victim and the other person as a criminal.
I understand the reporter is upset at what happened. But I see her choice to prosecute as unnecessary and an over-reaction - in those particular circumstances. There will be situations where a prosecution may well be justified. I don't think this is one of them.
You are entitled to your perspective . Unless you are either a judge or jury member your perspective is immaterial in this case. Suffice it to say, it would be reckless for anyone to slap a stranger on the butt or grab a stranger's crotch after this case. I think that is the point of the matter. It's actually a very simple directive in my opinion. So, now you don't need to worry or complain to the internet void about your past experiences. You have recourse now should someone choose to mistreat you in this manner. You should really be thanking the reporter for providing you with this protection since clearly women can't keep their hands off of you (*chuckle*).
In response to the above, you seem to have trouble following an argument. My main point is my belief that legal action isn't required - not for the reporter and not for myself. To prosecute for an act of mere stupidity or rudeness devalues the proper role of the courts, which is to provide accountability where serious harm has occurred and no other remedy is available.
It's true that I am neither judge nor jury, but neither are you or anyone else commenting here. So why are you discussing it? The fact is, this is not a private matter between two individuals; the criminal courts are an agency of the state acting on behalf of the community. In that sense, we are all a party to this case.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
No we don't always need to pursue legal action against someone who broke the law AND behaved like a jerk.
In this instance, that guy who brazenly and publicly both acted like a jerk AND broke the law deserved it.
Agreed?
If I was his defence counsel I would not agree. You have simply assumed the view of the complainant.
But I am not his counsel. However I would not agree with you for another reason. I have experienced the same kind of uninvited attention on several occasions from women. I know other men who have similarly been groped. None of us felt it necessary to consider bringing charges. It was sufficient to tell someone to back off if we didn't like it. Rudeness - which is how I experienced it at the most - can be put in its place without seeing oneself as a victim and the other person as a criminal.
I understand the reporter is upset at what happened. But I see her choice to prosecute as unnecessary and an over-reaction - in those particular circumstances. There will be situations where a prosecution may well be justified. I don't think this is one of them.
Here is the critical factor that you are missing. This wasn't a private act seen only by a couple of people. Some argument to just ignore it could be made in that instant. But that was not at all the case. It was done on a televised show and through social media probably seen by many thousands of people. A message had to be sent not only to the butt slapper but to all the people watching, that this behavior is not only unacceptable but also has consequences.
This was the right and brave thing to do by the reporter. I think those attacking her for pursuing legal action are completely missing the big picture.
What a horrible message would be sent, if people thought this intrusion of touching a stranger in a private spot should be dealt with just a "wink wink you shouldn't do that".
Now come on, you have to agree.
Armstronglivs wrote:
In response to the above, you seem to have trouble following an argument. My main point is my belief that legal action isn't required - not for the reporter and not for myself. To prosecute for an act of mere stupidity or rudeness devalues the proper role of the courts, which is to provide accountability where serious harm has occurred and no other remedy is available.
It's true that I am neither judge nor jury, but neither are you or anyone else commenting here. So why are you discussing it? The fact is, this is not a private matter between two individuals; the criminal courts are an agency of the state acting on behalf of the community. In that sense, we are all a party to this case.
I absolutely follow your argument. You believe legal action isn't required. You've made that abundantly clear. The fact is that it really doesn't matter what you think now that the reporter has decided to take action. Clearly at least one lawyer and one judge in this country disagrees with you. That is all that really matters. Why don't you stop all your blubbering and wait for a decision to be rendered in this case? Maybe the courts will rule in favor of the reporter, maybe they won't. Irrespective of the outcome, I'd advise people to keep their hands to themselves lest they unknowingly slap an overly sensitive person (in your eyes) and face onerous legal action. Just stating the obvious here whether you want to admit it or not.
oh the boldness wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In response to the above, you seem to have trouble following an argument. My main point is my belief that legal action isn't required - not for the reporter and not for myself. To prosecute for an act of mere stupidity or rudeness devalues the proper role of the courts, which is to provide accountability where serious harm has occurred and no other remedy is available.
It's true that I am neither judge nor jury, but neither are you or anyone else commenting here. So why are you discussing it? The fact is, this is not a private matter between two individuals; the criminal courts are an agency of the state acting on behalf of the community. In that sense, we are all a party to this case.
I absolutely follow your argument. You believe legal action isn't required. You've made that abundantly clear. The fact is that it really doesn't matter what you think now that the reporter has decided to take action. Clearly at least one lawyer and one judge in this country disagrees with you. That is all that really matters. Why don't you stop all your blubbering and wait for a decision to be rendered in this case? Maybe the courts will rule in favor of the reporter, maybe they won't. Irrespective of the outcome, I'd advise people to keep their hands to themselves lest they unknowingly slap an overly sensitive person (in your eyes) and face onerous legal action. Just stating the obvious here whether you want to admit it or not.
My position, regardless of any court decision, was simply that in this case the reporter did the right thing. I gave my reasons.
(I don't get your comment about what I think not mattering, my opinion along with all the people posting on this thread have opinions that don't matter)