Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Diamondback Online)   Three Maryland co-eds strip down to their underwear for a midnight swim in the campus fountain. Ten passersby: *YOINK*   (diamondbackonline.com ) divider line
    More: Misc, McKeldin Mall  
•       •       •

30344 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2012 at 4:58 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-06-10 11:41:18 PM  
"could have been prevented if the people in the fountain could have been using better judgment."

Cue the Slut Walkers....
 
2012-06-10 11:45:57 PM  
It's criminal that these girls have to wear clothes at all.

I propose a bill making nude coeds who swim in fountains 110% legal!
 
2012-06-10 11:47:32 PM  
Of course to offset this, we're installing a wrist sized guilotine on site for anyone who gets grabby.

Think twice, then think a third time fellas.
 
2012-06-11 12:55:18 AM  

doglover: Of course to offset this, we're installing a wrist sized guilotine on site for anyone who gets grabby.

Think twice, then think a third time fellas.


That seems a little much for a first offense.
 
2012-06-11 01:01:59 AM  
I hope her butt is ok :(
 
2012-06-11 01:33:20 AM  

Bucky Katt: doglover: Of course to offset this, we're installing a wrist sized guilotine on site for anyone who gets grabby.

Think twice, then think a third time fellas.

That seems a little much for a first offense.


The first offense was not being attractive enough to get it for free.
The second offense was not being rich enough to pay for it.
The third offense was that popped collar.

Three strikes, they're out.
 
2012-06-11 02:24:39 AM  

thismomentinblackhistory: I hope her butt is ok :(


I will be happy to examine her buttocks for any damage. As well as any collateral damage that had happen between the legs.
 
2012-06-11 02:43:01 AM  
Passerby trifecta in play
 
2012-06-11 03:40:38 AM  
how is it illegal to touch a naked butt in public?
I hope the 3 girls are charge with felony public lewdness and put on the sex offenders list like they belong.

LOLOLOL
bet they were white and drunk
 
2012-06-11 04:30:48 AM  
Well done, my fellow Terps: Your antics never cease to amaze me!

/Imbeciles.
 
2012-06-11 05:03:34 AM  
When I read "sexually assaulted" in the headline I got a sick feeling in my stomach. Never like reading stories of rape. Then I get into the article and it turns out one of them just had her ass grabbed....

Not to trivialize what happened, and I'm sure that was a scary as fark experience but they really shouldn't use the same term to describe something as horrific as rape and on the other end of the spectrum groping.
 
2012-06-11 05:06:59 AM  

Freak: When I read "sexually assaulted" in the headline I got a sick feeling in my stomach. Never like reading stories of rape. Then I get into the article and it turns out one of them just had her ass grabbed....

Not to trivialize what happened, and I'm sure that was a scary as fark experience but they really shouldn't use the same term to describe something as horrific as rape and on the other end of the spectrum groping.


Sounds like you need a sexual harassment review (Tom Brady of course)
 
2012-06-11 05:08:46 AM  
How did this make it to the main page with no pictures? For shame!
 
2012-06-11 05:13:03 AM  

altrocks: How did this make it to the main page with no pictures? For shame!


Indeed. The only way to atone, is an early morning boobies thread.
 
2012-06-11 05:13:38 AM  
Came here looking for pics of wet co-eds.

/leaves disappointed
 
2012-06-11 05:20:12 AM  
TFAWWWOP.
 
2012-06-11 05:21:32 AM  
Screw it, I'm going googling for wet co-eds. So long, suckers!
 
2012-06-11 05:23:27 AM  

Freak: When I read "sexually assaulted" in the headline I got a sick feeling in my stomach. Never like reading stories of rape. Then I get into the article and it turns out one of them just had her ass grabbed....

Not to trivialize what happened, and I'm sure that was a scary as fark experience but they really shouldn't use the same term to describe something as horrific as rape and on the other end of the spectrum groping.


Was it grope, or grope-grope?
 
2012-06-11 05:34:15 AM  
Where's the bloody pics???
 
2012-06-11 05:51:50 AM  
Never fails. Nymphs just can't be left the Hell alone without some dipshiats coming along and trying to screw up their fun.
 
2012-06-11 05:57:15 AM  

austin_millbarge: Came here looking for pics of wet co-eds.

/leaves disappointed


Okay, Okay....

s3.amazonaws.com
s3.amazonaws.com
s3.amazonaws.com

And just because it's hot...
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-06-11 05:58:46 AM  

Freak: When I read "sexually assaulted" in the headline I got a sick feeling in my stomach. Never like reading stories of rape. Then I get into the article and it turns out one of them just had her ass grabbed....

Not to trivialize what happened, and I'm sure that was a scary as fark experience but they really shouldn't use the same term to describe something as horrific as rape and on the other end of the spectrum groping.


Had some woman try to minimilze the trauma of rape saying that she had been sexually assaulted, and she shook it off and was fine.

Turned out the "sexual assault" was some drunken moran grabbing her boob at a party.

Wanted to smack her so bad.
 
2012-06-11 06:00:03 AM  
"I made a poor decision while drinking -- leaving all my stuff on the ground while swimming in a fountain not meant to be swum in -- protect me from my own stupidity, law enforcement!"
 
2012-06-11 06:07:00 AM  

urban.derelict: "I made a poor decision while drinking -- leaving all my stuff on the ground while swimming in a fountain not meant to be swum in -- protect me from my own stupidity, law enforcement!"


Stealing is okay as long as the victim deserved it.
 
2012-06-11 06:07:45 AM  
www.cartoonstock.com
 
2012-06-11 06:09:18 AM  

Crockett: urban.derelict: "I made a poor decision while drinking -- leaving all my stuff on the ground while swimming in a fountain not meant to be swum in -- protect me from my own stupidity, law enforcement!"

Stealing is okay as long as the victim deserved it.


that's what Robin Hood taught us.
 
2012-06-11 06:10:52 AM  

KiplingKat872: Had some woman try to minimilze the trauma of rape saying that she had been sexually assaulted


No good ever comes from any male uttering any words on any position about rape or sexual assault.

None.

Just shut up, nod, and wait for the topic to change before speaking again.

The most caring, compassionate, enlightened, logical view you could ever possibly air will always be undermined by the fact you are male and males are perps.
 
2012-06-11 06:14:27 AM  
So I'm guessing the 3 ladies were not-black? With...yknow, the swimming and everything.
 
2012-06-11 06:15:41 AM  
They sound like real victims.
 
2012-06-11 06:16:02 AM  
Interestingly the assault could also have been prevented if the roving gang hadn't assaulted and stolen from the girls.

But let's blame the victims. Asshole cops.
 
2012-06-11 06:18:41 AM  

zzrhardy: KiplingKat872: Had some woman try to minimilze the trauma of rape saying that she had been sexually assaulted

No good ever comes from any male uttering any words on any position about rape or sexual assault.

None.

Just shut up, nod, and wait for the topic to change before speaking again.

The most caring, compassionate, enlightened, logical view you could ever possibly air will always be undermined by the fact you are male and males are perps.


...except I'm female. And a rape survivor.
 
2012-06-11 06:20:55 AM  
Girls stupid? Yes. Deserve to have their stuff stolen and groped? No.
Cops have a point about accidents happening while drunk? Yes.
 
2012-06-11 06:26:29 AM  

jmr61: But let's blame the victims


Truly this is the worst thing to ever happen to anyone.
 
2012-06-11 06:53:14 AM  
It is not a wise choice to go strip down in public, especially for a woman. It may be unfair but they should have said no.

They are lucky if only a butt grab happened.,,, Not saying they butt grabber (or others) should get away with it. But if you are going to be stupid you are not totally innocent either.

Why don't you study you morons. College aint cheep.
 
2012-06-11 06:54:40 AM  

KiplingKat872: zzrhardy: KiplingKat872: Had some woman try to minimilze the trauma of rape saying that she had been sexually assaulted

No good ever comes from any male uttering any words on any position about rape or sexual assault.

None.

Just shut up, nod, and wait for the topic to change before speaking again.

The most caring, compassionate, enlightened, logical view you could ever possibly air will always be undermined by the fact you are male and males are perps.

...except I'm female. And a rape survivor.


Burn!
 
2012-06-11 07:05:28 AM  
The thieves and groper committed crimes and bear full responsibilty for them, but if anything worse had happened, say one of the drunken girls had cracked her skull or drowned, the parents would be suing the school for not having a "fountain lifegaurd" on duty 24/7.
 
2012-06-11 07:12:51 AM  

crab66: jmr61: But let's blame the victims

FOR BEING STUPID

KiplingKat872: groper committed crimes

lh3.googleusercontent.com

 
2012-06-11 07:15:54 AM  

KiplingKat872: ...except I'm female. And a rape survivor.

1.bp.blogspot.com

 
2012-06-11 07:25:03 AM  
TTIUWOP
 
2012-06-11 07:27:53 AM  
The swimmers were probably a bunch of Communications majors and the gropers African American Studies majors. The perils of a liberal arts education.
 
2012-06-11 07:30:29 AM  
cdn.abclocal.go.com

Dis mine now.
 
2012-06-11 07:33:46 AM  

zzrhardy: KiplingKat872: Had some woman try to minimilze the trauma of rape saying that she had been sexually assaulted

No good ever comes from any male uttering any words on any position about rape or sexual assault.

None.

Just shut up, nod, and wait for the topic to change before speaking again.

The most caring, compassionate, enlightened, logical view you could ever possibly air will always be undermined by the fact you are male and males are perps.


What the fark are you talking about? Men don't get raped ever? Men aren't ever victims of sexual assault? Sounds like you think women should be a protected class but somehow be treated "equal" at the same time.
 
2012-06-11 07:36:07 AM  

Steakzilla: zzrhardy: The most caring, compassionate, enlightened, logical view you could ever possibly air will always be undermined by the fact you are male and males are perps.

What the fark are you talking about? Men don't get raped ever? Men aren't ever victims of sexual assault? Sounds like you think women should be a protected class but somehow be treated "equal" at the same time.


Just last night I was both the perp and the victim of sexual assault. I told myself "no", but I didn't stop :(
 
2012-06-11 07:36:08 AM  

perigee: [cdn.abclocal.go.com image 448x252]

Dis mine now.


gifs.gifbin.com
 
2012-06-11 07:43:25 AM  
Yeah, Terps!!
 
2012-06-11 07:54:36 AM  
"co-eds" *chuckle*
 
2012-06-11 07:55:59 AM  

Steakzilla: zzrhardy: KiplingKat872: Had some woman try to minimilze the trauma of rape saying that she had been sexually assaulted

No good ever comes from any male uttering any words on any position about rape or sexual assault.

None.

Just shut up, nod, and wait for the topic to change before speaking again.

The most caring, compassionate, enlightened, logical view you could ever possibly air will always be undermined by the fact you are male and males are perps.

What the fark are you talking about? Men don't get raped ever? Men aren't ever victims of sexual assault? Sounds like you think women should be a protected class but somehow be treated "equal" at the same time.


This guy reckons there is a "war against masculinity", the evidence for which is the low number of male pre-school teachers, so his point is more that all women are liars, something you might agree with.

I hope your love affair turns out well for you both. xxx
 
2012-06-11 07:56:23 AM  
ftfa: "It's almost borderline feels like a prank but certainly was a crime," after all the pranksters were black.
 
2012-06-11 07:58:23 AM  

Freak: When I read "sexually assaulted" in the headline I got a sick feeling in my stomach. Never like reading stories of rape. Then I get into the article and it turns out one of them just had her ass grabbed....

Not to trivialize what happened, and I'm sure that was a scary as fark experience but they really shouldn't use the same term to describe something as horrific as rape and on the other end of the spectrum groping.


Yeah. I never realized I was sexually assaulted at a Rocky Horror show.

I mean, ass-grabbing is sexual and all, but... Maybe we should just call rape "rape" instead of "sexual assault" to kind of narrow down the blanket that covers?
 
2012-06-11 08:09:07 AM  

Crockett: urban.derelict: "I made a poor decision while drinking -- leaving all my stuff on the ground while swimming in a fountain not meant to be swum in -- protect me from my own stupidity, law enforcement!"

Stealing is okay as long as the victim deserved it.


U. Maryland in College Park is in a dangerous area. Theyre lucky something worse didnt happen.

/too close to D.C. Wandering around D.C. or Baltimore after a night of drinking, is a good way to get assaulted or killed these days. Especially if you don't blend in so to speak.
 
2012-06-11 08:12:53 AM  

TexasPeace: ftfa: "It's almost borderline feels like a prank but certainly was a crime," after all the pranksters were black.


This makes no sense.

You're saying that stealing their stuff would have been ok if those guys were white?

Stealing is stealing, not a prank.
 
2012-06-11 08:15:53 AM  

doglover: Of course to offset this, we're installing a wrist sized guilotine on site for anyone who gets grabby.

Think twice, then think a third time fellas.


Yes, because 1) Only men grab, and 2) Sharia law is AWESOME, and 3) Women can parade around undressed to whatever extent they wish without repercussions because they are blameless innocent creatures of nature, and 4) What were those women doing without their burkas?
 
2012-06-11 08:16:45 AM  

RoyBatty: Sounds like you need a sexual harassment review (Tom Brady of course)


Repeated, unwanted attention of a sexual nature? What if he only grabbed her ass once?
 
2012-06-11 08:17:43 AM  

foxyshadis: austin_millbarge: Came here looking for pics of wet co-eds.

/leaves disappointed

Okay, Okay....

[s3.amazonaws.com image 450x533]
[s3.amazonaws.com image 429x586]
[s3.amazonaws.com image 400x266]

And just because it's hot...
[s3.amazonaws.com image 450x573]


HOLY MOTHER OF GOD
No sharp knees check
No Butter Face check
Lives next door . . . two outta three, a swing and a miss
 
2012-06-11 08:19:35 AM  

Animatronik: Crockett: urban.derelict: "I made a poor decision while drinking -- leaving all my stuff on the ground while swimming in a fountain not meant to be swum in -- protect me from my own stupidity, law enforcement!"

Stealing is okay as long as the victim deserved it.

U. Maryland in College Park is in a dangerous area. Theyre lucky something worse didnt happen.

/too close to D.C. Wandering around D.C. or Baltimore after a night of drinking, is a good way to get assaulted or killed these days. Especially if you don't blend in so to speak.


Hey man, I've watched The Wire, I could get by just fine in B-More.

No, really, stop laughing!

/Why are you running away?
 
2012-06-11 08:24:03 AM  

TexasPeace: ftfa: "It's almost borderline feels like a prank but certainly was a crime," after all the pranksters were black stole valuables and didn't give them back.


ftfy.
 
2012-06-11 08:25:38 AM  
Oh. The rapers were black and the girls were white. Never mind.
 
2012-06-11 08:27:46 AM  
"Wet Coed" is probably not a GIS that most should do at work...
 
2012-06-11 08:38:34 AM  
This would have been a good time to have those suveilence cameras in place. Would not have prevented any crime but would have been a fun video to watch.
 
2012-06-11 08:43:53 AM  

BurnShrike: .

Just last night I was both the perp and the victim of sexual assault. I told myself "no", but I didn't stop :(


Did you slip yourself some GHB?

Officer, arrest this hand!
 
2012-06-11 08:47:23 AM  
They relaxed
 
2012-06-11 08:51:31 AM  
In East St Louis grabbing a half naked girls ass would cost you a couple bucks. On a college campus it is a sexual assualt. Go figure.
 
2012-06-11 08:51:48 AM  
No good comes of drunk fountain swimming.
 
2012-06-11 08:55:33 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: RoyBatty: Sounds like you need a sexual harassment review (Tom Brady of course)

Repeated, unwanted attention of a sexual nature? What if he only grabbed her ass once?


Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior. I bet she enjoyed the touch until she turned around and disapproved of the toucher and that is where the sexual assault begins. Now if they returned the stuff after making the girls walk home then it could've been a prank, but if they never got the stuff back I would agree calling it stealing. Sounds like they got the stuff back since the stuff was left in the trail of the group leaving.

'I stuck my almost naked butt out and someone touched it before asking for full permission and tossed my stuff around' sob sob 'Can they be charged with felonies?' sob sob
 
2012-06-11 08:55:58 AM  
I bet they were very quiet and respectful while they played in that fountain.
 
2012-06-11 08:58:18 AM  

lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.


This is what rapists really believe.
 
2012-06-11 08:59:01 AM  

namatad: LOLOLOL
bet they were white and drunk


Sir, you may attack me or my views, but I will not, NOT hear you speak ill of drunk white college chicks. They are responsible for some of the best moments of my life.

/s'up Ladonna?
 
2012-06-11 09:02:58 AM  
What if a wet coed in a fountain touches my butt as I am walking by? Is that a sexual assault?

/Oh, please...please...
 
2012-06-11 09:04:15 AM  

Theaetetus: lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.

This is what rapists really believe.


I'd be fine with the half-naked ones being charged with indecent exposure, myself.
 
2012-06-11 09:05:10 AM  
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a group of black people would steal someone's property.
 
2012-06-11 09:06:01 AM  

lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.


Congratulations for posting the stupidest farking thing ever posted on Fark.
 
2012-06-11 09:19:20 AM  

ph0rk: Theaetetus: lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.

This is what rapists really believe.

I'd be fine with the half-naked ones being charged with indecent exposure, myself.


Why? They were in bras and panties, no? Can a woman wear a swimsuit, covering no more, in public? Then what exactly was indecently exposed?

I'd say that at most, you give them a ticket for trespassing in the fountain.
 
2012-06-11 09:23:00 AM  
An article about women college chicks in their underwear IN a Fountain. But only three pics of chicks?

Worst. Thread. Ever.

/you all ruined my chubby, I hope you are happy :(
 
2012-06-11 09:25:00 AM  
Theaetetus

ph0rk: Theaetetus: lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.

This is what rapists really believe.

I'd be fine with the half-naked ones being charged with indecent exposure, myself.

Why? They were in bras and panties, no? Can a woman wear a swimsuit, covering no more, in public? Then what exactly was indecently exposed?

I'd say that at most, you give them a ticket for trespassing in the fountain.


And while they are in there they can grab a little coin. (insert link to thread about stealing coins from fountain)
 
2012-06-11 09:38:00 AM  

doglover: It's criminal that these girls have to wear clothes at all.


www.startrek.com

"Repulsive!"

/hot
 
2012-06-11 09:39:09 AM  

ph0rk: Theaetetus: lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.

This is what rapists really believe.

I'd be fine with the half-naked ones being charged with indecent exposure, myself.


I agree. When they expose a bra strap, it should only be a fine, but visible panty line? That should bring down the harshest punishment, what with men not being able to resist and all.
 
2012-06-11 09:42:49 AM  
Old Dave Berg "Lighter Side of...", paraphrased:

Scene: outdoor pool party

Girl 1: "Thanks for loaning me a swimsuit"
Girl 2: "Not at all. Where you get that?"

Girl 1 (posing): "In the top drawer on the right. Why?"
Girl 2: That's not a swimsuit, that's underwear."

(Guys leering)
Girl 1 (covers up, screaming): "UNDERWEAR?!?!" (runs back into house)
 
2012-06-11 09:50:33 AM  

El Freak: lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.

Congratulations for posting the stupidest farking thing ever posted on Fark.


So, your woman stripping down to underwear, a stripper in their underwear, and women sending pics of themselves are not forms of nonverbal yes for sexual behavior of some sort or another. Well, maybe the signal should be changed to baseball signs so there will be no confusion. Oh wait, these girls stripped down to do something naughty. As in something of a slight sexual nature by being exposed in public where anyone might see them. Otherwise if these girls simply wanted to cool off they would've simply splashed some water unto themselves and went on their way.

Now which would cause someone to assume a guy was acting in a sexual behavior: sitting at a bus stop watching traffic go by or sitting at the bus stop in his underwear watching traffic go by? I am sure the latter would get the police called.
 
2012-06-11 09:55:34 AM  

lack of warmth: El Freak: lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.

Congratulations for posting the stupidest farking thing ever posted on Fark.

So, your woman stripping down to underwear, a stripper in their underwear, and women sending pics of themselves are not forms of nonverbal yes for sexual behavior of some sort or another. Well, maybe the signal should be changed to baseball signs so there will be no confusion. Oh wait, these girls stripped down to do something naughty. As in something of a slight sexual nature by being exposed in public where anyone might see them. Otherwise if these girls simply wanted to cool off they would've simply splashed some water unto themselves and went on their way.

Now which would cause someone to assume a guy was acting in a sexual behavior: sitting at a bus stop watching traffic go by or sitting at the bus stop in his underwear watching traffic go by? I am sure the latter would get the police called.


One suspects you regularly run afoul of what women think of as non-verbal agreement to sexual behaviour. How long is your sentence?
 
2012-06-11 09:55:38 AM  
When I was in college, some of us stripped down and went swimming at 2 a.m., at an apartment complex where none of us lived. Alcohol was definitely involved. When the cops arrived, we weren't arrested, but they took down our names, and we weren't allowed to get our clothes until AFTER the cops had interrogated the girls--the same girls that had the spotlight from the other cop car on them.

To serve and protect. And look at naked girls.
 
2012-06-11 09:58:23 AM  
We on campus pretty much laughed the whole thing off. The report filed specifically stated it was sexual assault, but really? A butt grabbed and this is the reaction? Waste of everyone's time, IMO.

/Am a terp
//Rumor is the girl had a nice one, too
 
2012-06-11 09:58:42 AM  

cryinoutloud: When I was in college, some of us stripped down and went swimming at 2 a.m., at an apartment complex where none of us lived. Alcohol was definitely involved. When the cops arrived, we weren't arrested, but they took down our names, and we weren't allowed to get our clothes until AFTER the cops had interrogated the girls--the same girls that had the spotlight from the other cop car on them.

To serve and protect. And look at naked girls.


Similar thing happened to me in college. Alcohol was involved, bunch of us in just our underwear, cops came; we were eventually let go.
We were made to stand around in our underwear for about half an hour. Oh, and we were all guys.
 
2012-06-11 09:59:07 AM  

lack of warmth: El Freak: lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior.

Congratulations for posting the stupidest farking thing ever posted on Fark.

So, your woman stripping down to underwear, a stripper in their underwear, and women sending pics of themselves are not forms of nonverbal yes for sexual behavior of some sort or another. Well, maybe the signal should be changed to baseball signs so there will be no confusion. Oh wait, these girls stripped down to do something naughty. As in something of a slight sexual nature by being exposed in public where anyone might see them. Otherwise if these girls simply wanted to cool off they would've simply splashed some water unto themselves and went on their way.

Now which would cause someone to assume a guy was acting in a sexual behavior: sitting at a bus stop watching traffic go by or sitting at the bus stop in his underwear watching traffic go by? I am sure the latter would get the police called.


Well, you just outdid yourself: THIS is now the stupidest farking thing ever posted on Fark. You're a prodigy at posting incredibly stupid and misogynist bullshiat. I'm quite impressed.
 
2012-06-11 10:02:27 AM  
i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

All over 18.... sorry......

/too old
 
2012-06-11 10:07:45 AM  

Thanks for the Meme-ries: [i291.photobucket.com image 365x406]

[i291.photobucket.com image 500x270]

[i291.photobucket.com image 440x660]

All over 18.... sorry......

/too old


This one's probably too old as well, but nice tits.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-06-11 10:11:47 AM  

togaman5000: We on campus pretty much laughed the whole thing off. The report filed specifically stated it was sexual assault, but really? A butt grabbed and this is the reaction? Waste of everyone's time, IMO.

/Am a terp
//Rumor is the girl had a nice one, too


And this fountain is outside? Like a giant birdbath?

That doesn't sound particularly inviting as a swimming hole. I mean, other than half naked coeds of course.

/ick
 
2012-06-11 10:12:09 AM  

steerforth: Now which would cause someone to assume a guy was acting in a sexual behavior: sitting at a bus stop watching traffic go by or sitting at the bus stop in his underwear watching traffic go by? I am sure the latter would get the police called.

One suspects you regularly run afoul of what women think of as non-verbal agreement to sexual behaviour. How long is your sentence?


No, I don't have that problem. However their behavior was sexual by some measure and they were looking for some reaction. She may not wanted to be touched, but a comment or whistle would've most likely been accepted before scurrying off. These girls would've been happy with a story of how they did something crazy and didn't get caught or some people saw us and we ran. I am not saying he should've touched her. This was several people being stupid at the same time and the group of 10 shouldn't be the only ones worrying about the cops. Fountains are only for texting while walking people.
 
2012-06-11 10:16:02 AM  

lack of warmth: steerforth: Now which would cause someone to assume a guy was acting in a sexual behavior: sitting at a bus stop watching traffic go by or sitting at the bus stop in his underwear watching traffic go by? I am sure the latter would get the police called.

One suspects you regularly run afoul of what women think of as non-verbal agreement to sexual behaviour. How long is your sentence?

No, I don't have that problem. However their behavior was sexual by some measure and they were looking for some reaction. She may not wanted to be touched, but a comment or whistle would've most likely been accepted before scurrying off. These girls would've been happy with a story of how they did something crazy and didn't get caught or some people saw us and we ran. I am not saying he should've touched her. This was several people being stupid at the same time and the group of 10 shouldn't be the only ones worrying about the cops. Fountains are only for texting while walking people.


Forgive me. You aren't serving a prison sentence, but you are currently resident in a supported living environment for the terminally stupid.
 
2012-06-11 10:17:54 AM  

lack of warmth: I am not saying he should've touched her.


lack of warmth: being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior. I bet she enjoyed the touch


So you're not saying he should've done something she "enjoyed" and gave a "nonverbal yes for"?

Damn, dude, you backpedal faster than you inappropriately touch sleeping women.
 
2012-06-11 10:20:40 AM  

lack of warmth: I am not saying he should've touched her.


Oh really? Then how are we supposed to interpret this, you farking imbecile?

lack of warmth: Not to mention being in underwear is typically a nonverbal yes for sexual behavior. I bet she enjoyed the touch until she turned around and disapproved of the toucher and that is where the sexual assault begins.


Classic rape apologist bullshiat. Do humanity a favor and fellate a shotgun.
 
2012-06-11 10:27:29 AM  
At first I was all "That area? Midnight?"

But then I "OIC, they were drunk as shiat"
 
2012-06-11 10:31:29 AM  

Animatronik: Crockett: urban.derelict: "I made a poor decision while drinking -- leaving all my stuff on the ground while swimming in a fountain not meant to be swum in -- protect me from my own stupidity, law enforcement!"

Stealing is okay as long as the victim deserved it.

U. Maryland in College Park is in a dangerous area. Theyre lucky something worse didnt happen.

/too close to D.C. Wandering around D.C. or Baltimore after a night of drinking, is a good way to get assaulted or killed these days. Especially if you don't blend in so to speak.


Yeah, the fountain is too close to Route 1 sketchiness to do that at night without some guys around or something. It should have just been innocent fun, but they should know that College Park gets stabby at night.

/Go Terps!
 
2012-06-11 10:43:29 AM  

mytdawg: togaman5000: We on campus pretty much laughed the whole thing off. The report filed specifically stated it was sexual assault, but really? A butt grabbed and this is the reaction? Waste of everyone's time, IMO.

/Am a terp
//Rumor is the girl had a nice one, too

And this fountain is outside? Like a giant birdbath?

That doesn't sound particularly inviting as a swimming hole. I mean, other than half naked coeds of course.

/ick


Runs right down the center of the mall, pretty long fountain. People swim in it all the time or use it for greek life. Not supposed to, but it isn't exactly guarded.

colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com
for reference.
 
2012-06-11 10:47:17 AM  
i53.tinypic.com
\i'm ok with being the only gamer here.
 
2012-06-11 10:49:54 AM  
Winos rinse in public fountains. Birds crap in them. They are full of ass pennies. Why would you want to let that water touch your skin?
 
2012-06-11 11:09:12 AM  
"One of them didn't even realize anyone was approaching her until he was touching her," Limansky said.

To be correct, all three of them didn't notice.

I'd like to think that the scene was similar to the following...

(a) = groped girl
(b) = non-groped girl 1
(c) = non-groped girl 2

(a) was in a prone position with her buttocks elevated slightly
(b) was in a supine position
(c) was operating a video camera
(a)'s face was in close contact with some portion of the body of (b) such that (b)'s legs severely restricted (a)'s vision.
(b)'s eyes were closed
(c) was focused upon the viewfinder on the camera


I can totally see how these gropers were not noticed until the actual grope occurred.

Like I said, I think this is what happened and I like to think it. Thinking of it right now. And I'll think of it again later.
 
2012-06-11 11:11:04 AM  
I walked by that fountain a lot never saw naked girls in it :(


Charge the girls with indecent exposure and the guy with groping, or whatever else They shouldnt have been naked and he shouldnt have touched. But Im sure he would get in trouble for looking too.
 
2012-06-11 11:13:33 AM  

togaman5000: Runs right down the center of the mall, pretty long fountain. People swim in it all the time or use it for greek life. Not supposed to, but it isn't exactly guarded.


It's a very nice fountain. Still not sure I'd want to swim in it. But I might feel differently 30 years ago and likkered up with coeds.
 
2012-06-11 11:16:24 AM  
Did she say "no" or otherwise indicate she was not comfortable with his ass-grabbing? Did he do it a second time? I mean, public semi-nudity is a fairly open invite for further interaction. Not going further after being informed that there is no touching the strippers would be complying with social and legal standards, no?
 
2012-06-11 11:21:55 AM  
All of you folks calling for "indecent exposure" charges should move to Saudi Arabia, post haste.

No, seriously.
 
2012-06-11 11:26:09 AM  

Hyppy: Did she say "no" or otherwise indicate she was not comfortable with his ass-grabbing? Did he do it a second time? I mean, public semi-nudity is a fairly open invite for further interaction. Not going further after being informed that there is no touching the strippers would be complying with social and legal standards, no?


Holy shiat, there are two of them.
 
2012-06-11 11:31:12 AM  
Being in the right doesn't mean you should be given a pass when you do stupid things.
 
2012-06-11 11:37:10 AM  

Theaetetus: Hyppy: Did she say "no" or otherwise indicate she was not comfortable with his ass-grabbing? Did he do it a second time? I mean, public semi-nudity is a fairly open invite for further interaction. Not going further after being informed that there is no touching the strippers would be complying with social and legal standards, no?

Holy shiat, there are two of them.


Equating this this full-on rape, as was done earlier in the thread, is a bit unnecessary. I mean, grabbing ass will likely result in a slap/punch to the general facial region, but the whole "sexual assault" thing is a bit overblown. Drunk college kids and all that. Had he gone further than an initial surprise contact, yeah there's a big problem, but it's pretty clear that didn't happen. If we start applying "sexual assault" to every single incident of hand-to-ass contact on a college campus, things will get out of hand real quick.

Now, larceny? It's funny as hell, but still stealing.
 
2012-06-11 11:41:30 AM  

lack of warmth: steerforth: Now which would cause someone to assume a guy was acting in a sexual behavior: sitting at a bus stop watching traffic go by or sitting at the bus stop in his underwear watching traffic go by? I am sure the latter would get the police called.

One suspects you regularly run afoul of what women think of as non-verbal agreement to sexual behaviour. How long is your sentence?

No, I don't have that problem. However their behavior was sexual by some measure and they were looking for some reaction. She may not wanted to be touched, but a comment or whistle would've most likely been accepted before scurrying off. These girls would've been happy with a story of how they did something crazy and didn't get caught or some people saw us and we ran. I am not saying he should've touched her. This was several people being stupid at the same time and the group of 10 shouldn't be the only ones worrying about the cops. Fountains are only for texting while walking people.


It was midnight, why do you assume they believed anyone was around and that they would be observed at all?

Being naked does not automatically mean being sexual.

Unless you think Michelangelo's David is erotic...
 
2012-06-11 11:45:56 AM  

Hyppy: Theaetetus: Hyppy: Did she say "no" or otherwise indicate she was not comfortable with his ass-grabbing? Did he do it a second time? I mean, public semi-nudity is a fairly open invite for further interaction. Not going further after being informed that there is no touching the strippers would be complying with social and legal standards, no?

Holy shiat, there are two of them.

Equating this this full-on rape, as was done earlier in the thread, is a bit unnecessary.


Actually, no one equated this with full-on rape. In fact, it was primarily brought up to minimize this assault by saying "hey, it's not like she was raped!"

And people who condone sexual assault further say "... and since she wasn't actually raped, then we should ignore the sexual assault."
For example:
the whole "sexual assault" thing is a bit overblown. Drunk college kids and all that.

Had he gone further than an initial surprise contact, yeah there's a big problem, but it's pretty clear that didn't happen. If we start applying "sexual assault" to every single incident of hand-to-ass contact on a college campus, things will get out of hand real quick.


Or - and this may be a tough one for someone like you - you could just not sexually assault people, and not assume that "silence" means "yes".
Just because a woman is wearing a bikini, or is frolicking in water, or isn't wearing a burkha, or hasn't yet "sa[id] "no" or otherwise indicat[ed] she was not comfortable with [your] ass-grabbing" doesn't mean you have a license to grab ass until they scream stop.

I really hope no woman ever falls asleep around you unless she's fully aware and accepting of what you'll do when she's unconscious.
 
2012-06-11 11:47:27 AM  

cryinoutloud: And look at naked girls.


Well they were standing there.
 
2012-06-11 11:47:47 AM  
what if it was 8 black guys swimming in there? would they be put in sex offenders list or at least transpassing? sure stealing and groping are crimes, but so are those.
 
2012-06-11 11:52:51 AM  
meblogwritegood.files.wordpress.com

Wanted for questioning.

/hot like indecently exposed co-eds!
 
2012-06-11 12:06:51 PM  

Theaetetus: Just because a woman is wearing a bikini, or is frolicking in water, or isn't wearing a burkha, or hasn't yet "sa[id] "no" or otherwise indicat[ed] she was not comfortable with [your] ass-grabbing" doesn't mean you have a license to grab ass until they scream stop.


The article doesn't imply that this is what happened. If you have another source, great. From what I understand, the grab-ass happened once. If it happened a second time, especially after anything other than implied consent, please educate us.
 
2012-06-11 12:10:57 PM  

Hyppy: Theaetetus: Just because a woman is wearing a bikini, or is frolicking in water, or isn't wearing a burkha, or hasn't yet "sa[id] "no" or otherwise indicat[ed] she was not comfortable with [your] ass-grabbing" doesn't mean you have a license to grab ass until they scream stop.

The article doesn't imply that this is what happened. If you have another source, great. From what I understand, the grab-ass happened once. If it happened a second time, especially after anything other than implied consent, please educate us.


If you have another source that indicates that you can sexually assault someone once and it doesn't count, but only the second instance of sexual assault counts, then please educate us. Do we get to shove a broom handle up your ass once for free, but only once?

Also, while you're at it, please educate us on how someone who is unaware of the person committing assault can "impliedly consent".
 
2012-06-11 12:14:51 PM  

KiplingKat872: It was midnight, why do you assume they believed anyone was around and that they would be observed at all?


My understanding is that this occurred in a public place. They had no reason (or right) to believe that they would *not* be observed.
 
2012-06-11 12:19:41 PM  
"Coed" sounds like such a dated term now.
 
2012-06-11 12:25:45 PM  

Theaetetus: Hyppy: Theaetetus: Just because a woman is wearing a bikini, or is frolicking in water, or isn't wearing a burkha, or hasn't yet "sa[id] "no" or otherwise indicat[ed] she was not comfortable with [your] ass-grabbing" doesn't mean you have a license to grab ass until they scream stop.

The article doesn't imply that this is what happened. If you have another source, great. From what I understand, the grab-ass happened once. If it happened a second time, especially after anything other than implied consent, please educate us.

If you have another source that indicates that you can sexually assault someone once and it doesn't count, but only the second instance of sexual assault counts, then please educate us. Do we get to shove a broom handle up your ass once for free, but only once?

Also, while you're at it, please educate us on how someone who is unaware of the person committing assault can "impliedly consent".


Would you be comfortable with someone spending 10+ years in prison for touching someone's butt as they walk by? Because that's minimum punishment for sexual assault in at least one state.

I can't count the number of people that grabbed each others arses in college. We'd need thousands more prisons built.
 
2012-06-11 12:27:02 PM  

Theaetetus: you could just not sexually assault people, and not assume that "silence" means "yes".


A sociopath will never care about consent or personal boundaries. In the mind of a sociopath, the victim is always to blame for being easily manipulated or duped.
 
2012-06-11 12:30:38 PM  
"...when a group of people described as eight black males and two black females stole their clothing and property from alongside the fountain."

Mad at fact?
 
2012-06-11 12:38:42 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Hyppy: Theaetetus: Just because a woman is wearing a bikini, or is frolicking in water, or isn't wearing a burkha, or hasn't yet "sa[id] "no" or otherwise indicat[ed] she was not comfortable with [your] ass-grabbing" doesn't mean you have a license to grab ass until they scream stop.

The article doesn't imply that this is what happened. If you have another source, great. From what I understand, the grab-ass happened once. If it happened a second time, especially after anything other than implied consent, please educate us.

If you have another source that indicates that you can sexually assault someone once and it doesn't count, but only the second instance of sexual assault counts, then please educate us. Do we get to shove a broom handle up your ass once for free, but only once?

Also, while you're at it, please educate us on how someone who is unaware of the person committing assault can "impliedly consent".

Would you be comfortable with someone spending 10+ years in prison for touching someone's butt as they walk by? Because that's minimum punishment for sexual assault in at least one state.


[Citation needed]

Bear in mind that "sexual assault" may have multiple statutory levels, including a misdemeanor. I don't know of any state that requires a minimum 10+ year sentence for touching someone's butt as they walk by.
Let's not devolve into mindless hyperbole here. This isn't the politics tab.
 
2012-06-11 12:45:48 PM  

think_balance: Theaetetus: you could just not sexually assault people, and not assume that "silence" means "yes".

A sociopath will never care about consent or personal boundaries. In the mind of a sociopath, the victim is always to blame for being easily manipulated or duped.



Just curious...sociopaths or no?

jerseychaser.com

www.totalprosports.com

mlblogsrrrt.files.wordpress.com

images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2012-06-11 12:47:29 PM  
Hell i woulda took their clothes just so they had to walk nude to get back to their dorm.
 
2012-06-11 12:50:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Hyppy: Theaetetus: Just because a woman is wearing a bikini, or is frolicking in water, or isn't wearing a burkha, or hasn't yet "sa[id] "no" or otherwise indicat[ed] she was not comfortable with [your] ass-grabbing" doesn't mean you have a license to grab ass until they scream stop.

The article doesn't imply that this is what happened. If you have another source, great. From what I understand, the grab-ass happened once. If it happened a second time, especially after anything other than implied consent, please educate us.

If you have another source that indicates that you can sexually assault someone once and it doesn't count, but only the second instance of sexual assault counts, then please educate us. Do we get to shove a broom handle up your ass once for free, but only once?

Also, while you're at it, please educate us on how someone who is unaware of the person committing assault can "impliedly consent".

Would you be comfortable with someone spending 10+ years in prison for touching someone's butt as they walk by? Because that's minimum punishment for sexual assault in at least one state.

[Citation needed]

Bear in mind that "sexual assault" may have multiple statutory levels, including a misdemeanor. I don't know of any state that requires a minimum 10+ year sentence for touching someone's butt as they walk by.
Let's not devolve into mindless hyperbole here. This isn't the politics tab.


Sorry. The first result on the Google was for the state of Georgia and that's what it said...

Upon further reading, it appears that the title of Sexual Assault in Georgia only applies to situations where someone has authority over another individual (probation officer, psychiatrist etc.) and touches them in "intimate areas." That's why it's so severe.

Perhaps what happened here isn't actually termed "sexual assault?" I'll keep looking.
 
2012-06-11 12:51:46 PM  

WhippingBoy: KiplingKat872: It was midnight, why do you assume they believed anyone was around and that they would be observed at all?

My understanding is that this occurred in a public place. They had no reason (or right) to believe that they would *not* be observed.


So that automatically means they were asking to be groped?

You get slapped a lot, don't you?
 
2012-06-11 12:57:02 PM  

KiplingKat872: WhippingBoy: KiplingKat872: It was midnight, why do you assume they believed anyone was around and that they would be observed at all?

My understanding is that this occurred in a public place. They had no reason (or right) to believe that they would *not* be observed.

So that automatically means they were asking to be groped?

You get slapped a lot, don't you?


Where did I say that it meant that they were asking to be groped?
 
2012-06-11 01:05:56 PM  

WhippingBoy: KiplingKat872: WhippingBoy: KiplingKat872: It was midnight, why do you assume they believed anyone was around and that they would be observed at all?

My understanding is that this occurred in a public place. They had no reason (or right) to believe that they would *not* be observed.

So that automatically means they were asking to be groped?

You get slapped a lot, don't you?

Where did I say that it meant that they were asking to be groped?


Because that is the context of the discussion lack of warmth and I were having.
 
2012-06-11 01:06:40 PM  

KiplingKat872: WhippingBoy: KiplingKat872: It was midnight, why do you assume they believed anyone was around and that they would be observed at all?

My understanding is that this occurred in a public place. They had no reason (or right) to believe that they would *not* be observed.

So that automatically means they were asking to be groped?

You get slapped a lot, don't you?


Gets laid a lot, too.
 
2012-06-11 01:10:21 PM  

KiplingKat872: WhippingBoy: KiplingKat872: WhippingBoy: KiplingKat872: It was midnight, why do you assume they believed anyone was around and that they would be observed at all?

My understanding is that this occurred in a public place. They had no reason (or right) to believe that they would *not* be observed.

So that automatically means they were asking to be groped?

You get slapped a lot, don't you?

Where did I say that it meant that they were asking to be groped?

Because that is the context of the discussion lack of warmth and I were having.


Ahh, right. Obviously some sort of Patriarchy hive-mind thing going on.
 
2012-06-11 01:22:39 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7155693/77410808#c77410808" target="_blank">inner ted</a>:</b> <i>[i53.tinypic.com image 640x400]
\i'm ok with being the only gamer here.</i>

You aren't.
/62 Yoink medals.
 
2012-06-11 01:30:16 PM  

Silly Jesus: Perhaps what happened here isn't actually termed "sexual assault?"


BINGO!
 
2012-06-11 01:32:58 PM  
If you want college high jinks, College Park is about the most stupid place to do it in the world. What would have been harmless in Oklahoma was damn stupid there.

It's an expensive and cruddy suburb that's next to one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the DC area, Adelphi.

How bad is Adelphi? A guy with ex-KGB ties once got shot there and wounded by a couple of thugs.
 
2012-06-11 01:39:06 PM  

Hyppy: Silly Jesus: Perhaps what happened here isn't actually termed "sexual assault?"

BINGO!


Legally, it is. That's probably a line you've been over a few times, too, no?
 
2012-06-11 01:55:33 PM  

Theaetetus: Hyppy: Silly Jesus: Perhaps what happened here isn't actually termed "sexual assault?"

BINGO!

Legally, it is. That's probably a line you've been over a few times, too, no?


I've had my ass grabbed on three separate occasions (I'm a straight white male). I did nothing to encourage this, nor did I give consent.
Am I allowed to call myself a sexual assault survivor?
 
2012-06-11 02:04:56 PM  

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: Hyppy: Silly Jesus: Perhaps what happened here isn't actually termed "sexual assault?"

BINGO!

Legally, it is. That's probably a line you've been over a few times, too, no?

I've had my ass grabbed on three separate occasions (I'm a straight white male). I did nothing to encourage this, nor did I give consent.
Am I allowed to call myself a sexual assault survivor?


It would be kind of a dick move, since you'd be ignoring the various levels of sexual assault. It'd be like someone who was shoved in a line telling someone who got shot that they, too, were a survivor of assault. It's even more of a dick move considering you're not attempting to legitimately empathize with sexual assault survivors, but are actually attempting to diminish the legitimacy of their trauma.
But yes, you could call yourself that, and you had the option to press charges at the time if you wanted. Just as you could if someone shoved you, even if you wouldn't walk around calling yourself an assault survivor.

And even though you're a poor widdle straight white male, the only discrimination here is in your own mind, not the law.
 
2012-06-11 02:08:46 PM  
Here's a question....

How can touching someone else's body part that is legally exposed and publicly visible be sexual assault?

Assault or battery? Perhaps. But "sexual"? What's the standard for determining if a body part is "sexual"? Common US society-accepted definitions?

If you're walking around in a thong, and a guy walks by and smacks your exposed ass cheek, is it sexual assault? Or just battery or whatever?
 
2012-06-11 02:14:02 PM  

nickerj1: Here's a question....

How can touching someone else's body part that is legally exposed and publicly visible be sexual assault?

Assault or battery? Perhaps. But "sexual"? What's the standard for determining if a body part is "sexual"? Common US society-accepted definitions?


You should know this - it's either statutory, depending on whether it's been defined by the state legislature, or in the common law, if it isn't, in which case the socially-accepted definitions.

And from a policy perspective, it makes sense. Someone shouldn't be more vulnerable to sexual assault, or have sexual assault be condoned by the government, just because they're not wearing a burkha.
 
2012-06-11 02:20:37 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: Hyppy: Silly Jesus: Perhaps what happened here isn't actually termed "sexual assault?"

BINGO!

Legally, it is. That's probably a line you've been over a few times, too, no?

I've had my ass grabbed on three separate occasions (I'm a straight white male). I did nothing to encourage this, nor did I give consent.
Am I allowed to call myself a sexual assault survivor?

It would be kind of a dick move, since you'd be ignoring the various levels of sexual assault. It'd be like someone who was shoved in a line telling someone who got shot that they, too, were a survivor of assault. It's even more of a dick move considering you're not attempting to legitimately empathize with sexual assault survivors, but are actually attempting to diminish the legitimacy of their trauma.
But yes, you could call yourself that, and you had the option to press charges at the time if you wanted. Just as you could if someone shoved you, even if you wouldn't walk around calling yourself an assault survivor.

And even though you're a poor widdle straight white male, the only discrimination here is in your own mind, not the law.


Thanks for the honest answer. I wasn't intending my question to be condescending or to garner sympathy for for us poor persecuted straight white males; I apologize for my lack of communication skills and my past irreverence. The point I was (poorly) trying to make was that calling an ass-grabbing "sexual assault" is somewhat pedantic and imo trivializes the more serious forms of sexual assault. The bottom line is that some stupid college kids got drunk and did something stupid, and then some more stupid people did more stupid things. Nothing really to see here...
 
2012-06-11 02:29:16 PM  
"Three Maryland co-eds strip down..."

...

...

Only THREE pics? Come on guys!
 
2012-06-11 02:29:41 PM  

WhippingBoy: The point I was (poorly) trying to make was that calling an ass-grabbing "sexual assault" is somewhat pedantic and imo trivializes the more serious forms of sexual assault.


I disagree. It's like saying that calling an accidental killing a "homicide" trivializes 1st degree murder. Or like saying that calling stealing a laptop a "theft" trivializes stealing a car. They don't. We have the capability to recognize that there are different levels of a crime and different corresponding punishments. In this case, the accused should face a fine or community service, not jail time, for example.

It would perhaps be more appropriate to call this misdemeanor sexual assault, as opposed to felony sexual assault. Would that relieve your objections?

The bottom line is that some stupid college kids got drunk and did something stupid, and then some more stupid people did more stupid things. Nothing really to see here...

No, the bottom line is that you're trying to excuse a crime because the victims did something stupid. I disagree with that premise, as should any person who believes in justice for all.
 
2012-06-11 02:45:30 PM  

togaman5000: People swim in it all the time or use it for greek life.


Anal sex in the fountain? Hardly a sanitary enterprise. It should have better supervision.
 
2012-06-11 02:53:15 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: The point I was (poorly) trying to make was that calling an ass-grabbing "sexual assault" is somewhat pedantic and imo trivializes the more serious forms of sexual assault.

I disagree. It's like saying that calling an accidental killing a "homicide" trivializes 1st degree murder. Or like saying that calling stealing a laptop a "theft" trivializes stealing a car. They don't. We have the capability to recognize that there are different levels of a crime and different corresponding punishments. In this case, the accused should face a fine or community service, not jail time, for example.

It would perhaps be more appropriate to call this misdemeanor sexual assault, as opposed to felony sexual assault. Would that relieve your objections?

The bottom line is that some stupid college kids got drunk and did something stupid, and then some more stupid people did more stupid things. Nothing really to see here...

No, the bottom line is that you're trying to excuse a crime because the victims did something stupid. I disagree with that premise, as should any person who believes in justice for all.


Actually, by your own admission, it's like saying that being "shoved in line" trivializes being shot. Which it does.
 
2012-06-11 02:53:53 PM  
Does not, I mean.
 
2012-06-11 02:59:17 PM  

WhippingBoy: Actually, by your own admission, it's like saying that being "shoved in line" trivializes being shot. Which it does.


No, as I noted, it doesn't, unless you're saying they're equivalent. As you notice, I didn't say an accidental killing was equal to first degree murder, or stealing a laptop was equal to stealing a car. I also didn't saying shoving was equal to shooting. But they're all respectively homicide, theft, and assault, of different degrees. That's the part you seem to be refusing to acknowledge... at least where sexual assault is concerned.
 
2012-06-11 03:00:36 PM  
Complete and utter comprehension failure on my part. My white male brain is working at even less capacity than usual. I guess I'll go back to drinking beer and playing video games with my fellow brodudes.

The gist of what I was trying to say was that you likened an ass grabbing to getting shoved in line. Does someone who shoves deserve a fine or community service? Is that really justice?
 
2012-06-11 03:08:12 PM  

BurnShrike: Steakzilla: zzrhardy: The most caring, compassionate, enlightened, logical view you could ever possibly air will always be undermined by the fact you are male and males are perps.

What the fark are you talking about? Men don't get raped ever? Men aren't ever victims of sexual assault? Sounds like you think women should be a protected class but somehow be treated "equal" at the same time.

Just last night I was both the perp and the victim of sexual assault. I told myself "no", but I didn't stop :(


To be fair, the way you were dressing, you were asking for it.
 
2012-06-11 03:18:12 PM  

namatad: how is it illegal to touch a naked butt in public?
I hope the 3 girls are charge with felony public lewdness and put on the sex offenders list like they belong.

LOLOLOL
bet they were white and drunk


Umm, clothed or nude, touching butts is illegal unless it's consensual.
 
2012-06-11 03:19:29 PM  

Theaetetus: nickerj1: Here's a question....

How can touching someone else's body part that is legally exposed and publicly visible be sexual assault?

Assault or battery? Perhaps. But "sexual"? What's the standard for determining if a body part is "sexual"? Common US society-accepted definitions?

You should know this - it's either statutory, depending on whether it's been defined by the state legislature, or in the common law, if it isn't, in which case the socially-accepted definitions.

And from a policy perspective, it makes sense. Someone shouldn't be more vulnerable to sexual assault, or have sexual assault be condoned by the government, just because they're not wearing a burkha.


I have a feeling I know how someone put themselves through law school... *snicker*
 
2012-06-11 03:21:25 PM  

Hyppy: Theaetetus: nickerj1: Here's a question....

How can touching someone else's body part that is legally exposed and publicly visible be sexual assault?

Assault or battery? Perhaps. But "sexual"? What's the standard for determining if a body part is "sexual"? Common US society-accepted definitions?

You should know this - it's either statutory, depending on whether it's been defined by the state legislature, or in the common law, if it isn't, in which case the socially-accepted definitions.

And from a policy perspective, it makes sense. Someone shouldn't be more vulnerable to sexual assault, or have sexual assault be condoned by the government, just because they're not wearing a burkha.

I have a feeling I know how someone put themselves through law school... *snicker*


Was it by working full time and being on a scholarship?

/yes, it was
 
2012-06-11 03:24:04 PM  

WhippingBoy: The gist of what I was trying to say was that you likened an ass grabbing to getting shoved in line. Does someone who shoves deserve a fine or community service? Is that really justice?


Yeah, I think so. Shoving isn't a good thing. Shiat, we teach kindergarteners that. If an adult hasn't learned it yet, then a $50 fine or an hour picking up trash in the park may help. And yeah, it is justice. Why do you think people shouldn't have the personal responsibility to accept even the very minor consequences of their actions?
 
2012-06-11 03:29:13 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: The gist of what I was trying to say was that you likened an ass grabbing to getting shoved in line. Does someone who shoves deserve a fine or community service? Is that really justice?

Yeah, I think so. Shoving isn't a good thing. Shiat, we teach kindergarteners that. If an adult hasn't learned it yet, then a $50 fine or an hour picking up trash in the park may help. And yeah, it is justice. Why do you think people shouldn't have the personal responsibility to accept even the very minor consequences of their actions?


Because I think we live in an imperfect world with limited resources, and that we should save those resources for things that truly matter. Unless you're a ambulance-chasing lawyer, I don't see how clogging up an already overburdened legal system with essentially trivial matters does a whole lot of good.
 
2012-06-11 03:30:08 PM  

Theaetetus: No, the bottom line is that you're trying to excuse a crime because the victims did something stupid. I disagree with that premise, as should any person who believes in justice for all.


How about this angle. I don't even go down the road of "they were asking for it." 1. They weren't. 2. I don't care even if they were...

The fact that you can get a criminal record for such a thing is what I find, generally, asinine. It's one of those laws that, the majority of the time, creates "victims" and tells them that they should be gravely affected by something that they don't give two seconds thought to.

/played sports growing up, so lots of this going on
//attended college, so lots of this going on
///I guess I have a great many friends and acquaintances who have some spalinin' to do...
 
2012-06-11 03:33:02 PM  

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: The gist of what I was trying to say was that you likened an ass grabbing to getting shoved in line. Does someone who shoves deserve a fine or community service? Is that really justice?

Yeah, I think so. Shoving isn't a good thing. Shiat, we teach kindergarteners that. If an adult hasn't learned it yet, then a $50 fine or an hour picking up trash in the park may help. And yeah, it is justice. Why do you think people shouldn't have the personal responsibility to accept even the very minor consequences of their actions?

Because I think we live in an imperfect world with limited resources, and that we should save those resources for things that truly matter. Unless you're a ambulance-chasing lawyer, I don't see how clogging up an already overburdened legal system with essentially trivial matters does a whole lot of good.


It gets us $50 or an hour or two of someone picking up trash, which are additional resources. No one is likely to fight those penalties, particularly if it's a civil infraction and not going to appear on their record as a result.
And finally and more importantly, we as a society shouldn't condone minor instances of assault or tell victims that they don't count because they aren't injured enough. If you dislike the law, get the law repealed... Don't just say "we're going to ignore violations and victims."
 
2012-06-11 03:41:17 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: The gist of what I was trying to say was that you likened an ass grabbing to getting shoved in line. Does someone who shoves deserve a fine or community service? Is that really justice?

Yeah, I think so. Shoving isn't a good thing. Shiat, we teach kindergarteners that. If an adult hasn't learned it yet, then a $50 fine or an hour picking up trash in the park may help. And yeah, it is justice. Why do you think people shouldn't have the personal responsibility to accept even the very minor consequences of their actions?

Because I think we live in an imperfect world with limited resources, and that we should save those resources for things that truly matter. Unless you're a ambulance-chasing lawyer, I don't see how clogging up an already overburdened legal system with essentially trivial matters does a whole lot of good.

It gets us $50 or an hour or two of someone picking up trash, which are additional resources. No one is likely to fight those penalties, particularly if it's a civil infraction and not going to appear on their record as a result.
And finally and more importantly, we as a society shouldn't condone minor instances of assault or tell victims that they don't count because they aren't injured enough. If you dislike the law, get the law repealed... Don't just say "we're going to ignore violations and victims."


So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.
 
2012-06-11 03:44:28 PM  
Everybody is in differing degrees of wrong.

The ladies probably shouldn't have all hopped in at the same time. Granted I don't decide to get drunk and go swimming at midnight.

The guys who stole the stuff are in the wrong, because it's not their stuff. The guy who grabbed ass is in more wrong, because he grabbed ass.

/Why do people do stupid stuff when they drink?
 
2012-06-11 03:48:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: No, the bottom line is that you're trying to excuse a crime because the victims did something stupid. I disagree with that premise, as should any person who believes in justice for all.

How about this angle. I don't even go down the road of "they were asking for it." 1. They weren't. 2. I don't care even if they were...

The fact that you can get a criminal record for such a thing is what I find, generally, asinine. It's one of those laws that, the majority of the time, creates "victims" and tells them that they should be gravely affected by something that they don't give two seconds thought to.


If you were talking about drug possession, or speeding, or the like, I'd be right there with you, but we are talking about crimes against the person. Plus, we're not going to prosecute unless the victim says yes, and people typically don't receive criminal records for minor things like that anyway.
More importantly, I don't think we should ignore victims who are affected.
 
2012-06-11 03:58:00 PM  

WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.


One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.
 
2012-06-11 04:01:23 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.


If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...
 
2012-06-11 04:09:31 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: No, the bottom line is that you're trying to excuse a crime because the victims did something stupid. I disagree with that premise, as should any person who believes in justice for all.

How about this angle. I don't even go down the road of "they were asking for it." 1. They weren't. 2. I don't care even if they were...

The fact that you can get a criminal record for such a thing is what I find, generally, asinine. It's one of those laws that, the majority of the time, creates "victims" and tells them that they should be gravely affected by something that they don't give two seconds thought to.

If you were talking about drug possession, or speeding, or the like, I'd be right there with you, but we are talking about crimes against the person. Plus, we're not going to prosecute unless the victim says yes, and people typically don't receive criminal records for minor things like that anyway.
More importantly, I don't think we should ignore victims who are affected.


If the people are domestically related (married, dating, roommates etc.) then the police are required to arrest under domestic violence laws, no matter what the "victim" says...

That means that those folks in the above sports pictures, if they are roommates, are now guilty of domestic violence.

See, it's great fun when we make everything a crime...
 
2012-06-11 04:30:08 PM  

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.

If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...


Oh, no, I wasn't saying that she shouldn't face fines for trespass. In fact, if you look way back earlier in the thread, I explicitly said she should.
What I was saying is that the two - trespass and sexual assault - are not equivalent, and that justice is not served by ignoring both of them, or even treating them the same.
 
2012-06-11 04:34:49 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.

If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...

Oh, no, I wasn't saying that she shouldn't face fines for trespass. In fact, if you look way back earlier in the thread, I explicitly said she should.
What I was saying is that the two - trespass and sexual assault - are not equivalent, and that justice is not served by ignoring both of them, or even treating them the same.


You also said that this type of sexual assault was akin to being shoved in line. If one believes that, then I'd have to say that trespass is the more serious crime here.
 
2012-06-11 04:34:55 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.

If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...

Oh, no, I wasn't saying that she shouldn't face fines for trespass. In fact, if you look way back earlier in the thread, I explicitly said she should.
What I was saying is that the two - trespass and sexual assault - are not equivalent, and that justice is not served by ignoring both of them, or even treating them the same.


Can you link to your reference / source for this? The Google is not helping me much.
 
2012-06-11 04:36:13 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: No, the bottom line is that you're trying to excuse a crime because the victims did something stupid. I disagree with that premise, as should any person who believes in justice for all.

How about this angle. I don't even go down the road of "they were asking for it." 1. They weren't. 2. I don't care even if they were...

The fact that you can get a criminal record for such a thing is what I find, generally, asinine. It's one of those laws that, the majority of the time, creates "victims" and tells them that they should be gravely affected by something that they don't give two seconds thought to.

If you were talking about drug possession, or speeding, or the like, I'd be right there with you, but we are talking about crimes against the person. Plus, we're not going to prosecute unless the victim says yes, and people typically don't receive criminal records for minor things like that anyway.
More importantly, I don't think we should ignore victims who are affected.

If the people are domestically related (married, dating, roommates etc.) then the police are required to arrest under domestic violence laws, no matter what the "victim" says...

That means that those folks in the above sports pictures, if they are roommates, are now guilty of domestic violence.


Actually, most of the domestic violence statutes specifically require intimates. So, if those folks in the above sports pictures are sleeping together, you'd have a better argument.

But, it'd still be wrong. See, the question is one of consent. Do those people in the sports pictures consent to those butt slaps? If so, then it's not assault and therefore, the police have no probable cause to arrest, even under mandatory domestic violence statutes. Similarly, you can spank your willing significant other as part of your 50 Shades of Gray dramatization, and the police are not required to arrest you (and would be violating the law if they did).
The police are only required to arrest where they have knowledge that an assault has occurred, regardless of the victim's statement that the accused didn't really mean it, or that he's a good man, or whatnot. But where they have no evidence that a crime has been committed, they can't arrest anyone.

*plus, in many states, thanks to various constitutional amendments refusing to consider two people of the same gender to be in a domestic relationship, those pictures would not qualify, even if they did show assault.
 
2012-06-11 04:37:04 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.

If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...

Oh, no, I wasn't saying that she shouldn't face fines for trespass. In fact, if you look way back earlier in the thread, I explicitly said she should.
What I was saying is that the two - trespass and sexual assault - are not equivalent, and that justice is not served by ignoring both of them, or even treating them the same.

Can you link to your reference / source for this? The Google is not helping me much.


I'm not sure what you want me to cite - you just bolded the term "sexual assault." Can you clarify your request?
 
2012-06-11 04:38:18 PM  

WhippingBoy: You also said that this type of sexual assault was akin to being shoved in line. If one believes that, then I'd have to say that trespass is the more serious crime here.


I disagree... I think shoving some in line - which could lead to fights, could lead to someone falling over and injuring themselves, etc. - is much worse than climbing into a fountain, which we routinely ignore when the trespasser is a small child.
 
2012-06-11 04:44:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Actually, most of the domestic violence statutes specifically require intimates. So, if those folks in the above sports pictures are sleeping together, you'd have a better argument.


I know for a fact that in my state, non-intimate roommates, even of the same sex (think sharing a dorm room in college) are considered "domestic" for the purposes of the law.

Theaetetus: But, it'd still be wrong. See, the question is one of consent. Do those people in the sports pictures consent to those butt slaps? If so, then it's not assault and therefore, the police have no probable cause to arrest, even under mandatory domestic violence statutes.


Nope. The laws purposefully give the police no discretion in such matters so that, for example, a battered wife can't tell the police that she doesn't want her abusive husband arrested (out of fear) for hitting her etc.
 
2012-06-11 04:45:16 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.

If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...

Oh, no, I wasn't saying that she shouldn't face fines for trespass. In fact, if you look way back earlier in the thread, I explicitly said she should.
What I was saying is that the two - trespass and sexual assault - are not equivalent, and that justice is not served by ignoring both of them, or even treating them the same.

Can you link to your reference / source for this? The Google is not helping me much.

I'm not sure what you want me to cite - you just bolded the term "sexual assault." Can you clarify your request?


How did you decide to describe the act of someone touching the butt of another person as a "sexual assault", which is a legal term.
 
2012-06-11 04:51:47 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: You also said that this type of sexual assault was akin to being shoved in line. If one believes that, then I'd have to say that trespass is the more serious crime here.

I disagree... I think shoving some in line - which could lead to fights, could lead to someone falling over and injuring themselves, etc. - is much worse than climbing into a fountain, which we routinely ignore when the trespasser is a small child.


You're moving the goalposts now. Your original "shoving" comment didn't mention fighting or causing injuries (injuries can also occur when climbing in a fountain and slipping, for example).
 
2012-06-11 04:57:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.

If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...

Oh, no, I wasn't saying that she shouldn't face fines for trespass. In fact, if you look way back earlier in the thread, I explicitly said she should.
What I was saying is that the two - trespass and sexual assault - are not equivalent, and that justice is not served by ignoring both of them, or even treating them the same.

Can you link to your reference / source for this? The Google is not helping me much.

I'm not sure what you want me to cite - you just bolded the term "sexual assault." Can you clarify your request?

How did you decide to describe the act of someone touching the butt of another person as a "sexual assault", which is a legal term.


Ah. Well, you could go to the article, see the "sexual assault" reference in the headline, and also note the statement of the police: "Limansky said the incident was the first sex offense reported since February."

But, if you don't trust that (and I wouldn't), you could go to the Maryland criminal code, which applies here.
3-301 defines a "sexual contact" as "an intentional touching of the victim's... intimate area for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party."
And 3-308 states: "(b) A person may not engage in:
(1) sexual contact with another without the consent of the other;"

This was an intentional touching of an intimate area - buttocks - for either sexual arousal or abuse (more likely the latter, honestly), without consent of the victim. That meets every element of the statute, and so this was misdemeanor sexual assault.

As an aside, the above pictures would not apply for the reason I said: consent.
Furthermore, in Maryland: "Sexual contact" does not include:
(i) a common expression of familial or friendly affection"
i.e. a butt slap for a friend.
 
2012-06-11 04:59:53 PM  

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: You also said that this type of sexual assault was akin to being shoved in line. If one believes that, then I'd have to say that trespass is the more serious crime here.

I disagree... I think shoving some in line - which could lead to fights, could lead to someone falling over and injuring themselves, etc. - is much worse than climbing into a fountain, which we routinely ignore when the trespasser is a small child.

You're moving the goalposts now. Your original "shoving" comment didn't mention fighting or causing injuries


No - I was saying those are justifications for why we criminalize shoving. I'm not saying they have to occur in order for to be criminal.

(injuries can also occur when climbing in a fountain and slipping, for example).

Yes, but the injured person is the trespasser. That's my point - in one case, a person is a victim, and in the other, there is no human victim. That's why we treat them differently, and any attempt to treat them the same necessarily ignores the victim.
 
2012-06-11 05:01:13 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: You also said that this type of sexual assault was akin to being shoved in line. If one believes that, then I'd have to say that trespass is the more serious crime here.

I disagree... I think shoving some in line - which could lead to fights, could lead to someone falling over and injuring themselves, etc. - is much worse than climbing into a fountain, which we routinely ignore when the trespasser is a small child.

You're moving the goalposts now. Your original "shoving" comment didn't mention fighting or causing injuries

No - I was saying those are justifications for why we criminalize shoving. I'm not saying they have to occur in order for to be criminal.

(injuries can also occur when climbing in a fountain and slipping, for example).

Yes, but the injured person is the trespasser. That's my point - in one case, a person is a victim, and in the other, there is no human victim. That's why we treat them differently, and any attempt to treat them the same necessarily ignores the victim.


The injured person is the victim of their own stupid actions. Actions which could be prevented by prosecuting them for trespassing.
 
2012-06-11 05:01:33 PM  

Silly Jesus: Nope. The laws purposefully give the police no discretion in such matters so that, for example, a battered wife can't tell the police that she doesn't want her abusive husband arrested (out of fear) for hitting her etc.


Not so. You have to read the entire paragraph. If the police show up and they have evidence that the wife has been assaulted - a bruise, a statement, a 911 call, etc. - then they have no discretion not to arrest. But they have to have that evidence. In those photos, there's no evidence that assault has been committed. Therefore, they lack any power to arrest.
 
2012-06-11 05:04:09 PM  

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: You also said that this type of sexual assault was akin to being shoved in line. If one believes that, then I'd have to say that trespass is the more serious crime here.

I disagree... I think shoving some in line - which could lead to fights, could lead to someone falling over and injuring themselves, etc. - is much worse than climbing into a fountain, which we routinely ignore when the trespasser is a small child.

You're moving the goalposts now. Your original "shoving" comment didn't mention fighting or causing injuries

No - I was saying those are justifications for why we criminalize shoving. I'm not saying they have to occur in order for to be criminal.

(injuries can also occur when climbing in a fountain and slipping, for example).

Yes, but the injured person is the trespasser. That's my point - in one case, a person is a victim, and in the other, there is no human victim. That's why we treat them differently, and any attempt to treat them the same necessarily ignores the victim.

The injured person is the victim of their own stupid actions. Actions which could be prevented by prosecuting them for trespassing.


Yes, and what exactly are you hoping to prevent the innocent injured victim from doing? Again, you're ignoring their very existence.
This is why every state has separate legislative categories for "crimes against the person" vs. "crimes against property".
 
2012-06-11 05:10:21 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: You also said that this type of sexual assault was akin to being shoved in line. If one believes that, then I'd have to say that trespass is the more serious crime here.

I disagree... I think shoving some in line - which could lead to fights, could lead to someone falling over and injuring themselves, etc. - is much worse than climbing into a fountain, which we routinely ignore when the trespasser is a small child.

You're moving the goalposts now. Your original "shoving" comment didn't mention fighting or causing injuries

No - I was saying those are justifications for why we criminalize shoving. I'm not saying they have to occur in order for to be criminal.

(injuries can also occur when climbing in a fountain and slipping, for example).

Yes, but the injured person is the trespasser. That's my point - in one case, a person is a victim, and in the other, there is no human victim. That's why we treat them differently, and any attempt to treat them the same necessarily ignores the victim.

The injured person is the victim of their own stupid actions. Actions which could be prevented by prosecuting them for trespassing.

Yes, and what exactly are you hoping to prevent the innocent injured victim from doing? Again, you're ignoring their very existence.
This is why every state has separate legislative categories for "crimes against the person" vs. "crimes against property".


Fair enough, but I fear I've drifted away from my original argument. My feeling is that neither trespassing in a pool nor grabbing someone's ass are significant crimes against society, and that to fully prosecute either would be a waste of limited resources that could be better utilized.
I also got the impression that you felt that what happened to me (ass grabbed three times without my consent) was also trivial (fwiw, I think it definitely was); I apologize if I misread you.
 
2012-06-11 05:19:52 PM  

WhippingBoy: Fair enough, but I fear I've drifted away from my original argument. My feeling is that neither trespassing in a pool nor grabbing someone's ass are significant crimes against society, and that to fully prosecute either would be a waste of limited resources that could be better utilized.
I also got the impression that you felt that what happened to me (ass grabbed three times without my consent) was also trivial (fwiw, I think it definitely was); I apologize if I misread you.


When we consider the severity of a crime against property - particular public property - we need only consider the damage to the property or the potential for injury to the public. Here: nil.
When we consider the severity of a crime against a person, we must consider the impact on the person. You, though a victim, thought it was trivial. So trivial you didn't bother pressing charges. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that your experience is universal - someone else who was more traumatized certainly could bring charges. How can we reasonably say that they shouldn't be affected the way they are? We're not them.

That's all I'm saying - in a crime against a person, we can't dismiss the crime as trivial, because we're not the victim. Only the victim can do that. In a crime against public property, we can, because we are all equally "victims" as members of the public.
 
2012-06-11 05:24:02 PM  
Theaetetus:

But, it'd still be wrong. See, the question is one of consent. Do those people in the sports pictures consent to those butt slaps? If so, then it's not assault and therefore, the police have no probable cause to arrest, even under mandatory domestic violence statutes. Similarly, you can spank your willing significant other as part of your 50 Shades of Gray dramatization, and the police are not required to arrest you (and would be violating the law if they did).
The police are o ...


Not siding with either side, just want an honest explanation of how the law works. Someone earlier mentioned that the gropie (is that the best term to keep it all straight?) did not give verbal consent and argued that the state of (un)dress was tacit consent. Another stated that that was dumb and it must be verbal. Makes sense and avoids a terrible slippery slope issue (besides the whole "she was asking for it" argument). However, in society we rarely ask for explicit agreement. We take societal cues (e.g. we don't ask, after undressing a partner, be it one-night stand or long term, if they agree to allow us to perform acts of a sexual nature with them) as agreement (which seems to be one of the issues with the "she was asking for it blah blah derp").

However, in a situation such as the sports pictures (this is where my actual question comes in), how do we determine consent? As far as general public interaction goes, the rule of thumb to live by is basically no contact unless permission is given (e.g. hold out a hand, shaking it is ok; open the arms for a hug, hugging is ok-this also brings up a much more complicated question of touching during dancing-tango, swing, etc-and during "dancing"-whatever you want to call the bump and grind being done anymore-but let's leave that for the moment). This seems to change based on sphere of interaction (again, see dancing). In sports, is it only assault, sexual or otherwise, if you know for a fact it makes the other person uncomfortable because it has become an acceptable practice? Does it need to be based intention (i.e. "good game" pat versus "I want to grab your ass" pat)? Does the gropie (again, for lack of a better term) in those situations need to enter into them knowing that that behavior is socially approved of and need to express disapproval of it from the start? How does the law determine, in those realms, where to draw the line? Again, I just don't know enough to make an intelligent claim on the topic. I'm just curious how the law determines these actions in certain realms.
 
2012-06-11 06:13:59 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Fair enough, but I fear I've drifted away from my original argument. My feeling is that neither trespassing in a pool nor grabbing someone's ass are significant crimes against society, and that to fully prosecute either would be a waste of limited resources that could be better utilized.
I also got the impression that you felt that what happened to me (ass grabbed three times without my consent) was also trivial (fwiw, I think it definitely was); I apologize if I misread you.

When we consider the severity of a crime against property - particular public property - we need only consider the damage to the property or the potential for injury to the public. Here: nil.
When we consider the severity of a crime against a person, we must consider the impact on the person. You, though a victim, thought it was trivial. So trivial you didn't bother pressing charges. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that your experience is universal - someone else who was more traumatized certainly could bring charges. How can we reasonably say that they shouldn't be affected the way they are? We're not them.

That's all I'm saying - in a crime against a person, we can't dismiss the crime as trivial, because we're not the victim. Only the victim can do that. In a crime against public property, we can, because we are all equally "victims" as members of the public.


The concept that a "victim" should be allowed to decide the severity of a crime scares the hell out of me. Should they also be allowed to determine the nature and length of punishment as well?
 
2012-06-11 06:16:48 PM  

Phno: Not siding with either side, just want an honest explanation of how the law works. Someone earlier mentioned that the gropie (is that the best term to keep it all straight?) did not give verbal consent and argued that the state of (un)dress was tacit consent. Another stated that that was dumb and it must be verbal. Makes sense and avoids a terrible slippery slope issue (besides the whole "she was asking for it" argument). However, in society we rarely ask for explicit agreement. We take societal cues (e.g. we don't ask, after undressing a partner, be it one-night stand or long term, if they agree to allow us to perform acts of a sexual nature with them) as agreement (which seems to be one of the issues with the "she was asking for it blah blah derp").


Correction - no one stated that consent must be verbal: otherwise, dumb people could never consent. Rather, we were saying that consent must be explicit: a yes, a thumbs up, an a-okay sign, going for your pants button too, etc.
In this particular story, we know that there wasn't even any non-verbal consent involved: this girl didn't know the guy was there, so she couldn't possibly have even implied consent. The other party was saying that merely because she was in a state of undress, that was implied consent for any guy in the area to touch her. And that's wrong.

That said, taking "societal cues" with a one-night stand rather than explicit consent is the way you end up in trouble. Maybe a spouse has previously said "yes, you can wake me up with sex," but a one-night stand has almost certainly not said that.

However, in a situation such as the sports pictures (this is where my actual question comes in), how do we determine consent?

Best way is to ask the person who may have been assaulted. If they say it was fine, then it was fine. If they get upset, then it becomes a question of whether the slapper knew that they lacked consent. Which you do get to:
In sports, is it only assault, sexual or otherwise, if you know for a fact it makes the other person uncomfortable because it has become an acceptable practice? Does it need to be based intention (i.e. "good game" pat versus "I want to grab your ass" pat)? Does the gropie (again, for lack of a better term) in those situations need to enter into them knowing that that behavior is socially approved of and need to express disapproval of it from the start? How does the law determine, in those realms, where to draw the line? Again, I just don't know enough to make an intelligent claim on the topic. I'm just curious how the law determines these actions in certain realms.

Assault typically requires that the assaulter know or reasonably should know that they lacked consent. If you really and reasonably thought that you had consent - for example, if everyone is slapping the home run hitter's ass, and you're last in line having seen everyone else - it's unlikely that you'd be found guilty, because you reasonably believed you had consent. Or if someone playfully wiggles their butt at you, but never intended that you'd actually smack it. The law - and juries, remember - are not insane.
That said, if someone is asleep (and isn't your spouse and hasn't previously said you can wake her up with sex), or is unaware of your presence, then there's no way for you to reasonably believe you had consent, like in this case. He can't say he was mistaken and thought she approved if he's sneaking up behind her at the time

Consider the easy analogy: if you get in a boxing ring with someone, you can punch each other and it's not assault, because you're both consenting to the match, even if neither of you explicitly said "I consent to allowing you to punch me in the head." If you sneak up behind someone on the street and punch them, you can't reasonably claim you thought you were boxing.
 
2012-06-11 06:22:25 PM  

WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Fair enough, but I fear I've drifted away from my original argument. My feeling is that neither trespassing in a pool nor grabbing someone's ass are significant crimes against society, and that to fully prosecute either would be a waste of limited resources that could be better utilized.
I also got the impression that you felt that what happened to me (ass grabbed three times without my consent) was also trivial (fwiw, I think it definitely was); I apologize if I misread you.

When we consider the severity of a crime against property - particular public property - we need only consider the damage to the property or the potential for injury to the public. Here: nil.
When we consider the severity of a crime against a person, we must consider the impact on the person. You, though a victim, thought it was trivial. So trivial you didn't bother pressing charges. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that your experience is universal - someone else who was more traumatized certainly could bring charges. How can we reasonably say that they shouldn't be affected the way they are? We're not them.

That's all I'm saying - in a crime against a person, we can't dismiss the crime as trivial, because we're not the victim. Only the victim can do that. In a crime against public property, we can, because we are all equally "victims" as members of the public.

The concept that a "victim" should be allowed to decide the severity of a crime scares the hell out of me.


Note the difference. The victim is deciding whether to press charges or not. They are not deciding whether something should be charged as a felony or misdemeanor.

And that shouldn't scare the hell out of you, unless you're saying that you shouldn't have been allowed to laugh off getting your butt grabbed. Should we throw you in jail for an accessory after the fact, or obstruction of justice? Or are you really saying that only you should get to decide whether a crime is dismissed or not, even when you're not involved, and you're unilaterally choosing dismissal in this case?
 
2012-06-11 06:32:40 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Fair enough, but I fear I've drifted away from my original argument. My feeling is that neither trespassing in a pool nor grabbing someone's ass are significant crimes against society, and that to fully prosecute either would be a waste of limited resources that could be better utilized.
I also got the impression that you felt that what happened to me (ass grabbed three times without my consent) was also trivial (fwiw, I think it definitely was); I apologize if I misread you.

When we consider the severity of a crime against property - particular public property - we need only consider the damage to the property or the potential for injury to the public. Here: nil.
When we consider the severity of a crime against a person, we must consider the impact on the person. You, though a victim, thought it was trivial. So trivial you didn't bother pressing charges. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that your experience is universal - someone else who was more traumatized certainly could bring charges. How can we reasonably say that they shouldn't be affected the way they are? We're not them.

That's all I'm saying - in a crime against a person, we can't dismiss the crime as trivial, because we're not the victim. Only the victim can do that. In a crime against public property, we can, because we are all equally "victims" as members of the public.

The concept that a "victim" should be allowed to decide the severity of a crime scares the hell out of me.

Note the difference. The victim is deciding whether to press charges or not. They are not deciding whether something should be charged as a felony or misdemeanor.

And that shouldn't scare the hell out of you, unless you're saying that you shouldn't have been allowed to laugh off getting your butt grabbed. Should we throw you in jail for an accessory after the fact, or obstruction of justice? Or are you really saying that only you should get to decide whether a crime is dismissed or not, ...


That's a good point. I think I'm being overly sensitive. I just can't help but think that in this situation, if the genders were reversed we wouldn't be having this argument (e.g. if a woman had ass-grabbed a man, you'd be laughed at for calling him a victim).
 
2012-06-11 06:38:04 PM  

Silly Jesus: perigee: [cdn.abclocal.go.com image 448x252]

Dis mine now.

[gifs.gifbin.com image 150x134]


Rainbow Chicken Dance
 
2012-06-11 06:44:39 PM  

WhippingBoy: That's a good point. I think I'm being overly sensitive. I just can't help but think that in this situation, if the genders were reversed we wouldn't be having this argument (e.g. if a woman had ass-grabbed a man, you'd be laughed at for calling him a victim).


It's true. Sexism and misogyny also work against men. It's one of the main reasons why male rape victims and male victims of domestic violence are shamed into staying silent. Trivializing casual sexual assault against women certainly won't make it a safe environment for them to speak up.
 
2012-06-11 06:58:28 PM  

Theaetetus: Sexism and misogyny also work against men. It's one of the main reasons why male rape victims and male victims of domestic violence are shamed into staying silent.

And even though you're a poor widdle straight white male, the only discrimination here is in your own mind, not the law.


This is not misogny working against men. This is misandry working against men.

This is not misogyny shaming men. This is your misandry shaming men.

This is not society keeping men silent. This is Theatetus, attorney, keeping men silent.
 
2012-06-11 06:58:36 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: So the girls in the fountain should also be fined and/or made to do community service. Public trespass or something. I see no real justice in either case; just bureaucrats and lawyers with skewed priorities.

One is a crime against a person.
The other is a crime against an inanimate object.

That some people fail to distinguish those is, unfortunately, not surprising.

If you dislike the law, get the law repealed...

Oh, no, I wasn't saying that she shouldn't face fines for trespass. In fact, if you look way back earlier in the thread, I explicitly said she should.
What I was saying is that the two - trespass and sexual assault - are not equivalent, and that justice is not served by ignoring both of them, or even treating them the same.

Can you link to your reference / source for this? The Google is not helping me much.

I'm not sure what you want me to cite - you just bolded the term "sexual assault." Can you clarify your request?

How did you decide to describe the act of someone touching the butt of another person as a "sexual assault", which is a legal term.

Ah. Well, you could go to the article, see the "sexual assault" reference in the headline, and also note the statement of the police: "Limansky said the incident was the first sex offense reported since February."

But, if you don't trust that (and I wouldn't), you could go to the Maryland criminal code, which applies here.
3-301 defines a "sexual contact" as "an intentional touching of the victim's... intimate area for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party."
And 3-308 states: "(b) A person may not engage in:
(1) sexual contact with another without the consent of the other;"

This was an intentional touching of an intimate area - buttocks - for either sexual arousal or abuse (more likely the latter, honestly), without consent of the victim. That meets every element of the statute, and so ...


The only place that the phrase "sexual assault" appears is in the headline. Generally that term is used for things that are quite a bit more severe...like rape. I've never heard it used for something this mundane. That's why I was confused.

The laws that you cited don't directly apply either. Maryland's codes are set up in an odd way that I'm not used to.

I guess it's a trivial argument in the grand scheme of things, but I was just a little perplexed about touching someone briefly being labeled as an assault.
 
2012-06-11 06:59:01 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: That's a good point. I think I'm being overly sensitive. I just can't help but think that in this situation, if the genders were reversed we wouldn't be having this argument (e.g. if a woman had ass-grabbed a man, you'd be laughed at for calling him a victim).

It's true. Sexism and misogyny also work against men. It's one of the main reasons why male rape victims and male victims of domestic violence are shamed into staying silent. Trivializing casual sexual assault against women certainly won't make it a safe environment for them to speak up.


I see your point and I respect your opinion. However, no matter how I look at it, calling a random ass grab "sexual assault" does a disservice to those who have experienced "real" sexual assault.
 
2012-06-11 07:03:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Nope. The laws purposefully give the police no discretion in such matters so that, for example, a battered wife can't tell the police that she doesn't want her abusive husband arrested (out of fear) for hitting her etc.

Not so. You have to read the entire paragraph. If the police show up and they have evidence that the wife has been assaulted - a bruise, a statement, a 911 call, etc. - then they have no discretion not to arrest. But they have to have that evidence. In those photos, there's no evidence that assault has been committed. Therefore, they lack any power to arrest.


I was defining the "assault" as the act of unsolicited butt touching. I doubt anyone in those pictures asked those folks to touch them. The photo itself is pretty good evidence of the act.
 
2012-06-11 07:09:48 PM  

Theaetetus: WhippingBoy: Fair enough, but I fear I've drifted away from my original argument. My feeling is that neither trespassing in a pool nor grabbing someone's ass are significant crimes against society, and that to fully prosecute either would be a waste of limited resources that could be better utilized.
I also got the impression that you felt that what happened to me (ass grabbed three times without my consent) was also trivial (fwiw, I think it definitely was); I apologize if I misread you.

When we consider the severity of a crime against property - particular public property - we need only consider the damage to the property or the potential for injury to the public. Here: nil.
When we consider the severity of a crime against a person, we must consider the impact on the person. You, though a victim, thought it was trivial. So trivial you didn't bother pressing charges. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that your experience is universal - someone else who was more traumatized certainly could bring charges. How can we reasonably say that they shouldn't be affected the way they are? We're not them.

That's all I'm saying - in a crime against a person, we can't dismiss the crime as trivial, because we're not the victim. Only the victim can do that. In a crime against public property, we can, because we are all equally "victims" as members of the public.


Should the standard for a crime now be whether or not an action has hurt someone's feelings?

Some people are traumatized by the mere act of others looking at them. Should there be a law for that?

Your standard for whether or not a law is a good one cannot logically be "well, was someone "hurt" by it?"
 
2012-06-11 07:16:05 PM  

Phno: Theaetetus:

But, it'd still be wrong. See, the question is one of consent. Do those people in the sports pictures consent to those butt slaps? If so, then it's not assault and therefore, the police have no probable cause to arrest, even under mandatory domestic violence statutes. Similarly, you can spank your willing significant other as part of your 50 Shades of Gray dramatization, and the police are not required to arrest you (and would be violating the law if they did).
The police are o ...

Not siding with either side, just want an honest explanation of how the law works. Someone earlier mentioned that the gropie (is that the best term to keep it all straight?) did not give verbal consent and argued that the state of (un)dress was tacit consent. Another stated that that was dumb and it must be verbal. Makes sense and avoids a terrible slippery slope issue (besides the whole "she was asking for it" argument). However, in society we rarely ask for explicit agreement. We take societal cues (e.g. we don't ask, after undressing a partner, be it one-night stand or long term, if they agree to allow us to perform acts of a sexual nature with them) as agreement (which seems to be one of the issues with the "she was asking for it blah blah derp").

However, in a situation such as the sports pictures (this is where my actual question comes in), how do we determine consent? As far as general public interaction goes, the rule of thumb to live by is basically no contact unless permission is given (e.g. hold out a hand, shaking it is ok; open the arms for a hug, hugging is ok-this also brings up a much more complicated question of touching during dancing-tango, swing, etc-and during "dancing"-whatever you want to call the bump and grind being done anymore-but let's leave that for the moment). This seems to change based on sphere of interaction (again, see dancing). In sports, is it only assault, sexual or otherwise, if you know for a fact it makes the other person unc ...


I share in your confusion.

The fact that it is such a mundane action that it is socially acceptable among strangers under a variety of circumstances (sports, dancing etc.) leads me to form the opinion that it is such a trivial action that it should not be criminalized at all.

If you're on a ball field, 20 people may pat your butt "without consent." If you're dancing, your partner may rest a hand there / grab it "without consent." Nobody would ever dream of calling that a crime. But it suddenly is a horrible assault if it happens when you are drunk in a fountain. I'm not following that logic.
 
2012-06-11 07:18:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: The laws that you cited don't directly apply either. Maryland's codes are set up in an odd way that I'm not used to.


Why not? What exactly is missing there, or says that 3-308 wouldn't apply?
 
2012-06-11 07:20:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Nope. The laws purposefully give the police no discretion in such matters so that, for example, a battered wife can't tell the police that she doesn't want her abusive husband arrested (out of fear) for hitting her etc.

Not so. You have to read the entire paragraph. If the police show up and they have evidence that the wife has been assaulted - a bruise, a statement, a 911 call, etc. - then they have no discretion not to arrest. But they have to have that evidence. In those photos, there's no evidence that assault has been committed. Therefore, they lack any power to arrest.

I was defining the "assault" as the act of unsolicited butt touching. I doubt anyone in those pictures asked those folks to touch them. The photo itself is pretty good evidence of the act.


I was using the definition in the criminal statutes in Maryland... It's not just "unsolicited" but "without consent". There's a huge overlap between those two terms, but technically, they're not the same.
 
2012-06-11 07:23:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: If you're on a ball field, 20 people may pat your butt "without consent." If you're dancing, your partner may rest a hand there / grab it "without consent." Nobody would ever dream of calling that a crime. But it suddenly is a horrible assault if it happens when you are drunk in a fountain. I'm not following that logic.


If you're a goofy teenager, you may grab your buddy's nipple and twist, even though you lack consent. But just try that to a stranger on the train, and then base your defense on an alleged lack of logic.
 
2012-06-11 07:27:26 PM  
Theaetetus:

I'll just leave this here...

as·sault/əˈsôlt/
Verb:
Make a physical attack on.
 
2012-06-11 07:29:12 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: The laws that you cited don't directly apply either. Maryland's codes are set up in an odd way that I'm not used to.

Why not? What exactly is missing there, or says that 3-308 wouldn't apply?


That code section deals specifically with "A Person in a Position of Authority" as laid out in the first sentence of said code...
 
2012-06-11 07:32:05 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Nope. The laws purposefully give the police no discretion in such matters so that, for example, a battered wife can't tell the police that she doesn't want her abusive husband arrested (out of fear) for hitting her etc.

Not so. You have to read the entire paragraph. If the police show up and they have evidence that the wife has been assaulted - a bruise, a statement, a 911 call, etc. - then they have no discretion not to arrest. But they have to have that evidence. In those photos, there's no evidence that assault has been committed. Therefore, they lack any power to arrest.

I was defining the "assault" as the act of unsolicited butt touching. I doubt anyone in those pictures asked those folks to touch them. The photo itself is pretty good evidence of the act.

I was using the definition in the criminal statutes in Maryland... It's not just "unsolicited" but "without consent". There's a huge overlap between those two terms, but technically, they're not the same.


Ok.....

I was defining the "assault" as the act of butt touching without consent. I doubt anyone in those pictures asked those folks to touch them / consented to the touching beforehand. The photo itself is pretty good evidence of the act.
 
2012-06-11 07:39:42 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: If you're on a ball field, 20 people may pat your butt "without consent." If you're dancing, your partner may rest a hand there / grab it "without consent." Nobody would ever dream of calling that a crime. But it suddenly is a horrible assault if it happens when you are drunk in a fountain. I'm not following that logic.

If you're a goofy teenager, you may grab your buddy's nipple and twist, even though you lack consent. But just try that to a stranger on the train, and then base your defense on an alleged lack of logic.


Not a good analogy. The nipple twist causes pain and the nipple is commonly accepted as a much more "intimate" part of the body than the buttock. Also, there's generally some sort of reaction to nipple twisting, even if it isn't a legal one. It's not an incredibly common practice among relative strangers (sports competitors / dancers who've just met etc.) in our society.

Hell, I'd put the butt pat on almost the same level as the hand shake or the chest bump as far as shock value is concerned. You, and the girl in this article, are honestly the only two people that I've ever heard of raising a concern over such a mundane act.

cdn2.holytaco.com
 
2012-06-11 07:45:02 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: The laws that you cited don't directly apply either. Maryland's codes are set up in an odd way that I'm not used to.

Why not? What exactly is missing there, or says that 3-308 wouldn't apply?

That code section deals specifically with "A Person in a Position of Authority" as laid out in the first sentence of said code...


You're misreading two different sections. Here's the relevant portion:

(b) Prohibited.- A person may not engage in:

(1) sexual contact with another without the consent of the other;

(2) except as provided in § 3-307(a)(4) of this subtitle, a sexual act with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the sexual act is at least 4 years older than the victim; or

(3) except as provided in § 3-307(a)(5) of this subtitle, vaginal intercourse with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.


That's all of section b.
Now, section c:
(c) Sexual abuse of a minor student by a person in a position of authority.-

(1) Except as provided in § 3-307(a)(4) of this subtitle or subsection (b)(2) of this section, a person in a position of authority may not engage in a sexual act or sexual contact with a minor who, at the time of the sexual act or sexual contact, is a student enrolled at a school where the person in a position of authority is employed.

(2) Except as provided in § 3-307(a)(5) of this subtitle or subsection (b)(3) of this section, a person in a position of authority may not engage in vaginal intercourse with a minor who, at the time of the vaginal intercourse, is a student enrolled at a school where the person in a position of authority is employed.


In total, they're criminalizing:
(b)(1) sexual contact without consent;
(b)(2) sexual act that would be with consent, except that the victim is 14 or 15 and the other person is at least 4 years older (i.e. consensual statutory rape);
(b)(3) vaginal intercourse under the same rules as (b)(2);
(c)(1) sexual act or sexual contact that would be with consent, the victim is over 14 or 15 but is under 18, and the other person is their teacher;
(c)(2) vaginal intercourse under the same rules as (c)(1).

If we read it your way, then, for example, statutory rape of someone aged 14 isn't criminal unless the other person is their teacher, since we'd read (b)(2) to require a person of authority. That's incorrect.
 
2012-06-11 07:47:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Nope. The laws purposefully give the police no discretion in such matters so that, for example, a battered wife can't tell the police that she doesn't want her abusive husband arrested (out of fear) for hitting her etc.

Not so. You have to read the entire paragraph. If the police show up and they have evidence that the wife has been assaulted - a bruise, a statement, a 911 call, etc. - then they have no discretion not to arrest. But they have to have that evidence. In those photos, there's no evidence that assault has been committed. Therefore, they lack any power to arrest.

I was defining the "assault" as the act of unsolicited butt touching. I doubt anyone in those pictures asked those folks to touch them. The photo itself is pretty good evidence of the act.

I was using the definition in the criminal statutes in Maryland... It's not just "unsolicited" but "without consent". There's a huge overlap between those two terms, but technically, they're not the same.

Ok.....

I was defining the "assault" as the act of butt touching without consent. I doubt anyone in those pictures asked those folks to touch them / consented to the touching beforehand. The photo itself is pretty good evidence of the act.


... uh, again, there's a difference between "solicitation" - i.e. "asking someone to touch you" and "consent" - i.e. approval. There's a huge overlap - if you ask for it, you're also consenting to it, but they're not the same. Thus, you don't have to explicitly ask for something to consent.
As noted above, a boxer doesn't explicitly ask to be knocked out (and would ask the opposite), but they still clearly consent to being punched, no?
 
2012-06-11 07:49:50 PM  

Silly Jesus: Not a good analogy. The nipple twist causes pain and the nipple is commonly accepted as a much more "intimate" part of the body than the buttock. Also, there's generally some sort of reaction to nipple twisting, even if it isn't a legal one. It's not an incredibly common practice among relative strangers (sports competitors / dancers who've just met etc.) in our society.


You're moving the goal posts: the article is about complete strangers. I believe we can agree that patting the butt is not something you do to a complete stranger with no shared context.

Hell, I'd put the butt pat on almost the same level as the hand shake or the chest bump as far as shock value is concerned. You, and the girl in this article, are honestly the only two people that I've ever heard of raising a concern over such a mundane act.

You should re-read the article then, because University Police spokesman Capt. Marc Limansky would be a third person.

/you're also leaving out several people in this thread from your count
 
2012-06-11 07:52:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: That assessment sheds a great deal of light on the reasons for my immense confusion in this thread.


You'll have to excuse Roy. He's off his meds yet again. I'm Dan Rather to his William Tager, which is why he constantly follows me from thread to thread.

/I'm just happy I'm not his Campbell Montgomery
 
2012-06-11 08:11:22 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: The laws that you cited don't directly apply either. Maryland's codes are set up in an odd way that I'm not used to.

Why not? What exactly is missing there, or says that 3-308 wouldn't apply?

That code section deals specifically with "A Person in a Position of Authority" as laid out in the first sentence of said code...

You're misreading two different sections. Here's the relevant portion:

(b) Prohibited.- A person may not engage in:

(1) sexual contact with another without the consent of the other;

(2) except as provided in § 3-307(a)(4) of this subtitle, a sexual act with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the sexual act is at least 4 years older than the victim; or

(3) except as provided in § 3-307(a)(5) of this subtitle, vaginal intercourse with another if the victim is 14 or 15 years old, and the person performing the act is at least 4 years older than the victim.

That's all of section b.
Now, section c:
(c) Sexual abuse of a minor student by a person in a position of authority.-

(1) Except as provided in § 3-307(a)(4) of this subtitle or subsection (b)(2) of this section, a person in a position of authority may not engage in a sexual act or sexual contact with a minor who, at the time of the sexual act or sexual contact, is a student enrolled at a school where the person in a position of authority is employed.

(2) Except as provided in § 3-307(a)(5) of this subtitle or subsection (b)(3) of this section, a person in a position of authority may not engage in vaginal intercourse with a minor who, at the time of the vaginal intercourse, is a student enrolled at a school where the person in a position of authority is employed.

In total, they're criminalizing:
(b)(1) sexual contact without consent;
(b)(2) sexual act that would be with consent, except that the victim is 14 or 15 and the other person is at least 4 years older (i.e. consensual statutory rape);
(b)(3) vaginal interco ...


§ 3-308. Sexual offense in the fourth degree.

(a) "Person in a position of authority" defined.- In this section, "person in a position of authority":...
 
2012-06-11 08:13:49 PM  
Theaetetus:

Good civil discourse, but I've just gotta tap out at this point...

godswillchurch.com
 
2012-06-11 08:14:55 PM  

Theaetetus: Silly Jesus: That assessment sheds a great deal of light on the reasons for my immense confusion in this thread.

You'll have to excuse Roy. He's off his meds yet again. I'm Dan Rather to his William Tager, which is why he constantly follows me from thread to thread.

/I'm just happy I'm not his Campbell Montgomery


Yes, everyone can see that my statement that it would be prosecutorial overreach to charge any of these people and only serves to criminalize non criminal behavior and scare the people and thus make the citizen loathe government and lawyers is just complete silly talk.

And everyone can see where your statements where you specifically mock men that would find themselves in a similar situation as the woman did is actually an example of misogyny (hatred of women) as you claim and not misandry (hatred of men.)
 
2012-06-11 08:49:40 PM  
Jesus farkng Christ, so much butthurt in this thread. (rimshot)

Meanwhile, this is all I'm reminded of.
 
2012-06-11 10:17:56 PM  

urban.derelict: "I made a poor decision while drinking -- leaving all my stuff on the ground while swimming in a fountain not meant to be swum in -- protect me from my own stupidity, law enforcement!"


If the cops on Bait Car can pull a new car into a ghetto, leave the doors open and keys inside, then arrest whoever gets in and drives off, they damn well better be hunting down the people in this situation.
 
2012-06-11 10:51:36 PM  
coinslots

/cute, subby
 
2012-06-11 11:50:20 PM  
Story won't load for some reason. Was hoping for moar pics, less wordz in thread.

Oh well.
 
2012-06-12 08:41:27 AM  

Silly Jesus: Theaetetus:

Good civil discourse, but I've just gotta tap out at this point...

[godswillchurch.com image 521x521]


media.tumblr.com

/hot as in making me sweat
 
Displayed 202 of 202 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report