CDZ Runner slaps reporter on the butt, arrested for sexual battery.

[MarathonMike]

OK the guy was dumb to do this, but why did the reporter decide to stand on the road 3 feet from the runners? I've seen reporters at marathons before and they are always several feet off to the side, she was nearly in their path. You have a bunch of excited male runners and a cute girl within arms reach. I'd say there was bad judgement on both sides.

The reporter said she was hurt. BULLSHIT. That young newscaster is playing this for all it's worth.

Wrong.

More blaming the victim.

The woman was subject to criminal battery.

PFFFFT. Criminal battery? A butt slap? What this nonsense does is demean the true victims of sexual battery. That and give this woman instant fame.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

PFFFFT. Criminal battery? A butt slap?

Correct. Clearly a violation of the law. The law was clearly written to make this illegal.

 

[Crepitus]

What if he appliers for a job and asks if he has ever been convicted for sexual battery, then?

Dang, sounds like he should have familiarized himself with the law.

looks to me like he simply underestimated the nastiness of smug little social justice warriors who derive their own sense of self worth from their ability to ruin other people's lives over some really trivial shit.

Really? 'Cause it looks to me like some entitled Asshole tried to treat a woman as an object and got what he deserved.

 

[MarathonMike]

PFFFFT. Criminal battery? A butt slap?

Correct. Clearly a violation of the law. The law was clearly written to make this illegal.

It was a dumb and inappropriate thing for that guy to do. But it's not battery, criminal, sexual or otherwise.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But it's not battery, criminal, sexual or otherwise.

The law has already been posted in the thread. Have you not been reading the thread? Let's review:

TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES
§ 16-6-22.1 - Sexual battery
O.C.G.A. 16-6-22.1 (2010)
16-6-22.1. Sexual battery

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "intimate parts" means the primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.

(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES :: § 16-6-22.1 - Sexual battery

 

[bodecea]

His penis was not involved in any way.

Oh, I think his penis was involved, all right. You don't see women slapping strange men on the bottom!

And yeah, she will suffer lasting damage --- or she would have if she had put up with it, as these arrogant, sex-driven types always expect her to. Charging him with a crime is what we all HAVE to do from now on to stop all this stuff. I just finished the Ronan Farrow book Catch and Kill about the Harvey Weinstein abuses that went on for decades. He had all these procurers hired, women and men, all these lawyers that paid them off if they started to complain -- he liked them afraid, confused, resisting: it was always rape. It's a horrific story, and one good whacking police charge would have stopped it, but nobody did that -- the women enabled him because they were afraid. He raged, he threw things, he's a huge man with lots of employees who existed purely to satisfy his rapes. All this has to stop, and there are so MANY of these arrogant men! We watched that Halperin show for most of 2016 and were horrified when the stories about him came out. Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, all of them gross abusers who belonged in jail, still do. I want them all in jail. I want no non-disclosure contracts. I want women to charge these types with crimes! As soon as it happens.

I have had my butt slapped by both men and women I did not know.

I am not fascist in political orientation, however, and did not seek personal gain from it by making up crap that it was some sort of sexual battery.

"making up crap"? So he didn't butt slap her? Do you also have problems keeping your hands to yourself?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

"making up crap"? So he didn't butt slap her? Do you also have problems keeping your hands to yourself?

She made up shit about being grabbed so as to make it sound worse. There was a slap, but no TIME for a grab, as you can see quite plainly on the video.

Calling a little butt slap "sexual battery" is ridiculous, even if the puritanical left wants to pretend it is so they can play their little game of "Who do we get to crucify next?!"

Joe Biden paws 13 year old children who are quite clearly squirming to get way from him and then sniffs them while rubbing his head on them. You are prepared to vote for the guy.

Kindly cut the innuendo about me keeping my hands to myself, k?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Calling a little butt slap "sexual battery" is ridiculous

So complain about the law, not the people observing it. For the umpteenth time.

TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES
§ 16-6-22.1 - Sexual battery
O.C.G.A. 16-6-22.1 (2010)
16-6-22.1. Sexual battery

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "intimate parts" means the primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.

(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES :: § 16-6-22.1 - Sexual battery

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It was a dumb and inappropriate thing for that guy to do. But it's not battery, criminal, sexual or otherwise.

I often find myself wondering what the fuck happened to common sense.

None of these people have said a damn thing in any of the various threads about the very well known case of 1400 children being HORRIBLY violated in Rotherham, England by Muslim men, and one here actually defended the men. A guy slaps a female butt during a race and they get on their high horse like nobody's business.

This lack of perspective is mind boggling at times.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Women can wear a low cut top with no bra, and forget about saying nice boobs, if you even glance you’re getting sued.

 

[bodecea]

OK the guy was dumb to do this, but why did the reporter decide to stand on the road 3 feet from the runners? I've seen reporters at marathons before and they are always several feet off to the side, she was nearly in their path. You have a bunch of excited male runners and a cute girl within arms reach. I'd say there was bad judgement on both sides.

The reporter said she was hurt. BULLSHIT. That young newscaster is playing this for all it's worth.

So...you get to make the call in this case? She doesn't?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Calling a little butt slap "sexual battery" is ridiculous

So complain about the law, not the people observing it. For the umpteenth time.

TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES
§ 16-6-22.1 - Sexual battery
O.C.G.A. 16-6-22.1 (2010)
16-6-22.1. Sexual battery

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "intimate parts" means the primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.

(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 6 - SEXUAL OFFENSES :: § 16-6-22.1 - Sexual battery

and once again, I would suggest you learn the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Your pharisiacal insistence on the letter of the law so as to punish a man who was not engaging in anything close to the spirit the law represents shows that you do not understand this difference.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and once again, I would suggest you learn the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

And, once again, I suggest you teach us the difference, in this case. Teach us why someone intentionally slapping the butt of a person does not fall under the spirit of the following legal code:

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "intimate parts" means the primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.

(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.



And.... go!

 

[Dogmaphobe]

and once again, I would suggest you learn the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

And, once again, I suggest you teach us the difference, in this case. Teach us why someone intentionally slapping the butt of a person does not fall under the spirit of the following legal code:

(a) For the purposes of this Code section, the term "intimate parts" means the primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.

(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.



And.... go!

You are just doubling down on your very much pharisaical insistence on the letter of the law, thus proving my point.

The brief swat on the back side did not linger. It did not explore. It did not come close to genitalia. There were no sexual moves accompanying it. It was just a brief swat of the upper behind. You wish to punish him because you feel virtuous for doing so, but in the great scheme of things, his transgression was so minor that it should never have entered the court of law which should be reserved for REAL cases of men abusing women.

 

[Jitss617]

Why woman should be home with the kids

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The brief swat on the back side did not linger.

Illegal, as spelled out in the law.

It did not explore.

Irrelevant, as spelled out in the law.

It did not come close to genitalia.

Irrelevant, as spelled out in the law.

There we no sexual moves accompanying it.

Irrelevant, as spelled out in the law.

It was just a brief swat of the upper behind.

And illegal, as spelled out in the law.

Not one word of the law is relevant to a single thing you just said. At no point is there any mention of "exploring", or brevity. Clearly, the "spirit" of the law is to prohibit unwanted touching of, among other things, someone's ass. It's all right there in black and white.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why woman should be home with the kids

Women should be wherever they want to be just like everybody else. This one should not have been so close to the race but she had every right to be there.

The man should not have swapped her on the behind, but the entire incident could have been handled with an apology and some consciousness raising for the man.

 

[Jitss617]

Why woman should be home with the kids

Women should be wherever they want to be just like everybody else. This one should not have been so close to the race but she had every right to be there.

The man should not have swapped her on the behind, but the entire incident could have been handled with an apology and some consciousness raising for the man.

If a girl did it to him no issues,, WOMAN if you don’t want equality stay home

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The brief swat on the back side did not linger.

Illegal, as spelled out in the law.

It did not explore.

Irrelevant, as spelled out in the law.

It did not come close to genitalia.

Irrelevant, as spelled out in the law.

There we no sexual moves accompanying it.

Irrelevant, as spelled out in the law.

It was just a brief swat of the upper behind.

And illegal, as spelled out in the law.

Not one word of the law is relevant to a single thing you just said. At no point is there any mention of "exploring", or brevity. Clearly, the "spirit" of the law is to prohibit unwanted touching of, among other things, someone's ass. It's all right there in black and white.

Yes, I already knew you to be incapable of understanding the difference between the letter of the law and spirit of the law, so your quoting the letter of the law so doggedly as you are is overkill. Yes, I get it. Your pharisaical insistence on the letter of the law justifies your desire to feel virtuous by ruining the life of your targeted individual, and this despite the fact that what he actually did pales in comparison to the actual behavior the law seeks to prevent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, I already knew you to be incapable of understanding the difference between the letter of the law and spirit of the law,

And yet you seem to be completely incapable of explaining it, in this case. You only seem to be able to repeat your claim that this action did not violate the spirit of the law. Repeating it until you puke doesn't make it any more true.