Patting a woman's buttocks is no crime
MrPepper11
N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
that crime.
The forcible touching statute requires a person to do more than "touch
quickly and gently with the flat of the hand," said Criminal Court
Judge Richard M. Weinberg, citing the definition of "pat" from The New
Oxford English Dictionary. He said the statute's forcible touching
language requires "squeezing, grabbing or pinching."
The law is not limited to those types of touching, he said, but its use
of the word "forcible" implies that a pat does not qualify.
The judge issued his ruling, made public Wednesday, in the case of
Mohammed Nuruzzaman, 36, a Manhattan fabric store employee. Nuruzzaman
was accused of twice touching a female customer's rear while she
shopped in the store, at 227 W. 40th St., on Nov. 2, 2004.
Nuruzzaman was charged with forcible touching, third-degree sex abuse
and second-degree harassment. A complaint says he touched the customer,
a student, without her consent and with intent to degrade or abuse her,
causing her annoyance and alarm.
The judge noted that the state Legislature passed the Sexual Reform Act
of 2000, which created the crime of forcible touching, in response to
the widespread sexual assaults that occurred in Central Park following
that year's Puerto Rican Day parade.
"The plain language of (the law) makes clear that something more than
mere touching is required under the statute," the judge wrote.
Referring again to his dictionary, he said "forcible" connotes
something "done by force, vigorous and strong and powerful."
He said the Legislature's use of the word "forcible" in the law "leads
to the conclusion that a pat on the buttocks, regardless of how
offensive it might be to the recipient, does not qualify as 'forcible'
touching under the ordinary and accepted meaning of these words."
If done for sexual reasons, Nuruzzaman's alleged pat would constitute
third-degree sex abuse but would not rise to the level of forcible, the
judge wrote.
And although the defense did not challenge the sex abuse charge, the
judge threw it out, too. He said the complaint did not properly allege
the crime because it did not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to
gratify a sexual desire -- a required element in a charge of
third-degree sex abuse.
The only charge that survived was second-degree harassment, a violation
considered about as serious as a moving traffic offense.
Nuruzzaman's lawyer, Sam Liebowitz, did not return calls for comment.
Falky foo
patting a woman's buttocks is not "forcible touching" as defined by NY
statute. It still may be battery or another type of crime.
"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Avenger
> N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
>
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
> charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
> mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
> that crime.
As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find someone
guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>
> The forcible touching statute requires a person to do more than "touch
> quickly and gently with the flat of the hand," said Criminal Court
> Judge Richard M. Weinberg, citing the definition of "pat" from The New
> Oxford English Dictionary. He said the statute's forcible touching
> language requires "squeezing, grabbing or pinching."
>
> The law is not limited to those types of touching, he said, but its use
> of the word "forcible" implies that a pat does not qualify.
>
> The judge issued his ruling, made public Wednesday, in the case of
> Mohammed Nuruzzaman, 36, a Manhattan fabric store employee. Nuruzzaman
> was accused of twice touching a female customer's rear while she
> shopped in the store, at 227 W. 40th St., on Nov. 2, 2004.
>
> Nuruzzaman was charged with forcible touching, third-degree sex abuse
> and second-degree harassment. A complaint says he touched the customer,
> a student, without her consent and with intent to degrade or abuse her,
> causing her annoyance and alarm.
The complaint is just repeating the wording of the statute which sounds a
lot worse than it actually is. The fact is that the cops used these mutiple
and inappropriate charges in the hope of getting a disorderly conduct charge
to stick. This is their modus operandi and it should be prohibited. A person
should ONLY be charged with the most serious offense and then it's up to the
prosecutor to prove it. Jurors frequently dismiss the more serious charge
and then are deadlocked on the others where they sometimes compromise and
find the defendant guilty on some minor charge that was included. But this
shotgun approach by the cops and prosecutor is wrong and unjust because the
defendant is usually completely innocent.
>
> The judge noted that the state Legislature passed the Sexual Reform Act
> of 2000, which created the crime of forcible touching, in response to
> the widespread sexual assaults that occurred in Central Park following
> that year's Puerto Rican Day parade.
That has to do with real battery not a pat on the arse.
>
> "The plain language of (the law) makes clear that something more than
> mere touching is required under the statute," the judge wrote.
>
> Referring again to his dictionary, he said "forcible" connotes
> something "done by force, vigorous and strong and powerful."
>
> He said the Legislature's use of the word "forcible" in the law "leads
> to the conclusion that a pat on the buttocks, regardless of how
> offensive it might be to the recipient, does not qualify as 'forcible'
> touching under the ordinary and accepted meaning of these words."
>
> If done for sexual reasons, Nuruzzaman's alleged pat would constitute
> third-degree sex abuse
Unless he patted her on the arse with his cock how would anyone know if it
was for sexual reasons?
but would not rise to the level of forcible, the
> judge wrote.
>
> And although the defense did not challenge the sex abuse charge, the
> judge threw it out, too. He said the complaint did not properly allege
> the crime because it did not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to
> gratify a sexual desire -- a required element in a charge of
> third-degree sex abuse.
>
> The only charge that survived was second-degree harassment, a violation
> considered about as serious as a moving traffic offense.
That's not a crime.
Heidi Graw
>"Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:_XTie.7599$_f7.5219@trndny01...
>
> "MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
> news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> May 18, 2005
>> N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
>>
>> NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
>> charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
>> mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
>> that crime.
> Avenger wrote:
> As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find someone
> guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
Private reprisal would have probably be far more effective in this case than
trying to get the courts to punish this guy for his insolent behavior.
Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat ugly
broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked at you. What
would you do in response to that?
Heidi
Hyerdahl
Heidi Graw wrote:
> >"Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:_XTie.7599$_f7.5219@trndny01...
> >
> > "MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
> > news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> May 18, 2005
> >> N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
> >>
> >> NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible
touching
> >> charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling
that a
> >> mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level
of
> >> that crime.
>
> > Avenger wrote:
> > As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find
someone
> > guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
Well, criminal court is simply not the proper place to get a civil
remedy; she needs to sue him in civil court where there is a remedy for
a non-consentual touching.
> Private reprisal would have probably be far more effective in this
case than
> trying to get the courts to punish this guy for his insolent
behavior.
I tend to agree.
>
> Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat
ugly
> broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked at you.
What
> would you do in response to that?
>
I can't speak for the nutter you're addressing, but I would not likely
file a criminal charge. Perhaps a more rational response would be to
swat the FLY with the paper. :-)
> Heidi
conn...@hotmail.com
Hyerdahl wrote:
> I tend to agree.
>
I tender the "fuck me sex dolls" who dress to get masculine attention
not do so for their own health and wellbeing.
> I can't speak for the nutter you're addressing, but I would not
likely
> file a criminal charge. Perhaps a more rational response would be to
> swat the FLY with the paper. :-)
Again, women who dress slutty to get masculine attention often get a
response that is sometimes very unwelcome.
The "balls" are in your court, gals.
conn...@hotmail.com
Heidi Graw wrote:
> Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat
ugly
> broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked at you.
What
> would you do in response to that?
>
I certainly wouldn't go runnin' N cryin' to daddy police force, nor
would I commit violence against their character, either physical or
verbal.
I'd just smile. ;-)
L Sternn
>>
>> If done for sexual reasons, Nuruzzaman's alleged pat would constitute
>> third-degree sex abuse
>
>Unless he patted her on the arse with his cock how would anyone know if it
>was for sexual reasons?
Are you saying you would be comfortable having your ass patted by
other guys?
L Sternn
>>
>> > Avenger wrote:
>> > As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find
>someone
>> > guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>
>Well, criminal court is simply not the proper place to get a civil
>remedy; she needs to sue him in civil court where there is a remedy for
>a non-consentual touching.
As I inferred from Heidi's post, I think the best solution for the
woman who has just had her ass "patted" is for her to kick him in the
balls and be done with it, but it should be a crime. Granted, it
should be a low-level misdemeanor if it was simply an open-handed pat
with no squeezing, but it still is iwrong.
I'm not a big fan of frivolous civil suits. Yes, the victim may have
suffered - a little bit. It ain't the end of the world. a c-note
should be sufficient for her "pain and suffering" if it was simply a
pat on the ass. Add a $250 fine and court costs on top of that and
let the bastard go.
I disagree with the court. "Forcible" could apply to a "sneak
attack", and I have no doubt that if the victim knew his hand was
going to touch her ass, she would have tried to prevent that.
She didn't know it was coming, so she didn't stop it. Therefore, it
was forcible.
L Sternn
You think that somehow justifies molesting or raping them?
You're a very sick individual if you do. I for one like seeing girls
dress sexy, and it would really suck if they all stopped doing so
because it was interpreted as an invitation to rape.
>The "balls" are in your court, gals.
The balls should only be in their court if they consent to it.
L Sternn
And that's what some crime victims do. They may be too ashamed to
report the crime or it may be something else. I'm not psychologist,
but I can see how having someone touch you without your consent would
be disturbing.
Where would you draw the line, if any?
You obviously think it's okay to put your palm on a woman's ass
without her consent. In your opinion is it okay to do the same with
her breasts? Her pussy? Does it make a difference if you have to
reach under her skirt?
Where exactly do you draw the line?
conn...@hotmail.com
L Sternn wrote:
>
> You think that somehow justifies molesting or raping them?
>
Ohhh how gals enjoy the power game of dressing like whores and telling
men to fuck off or fuck me where ever it suits!
The SILENT masses of sexually deprived men want sex no matter how they
get it.
> You're a very sick individual if you do. I for one like seeing
girls
> dress sexy, and it would really suck if they all stopped doing so
> because it was interpreted as an invitation to rape.
>
The masses of sexually deprived men are sick or is it the women who
deny men that basic human right?
>
> >The "balls" are in your court, gals.
>
> The balls should only be in their court if they consent to it.
Ohhh how gals enjoy the power game of dressing like whores and telling
men to fuck off or fuck me where ever it suits!
conn...@hotmail.com
L Sternn wrote:
> On 18 May 2005 23:13:29 -0700, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> And that's what some crime victims do. They may be too ashamed to
> report the crime or it may be something else. I'm not psychologist,
> but I can see how having someone touch you without your consent would
> be disturbing.
Ashamed, jesus how pathetic that a mere pat can give into someone being
disturbed. Jesus!
>
> Where would you draw the line, if any?
>
Why is the person touching in the first place?
> You obviously think it's okay to put your palm on a woman's ass
> without her consent.
If she is dressing as a whore, what do you think that portrays?
> In your opinion is it okay to do the same with
> her breasts? Her pussy? Does it make a difference if you have to
> reach under her skirt?
>
> Where exactly do you draw the line?
Why is the person touching in the first place?
conn...@hotmail.com
Where? In the gym? On the street? At work?
There is a place and time for everything; pickups occur everywhere, man.
Avenger
"L Sternn" <linc...@hm.net> wrote in message
news:78co81hcvvc79ctbd...@4ax.com...
> On 18 May 2005 22:43:10 -0700, "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> > Avenger wrote:
> >> > As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find
> >someone
> >> > guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
> >
> >Well, criminal court is simply not the proper place to get a civil
> >remedy; she needs to sue him in civil court where there is a remedy for
> >a non-consentual touching.
sue sue sue haha but just remember that in civil court he can bring up
everything from how she was dressed to who she fucked last night lol
>
> As I inferred from Heidi's post, I think the best solution for the
> woman who has just had her ass "patted" is for her to kick him in the
> balls and be done with it,
That's a serious crime intended to cause severe bodily harm unlike a pat on
the arse. But your reply is typical of the over sensitive female with a
fragile ego. You think that a simple pat is equivalent to battery. Or that
he should have his life ruined because he patted your arse. Fortunately the
NY judges have better sense and won't allow you to carry on a vendetta over
what amounts to at most an insult. Insults aren't crimes wacko.
but it should be a crime. Granted, it
> should be a low-level misdemeanor if it was simply an open-handed pat
> with no squeezing, but it still is iwrong.
Shutup stupid. If we allowed idiots like you any say in these matters we
would be prosecuting people for looking at some one.
>
> I'm not a big fan of frivolous civil suits. Yes, the victim may have
> suffered - a little bit. It ain't the end of the world. a c-note
> should be sufficient for her "pain and suffering" if it was simply a
> pat on the ass. Add a $250 fine and court costs on top of that and
> let the bastard go.
The bitch should have been dressed properly in public. Fine the bitch $1000
for indecent exposure and give her community service.
>
> I disagree with the court. "Forcible" could apply to a "sneak
> attack"
This is why you're not a judge. You're too stupid.
,
Avenger
Hey it's no big deal. That's life.
>
>
Avenger
I wouldn't file a complaint over it lol
Falky foo
> get it.
And, um, something tells me you're one of them.
L Sternn
>
>"L Sternn" <linc...@hm.net> wrote in message
>news:78co81hcvvc79ctbd...@4ax.com...
>> On 18 May 2005 22:43:10 -0700, "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> > Avenger wrote:
>> >> > As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find
>> >someone
>> >> > guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>> >
>> >Well, criminal court is simply not the proper place to get a civil
>> >remedy; she needs to sue him in civil court where there is a remedy for
>> >a non-consentual touching.
>
>sue sue sue haha but just remember that in civil court he can bring up
>everything from how she was dressed to who she fucked last night lol
>
>
>>
>> As I inferred from Heidi's post, I think the best solution for the
>> woman who has just had her ass "patted" is for her to kick him in the
>> balls and be done with it,
>
>That's a serious crime intended to cause severe bodily harm unlike a pat on
>the arse.
Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
breed.
> But your reply is typical of the over sensitive female with a
>fragile ego.
Yeah, I'm so fucking "over sensitive" that I capped damages at a mere
$100.
You'll pay a higher fine for exceeding the speed limit by less than
10mph.
>You think that a simple pat is equivalent to battery.
Where did I say that?
I think battery is a more serious crime that should be punishable by
much more than a $100 fine.
>Or that
>he should have his life ruined because he patted your arse.
Is your life "ruined" if you get a speeding ticket?
>Fortunately the
>NY judges have better sense and won't allow you to carry on a vendetta over
>what amounts to at most an insult. Insults aren't crimes wacko.
I didn't say the guy should have been found guilty of the crime which
he was accused of. I merely said what he did should be a crime.
Can't you understand simple English?
>
>
>
> but it should be a crime. Granted, it
>> should be a low-level misdemeanor if it was simply an open-handed pat
>> with no squeezing, but it still is iwrong.
>
>Shutup stupid. If we allowed idiots like you any say in these matters we
>would be prosecuting people for looking at some one.
No, we wouldn't. That you would call me names and suggest such a
preposterous thing reflects upon you, not me.
>
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of frivolous civil suits. Yes, the victim may have
>> suffered - a little bit. It ain't the end of the world. a c-note
>> should be sufficient for her "pain and suffering" if it was simply a
>> pat on the ass. Add a $250 fine and court costs on top of that and
>> let the bastard go.
>
>The bitch should have been dressed properly in public. Fine the bitch $1000
>for indecent exposure and give her community service.
You're out of your fucking mind.
>
>
>>
>> I disagree with the court. "Forcible" could apply to a "sneak
>> attack"
>
>This is why you're not a judge. You're too stupid.
>
I'm not a judge because I did not choose a career in politics.
L Sternn
>
>L Sternn wrote:
>> On 18 May 2005 23:13:29 -0700, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> And that's what some crime victims do. They may be too ashamed to
>> report the crime or it may be something else. I'm not psychologist,
>> but I can see how having someone touch you without your consent would
>> be disturbing.
>
>Ashamed, jesus how pathetic that a mere pat can give into someone being
>disturbed. Jesus!
I didn't say it was as bad as rape or murder.
I did say it was wrong.
It would be wrong for me to spit on you also. Do you think that
should be legal?
>>
>> Where would you draw the line, if any?
>>
>
>Why is the person touching in the first place?
I don't give a shit what their motivation is - it's wrong.
>
>> You obviously think it's okay to put your palm on a woman's ass
>> without her consent.
>
>If she is dressing as a whore, what do you think that portrays?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it means that you should
pay her first.
Not the answer you were looking for?
Too fucking bad.
>
>> In your opinion is it okay to do the same with
>> her breasts? Her pussy? Does it make a difference if you have to
>> reach under her skirt?
>>
>> Where exactly do you draw the line?
>
>Why is the person touching in the first place?
It doesn't matter if it is uninvited.
L Sternn
Well, it is "life".
I've been mugged before by 4 armed thugs before. That was no big
deal either - they got about $20.
Does that mean they shouldn't be prosecuted for it if they were ever
caught? (they weren't, at least not for the crime they committed
against me).
I'm not even saying patting someone's ass is a very serious crime, but
it is wrong and therefore should be a crime in my opinion.
If you want to touch someone's ass so badly, then I think you should
be aware it might cost you a $100 fine.
>
>>
>>
>
L Sternn
>
>L Sternn wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:43:54 GMT, "Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> If done for sexual reasons, Nuruzzaman's alleged pat would
>constitute
>> >> third-degree sex abuse
>> >
>> >Unless he patted her on the arse with his cock how would anyone know
>if it
>> >was for sexual reasons?
>>
>> Are you saying you would be comfortable having your ass patted by
>> other guys?
>
>Where? In the gym? On the street? At work?
>
Where was this woman groped?
>There is a place and time for everything; pickups occur everywhere, man.
IOW, you don't have a problem with unwelcomed sexual advances that
include fondling parts of your body which are normally considered
private?
L Sternn
So you would agree that it is wrong.
You're beginning to understand.
It's not like I'm advocating the friggin' death penalty or anything.
L Sternn
You've quite the talent for stating the obvious.
L Sternn
>
>L Sternn wrote:
>>
>> You think that somehow justifies molesting or raping them?
>>
>
>Ohhh how gals enjoy the power game of dressing like whores and telling
>men to fuck off or fuck me where ever it suits!
>
Some girls do. It's a fucking game and a business in some cases.
Just because they have the power to manipulate you mentally doesn't
mean you should be allowed to manipulate them physically.
>The SILENT masses of sexually deprived men want sex no matter how they
>get it.
>
Frankly, men AND women who can't get laid can masturbate.
>> You're a very sick individual if you do. I for one like seeing
>girls
>> dress sexy, and it would really suck if they all stopped doing so
>> because it was interpreted as an invitation to rape.
>>
>
>The masses of sexually deprived men are sick
It is not the duty of any human being to make sure that losers get
laid.
> or is it the women who
>deny men that basic human right?
Having sex may be a basic human right, but having sex with a specific
person is certainly not.
>
>>
>> >The "balls" are in your court, gals.
>>
>> The balls should only be in their court if they consent to it.
>
>Ohhh how gals enjoy the power game of dressing like whores and telling
>men to fuck off or fuck me where ever it suits!
And oh how guys enjoy the power game of slamming their cock into a
iuicy cunt.
Such is life.
Being a cocktease isn't a crime and neither is coming before your
partner gets off. (Nor is coming in their mouth after promising not
to, although that is bad form).
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>L. Sternn wrote:
> As I inferred from Heidi's post, I think the best solution for the
> woman who has just had her ass "patted" is for her to kick him in the
> balls and be done with it, but it should be a crime.
I think if that would have happened to me, I'd probably would have just
turned around and bitched at him, "What the f*ck do you think you're doing?
Keep your filthy hands off me! And don't you dare ever do that again!" I'm
not so sure I could have actually slapped or kicked the guy.
However, had my husband been witness to this incident, then that guy would
have lain flat on the ground, still breathing, but wishing he would have
never patted my ass. ;-)
> I disagree with the court. "Forcible" could apply to a "sneak
> attack", and I have no doubt that if the victim knew his hand was
> going to touch her ass, she would have tried to prevent that.
Good thinking! I agree.
> She didn't know it was coming, so she didn't stop it. Therefore, it
> was forcible.
I agree. However, I don't think I would have bothered going through the
trouble of initiating a civil or criminal suit for that pat. The man was an
employee of a fabric store. I would have told the store owner of the
incident and any and all people within my social circle to be aware of that
particular guy. Maybe the store owner would fire that employee, maybe not.
However, if the owner knows that he could potentially lose customers due to
his employee's inappropriate behavior, he's bound to do *something!*
Raising awareness and letting other people know is sometimes sufficient to
stop that person from doing it again. The aim is to get that man to stop
touching customers. If he knows he risks losing his job, that just might be
enough to prevent other customers from being molested.
Heidi
Asmodeus
> You think that somehow justifies molesting or raping them?
Ah, here we go. Patting someone on the butt is in no way within
light years of molestation or rape--except to a neurotic "I'm a
victim, you're a victim, we're all victims!" moonbat.
--
The best thing about winning the election is all the howling
loony leftist moonbats. I get a warm fuzzy feeling everytime
a liberal squeals.
Kathy
>>"L Sternn" <linc...@hm.net> wrote in message
>>news:78co81hcvvc79ctbd...@4ax.com...
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>L. Sternn wrote:
>>As I inferred from Heidi's post, I think the best solution for the
>>woman who has just had her ass "patted" is for her to kick him in the
>>balls and be done with it, but it should be a crime.
>
>
> I think if that would have happened to me, I'd probably would have just
> turned around and bitched at him, "What the f*ck do you think you're doing?
> Keep your filthy hands off me! And don't you dare ever do that again!" I'm
> not so sure I could have actually slapped or kicked the guy.
>
> However, had my husband been witness to this incident, then that guy would
> have lain flat on the ground, still breathing, but wishing he would have
> never patted my ass. ;-)
Trust me, these weasels are way too cowardly to try something like this
with a man witnessing it. It's an assertion of power over a female,
who's most likely smaller than they.
Kathy
Williams
BTR1701
"Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote:
> "MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
> > The only charge that survived was second-degree harassment, a violation
> > considered about as serious as a moving traffic offense.
>
> That's not a crime.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In some places, a moving violation is a
(minor) criminal offense.
BTR1701
"Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >"Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:_XTie.7599$_f7.5219@trndny01...
> >
> > "MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
> > news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> May 18, 2005
> >> N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
> >>
> >> NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
> >> charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
> >> mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
> >> that crime.
>
> > Avenger wrote:
> > As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find someone
> > guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>
> Private reprisal would have probably be far more effective in this case than
> trying to get the courts to punish this guy for his insolent behavior.
>
> Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat ugly
> broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked at you. What
> would you do in response to that?
Just tell her to fuck off.
BTR1701
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> L Sternn wrote:
> > On 18 May 2005 23:13:29 -0700, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > And that's what some crime victims do. They may be too ashamed to
> > report the crime or it may be something else. I'm not psychologist,
> > but I can see how having someone touch you without your consent would
> > be disturbing.
>
> Ashamed, jesus how pathetic that a mere pat can give into someone being
> disturbed. Jesus!
>
> >
> > Where would you draw the line, if any?
> >
>
> Why is the person touching in the first place?
>
> > You obviously think it's okay to put your palm on a woman's ass
> > without her consent.
>
> If she is dressing as a whore, what do you think that portrays?
If she's dressing like a whore and you touch her without consent, then
it'd be shoplifting. You need to pay for the merchandise before you can
touch it.
conn...@hotmail.com
L Sternn wrote:
>
> IOW, you don't have a problem with unwelcomed sexual advances that
> include fondling parts of your body which are normally considered
> private?
FOr fucks sake, in the workplace I've had women throttle their hands
around my throat (in front of other women), invite me home for a beer
(in front of other women), touch, pinch, you name it .... just playing
games.
How did I reach such an "outrageous" conclusion?
Because guys shrug it off as merely foolin about from time to time;
besides it eases the pressure cooker off coding deadlines!!!!!
SHEESH.
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
I can't speak for the nutter you're addressing, but I would not
likel> file a criminal charge. Perhaps a more rational response would
be to> > swat the FLY with the paper. :-)
>
> Again, women who dress slutty to get masculine attention often get a
> response that is sometimes very unwelcome.
Again, responses can be had by both people, 'contard', and a man who
pinches butt may be responded TO by a woman who wads the nads.
>
> The "balls" are in your court, gals.
Actually, no...if a woman wads the nads, in response to pinching the
butt, the balls are then in HIS court, but civil action may promptly
turn to criminal action depending on his reaction. :-)
Glitter Ninja
>L Sternn wrote:
>> You obviously think it's okay to put your palm on a woman's ass
>> without her consent.
>If she is dressing as a whore, what do you think that portrays?
The way she dresses has no bearing on the matter. First, you have no
idea how this woman was dressed or how she looked. Secondly, a "whorish"
appearance is entirely subjective. Some cultures don't let women show
their face, and they may think a woman with her face uncovered is whorish.
I think some of the men in this thread need to go back to Kindergarden
and learn the "Good Touch Bad Touch" rules. An unwelcome pat on the butt
-- *twice* -- is completely wrong. It doesn't matter what the guy's
reason was, or how harmless someone thinks the act is, he shouldn't be
touching anyone on their ass without consent. The only recourse should not
be that the victim should "kick the guy in the balls".
I'm not saying that they didn't overreact with the multiple charges, but
there should be some legal recourse for a person who had more sensitive
areas of their body patted/touched/grabbed without consent.
Stacia
Glitter Ninja
>FOr fucks sake, in the workplace I've had women throttle their hands
>around my throat (in front of other women), invite me home for a beer
>(in front of other women), touch, pinch, you name it .... just playing
>games.
You have got to be kidding me. Where do you work?
Stacia
Kathy
> L Sternn wrote:
>
>>IOW, you don't have a problem with unwelcomed sexual advances that
>>include fondling parts of your body which are normally considered
>>private?
>
>
> FOr fucks sake, in the workplace I've had women throttle their hands
> around my throat (in front of other women), invite me home for a beer
> (in front of other women), touch, pinch, you name it .... just playing
> games.
These were all women you know, right? And you do not resist their
advances, right? Quite different from men believing they have every
right to pat any woman's ass they choose to, and that she should just
take it and "lighten up".
Kathy
jls
If she doesn't, it's at least an assault and battery and probably an
aggravated assault with sexual connotations.
Evidence of the circumstances is, of course, important. If she's a person
you ordinarily pat on the fanny, probably OK. If you walk up to a stranger
and do it, no matter how pretty and pattable her cheeks are, prepare to be
arrested.
Dave Symn
>
> Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat ugly
> broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked at you. What
> would you do in response to that?
>
I would say, oh, hello there Aggy.
Dave Symn
> On 18 May 2005 23:06:56 -0700, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>> I tend to agree.
>>>
>>
>>I tender the "fuck me sex dolls" who dress to get masculine attention
>>not do so for their own health and wellbeing.
>>
>>> I can't speak for the nutter you're addressing, but I would not
>>likely
>>> file a criminal charge. Perhaps a more rational response would be to
>>> swat the FLY with the paper. :-)
>>
>>Again, women who dress slutty to get masculine attention often get a
>>response that is sometimes very unwelcome.
>>
>
>
> You think that somehow justifies molesting or raping them?
of course it shouldnt, but there are sick and twisted people in this world.
>
> You're a very sick individual if you do. I for one like seeing girls
> dress sexy, and it would really suck if they all stopped doing so
> because it was interpreted as an invitation to rape.
>
I agree. I also think some women also dress to impress other women. Not to
attract them sexually, but as an almost tribal sort of competitive thing.
Dave Symn
> On 18 May 2005 22:43:10 -0700, "Hyerdahl" <Hyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > Avenger wrote:
>>> > As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find
>>someone
>>> > guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>>
>>Well, criminal court is simply not the proper place to get a civil
>>remedy; she needs to sue him in civil court where there is a remedy for
>>a non-consentual touching.
>
> As I inferred from Heidi's post, I think the best solution for the
> woman who has just had her ass "patted" is for her to kick him in the
> balls and be done with it, but it should be a crime.
Oh. I see. So, he pats an ass gently and your "appropriate response" is a
violent kick in the balls. Instead of, he gets his ass patted in return.
that says a lot more about you than you think.
Dave Symn
>
> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
> breed.
LOL!
another caring, nuturing person.
Dave Symn
> On 18 May 2005 23:51:03 -0700, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>L Sternn wrote:
>>>
>>> You think that somehow justifies molesting or raping them?
>>>
>>
>>Ohhh how gals enjoy the power game of dressing like whores and telling
>>men to fuck off or fuck me where ever it suits!
>>
>
> Some girls do. It's a fucking game and a business in some cases.
>
> Just because they have the power to manipulate you mentally doesn't
> mean you should be allowed to manipulate them physically.
actually, it should be, "just because they have the power to try and
manipulate you, doesnt mean you have to allow them to do it".
"- Prof. Jonez坼
So same thing if somone pats the drunkard Bu$h twin's fanny?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
And is some places, like Texas, using fraudulent ID in the commission of
a crime is a FELONY... unless the SS jackboots are aiding and abetting the
commission of that crime.
tiny dancer
> > May 18, 2005
> > N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
> >
> > NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
> > charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
> > mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
> > that crime.
>
> guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
You pat my ass without an *invitation*, and I'll kick you in the balls. No
crimes? No fouls.
td
GL Fowler
Brutish brutish, sigh hon the only thing touching your ass will be ten
foot poles.
"The best proof of intelligent life in space is that it hasn't come here."
- Sir Arthur C. Clarke
tiny dancer
"GL Fowler" <km...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:onep81lcqcp4eotvd...@4ax.com...
Actually not, I'm more attracted to tall dark and handsome men, most *Poles*
I know are blondish. I much prefer dark-haired men.
td
Messalina
>Ohhh how gals enjoy the power game of dressing like whores and telling
>men to fuck off or fuck me where ever it suits!
That kind of power cannot be taken, it can only be given. If you give
up your power that easily only you are to blame.
Mez
sven...@aol.com
may get yours kicked.
tiny dancer
<sven...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1116525192....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I would have to agree, you pat my wife's (or any man's wife's) ass, you
> may get yours kicked.
Thank you sven, spoken like a true gentleman.
td
>
krp=
"tiny dancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:kX4je.611$CR5...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Pat my wife's ass and they'd take their teeth home in a jar. Those Cuban
gals are rough!
That's not all they'd be risking taking home in a jar either.
Amy
makes an ass cheek any different?
pink parts are pink parts! hands off!
"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> May 18, 2005
> N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
>
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
> charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
> mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
> that crime.
>
> The forcible touching statute requires a person to do more than "touch
> quickly and gently with the flat of the hand," said Criminal Court
> Judge Richard M. Weinberg, citing the definition of "pat" from The New
> Oxford English Dictionary. He said the statute's forcible touching
> language requires "squeezing, grabbing or pinching."
>
> The law is not limited to those types of touching, he said, but its use
> of the word "forcible" implies that a pat does not qualify.
>
> The judge issued his ruling, made public Wednesday, in the case of
> Mohammed Nuruzzaman, 36, a Manhattan fabric store employee. Nuruzzaman
> was accused of twice touching a female customer's rear while she
> shopped in the store, at 227 W. 40th St., on Nov. 2, 2004.
>
> Nuruzzaman was charged with forcible touching, third-degree sex abuse
> and second-degree harassment. A complaint says he touched the customer,
> a student, without her consent and with intent to degrade or abuse her,
> causing her annoyance and alarm.
>
> The judge noted that the state Legislature passed the Sexual Reform Act
> of 2000, which created the crime of forcible touching, in response to
> the widespread sexual assaults that occurred in Central Park following
> that year's Puerto Rican Day parade.
>
> "The plain language of (the law) makes clear that something more than
> mere touching is required under the statute," the judge wrote.
>
> Referring again to his dictionary, he said "forcible" connotes
> something "done by force, vigorous and strong and powerful."
>
> He said the Legislature's use of the word "forcible" in the law "leads
> to the conclusion that a pat on the buttocks, regardless of how
> offensive it might be to the recipient, does not qualify as 'forcible'
> touching under the ordinary and accepted meaning of these words."
>
> If done for sexual reasons, Nuruzzaman's alleged pat would constitute
> third-degree sex abuse but would not rise to the level of forcible, the
> judge wrote.
>
> And although the defense did not challenge the sex abuse charge, the
> judge threw it out, too. He said the complaint did not properly allege
> the crime because it did not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to
> gratify a sexual desire -- a required element in a charge of
> third-degree sex abuse.
>
> The only charge that survived was second-degree harassment, a violation
> considered about as serious as a moving traffic offense.
>
> Nuruzzaman's lawyer, Sam Liebowitz, did not return calls for comment.
>
BTR1701
Wow. That's an amazing non-sequitur. That was such a violent change of
subject, I think I got whiplash.
BTR1701
" \"- Prof. JonezŠ\"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
Damn, it's your day for spectacular non sequiturs.
Obsess much?
Ken Chaddock
> conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>Hyerdahl wrote:
>>
>>The "balls" are in your court, gals.
>
> Actually, no...if a woman wads the nads, in response to pinching the
> butt, the balls are then in HIS court, but civil action may promptly
> turn to criminal action depending on his reaction. :-)
Causing serious bodily harm, such as would be had from "wadding the
nads", in response to a "pat on the bum" would, in any reasonable
jurisdictions, be considered excessive force, and, even if it were
considered appropriate force, since it's unlikely to be ignored since
the "pat on the bum" is a "one time only" act, ANY non-legal act in
response would likely just be considered an act of "revenge" and
therefore assault since there is NO legal justification for hitting
another person except in self defence and a pat on the bum seldom
procedes beyond that stage so "self defence" wouldn't likely "fly" in
court...
We had a incident a few years ago at work where just such a thing
happened, an older man patted one of the younger women "on the bum" and
she turned around and hit him with a binder she was carrying, breaking
his glasses and cutting his face.
He was charged with (and convicted of) a misdomeanor "unwanted
touching" and paid a $50 fine, she was charged with (and convicted of)
criminal assault causing bodily harm, paid a $1500 fine and received a
two year suspended sentence...and now has a criminal record...she was
also fired from her job.
So you'd better be careful what you're advising those bitter girlies to
do there Parg...it might not work out so well for them :-)
...Ken
Asmodeus
@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
> If she doesn't, it's at least an assault and battery and probably an
> aggravated assault with sexual connotations.
Utter horseshit.
--
The best thing about winning the election is all the howling
loony leftist moonbats. I get a warm fuzzy feeling everytime
a liberal squeals.
Ken Chaddock
and if he winks ;-) you just start shooting right ?
Two issues: 1/ if you *retaliate* for a pat on the bum YOU are as
guilty of assault as the person who "patted you on the bum" and
2/ a "kick in the balls" in response to a "pat on the bum" is a
violent response and constitutes a substantial escalation and, even *IF*
it were considered "self defence" would constitute excessive
force...remember, there IS NO legal justification for retallation...only
self defence and you can't "defend" yourself after the fact...
...Ken
L Sternn
Fair enough.
L Sternn
How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
asses?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
"- Prof. Jonez坼
jsn
Amy wrote:
> i doubt that "patting" breasts or penises is considered alright, so
what
> makes an ass cheek any different?
> pink parts are pink parts! hands off!
L Sternn
wrote:
>> > > Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat
>> > > ugly broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked
>> > > at you. What would you do in response to that?
>> >
>> > Just tell her to fuck off.
>>
>> So same thing if somone pats the drunkard Bu$h twin's fanny?
>
>Wow. That's an amazing non-sequitur. That was such a violent change of
>subject, I think I got whiplash.
Heh - it all boils down to partisan politics for some people.
L Sternn
<tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Brutish brutish, sigh hon the only thing touching your ass will be ten
>> foot poles.
>
>
>Actually not, I'm more attracted to tall dark and handsome men, most *Poles*
>I know are blondish. I much prefer dark-haired men.
>
But a 10 foot Pole would probably pull down a hell of a salary in the
NBA.
Andre Lieven
L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) writes:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>> breed.
Sexist bigots demand a " right " to assault, without any consequence,
men, while decrying any impoliteness to women...
>>LOL!
>>
>>another caring, nuturing person.
>
> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
> asses?
A lot more than anyone committing illegal acts of *violence*.
People who cannot tell the difference, ought to turn off their computers,
and stick to watching killer slash movies, where there is no degrees to
actions.
Andre
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
L Sternn
<chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>tiny dancer wrote:
>> "Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:_XTie.7599$_f7.5219@trndny01...
>>
>>>"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>May 18, 2005
>>>>N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
>>>>
>>>>NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
>>>>charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
>>>>mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
>>>>that crime.
>>>
>>>As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find someone
>>>guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>> You pat my ass without an *invitation*, and I'll kick you in the balls. No
>> crimes? No fouls.
>
> and if he winks ;-) you just start shooting right ?
>
> Two issues: 1/ if you *retaliate* for a pat on the bum YOU are as
>guilty of assault as the person who "patted you on the bum" and
No, not as guilty because there were mitigating circumstances.
I suppose the person who touched her ass could try to claim there were
mitigating factors for him too, since her ass was just so fine he
couldn't resist touching it.
> 2/ a "kick in the balls" in response to a "pat on the bum" is a
>violent response and constitutes a substantial escalation and, even *IF*
>it were considered "self defence" would constitute excessive
>force...
That's arguable - If the man is bigger than his victim there is
certainly a degree of intimidation and there is definitely a threat of
him doing more than just touching if he sees that he can get away with
it.
>remember, there IS NO legal justification for retallation...only
>self defence and you can't "defend" yourself after the fact...
But how would one know that the assault was over?
>
>...Ken
L Sternn
>
>L Sternn wrote:
>>
>> IOW, you don't have a problem with unwelcomed sexual advances that
>> include fondling parts of your body which are normally considered
>> private?
>
>FOr fucks sake, in the workplace I've had women throttle their hands
>around my throat (in front of other women), invite me home for a beer
>(in front of other women), touch, pinch, you name it .... just playing
>games.
>
But those are women that you know well enough that there is a mutual
understanding that certain things are okay.
It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that in this case,
the touching was not welcome.
HTH
<snip>
>SHEESH.
yeah - how anyone could liken this to friendly horseplay among
co-workers is beyond me.
L Sternn
I'll take a stab at it. They would be grabbed by secret service
agents within seconds who would find out exactly who he was and then
the agents would probably ask the Bush girl if she wanted them to send
him to Gitmo.
She'd probably say don't bother, just tell him he'd better watch his
back.
The following week his body mysteriously ends up in a drainage ditch.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
jls
"Asmodeus" <asmo...@REMOVEinsightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Xns965BA3814B7EDas...@204.127.204.17...
> " jls" <jls...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:zh1je.19$CR5.12
> @bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>
> > If she doesn't, it's at least an assault and battery and probably an
> > aggravated assault with sexual connotations.
>
> Utter horseshit.
>
Huhoh. I have caught Asmodoofus writing again before he's learned to read.
It's a sexual touching, Asmodoofus, and that aggravates a simple assault and
battery, enhancing the punishment. My state has a statute on it. If you
don't live in a banana republic yours probably does too.
L Sternn
wrote:
>
>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) writes:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
>> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>>> breed.
>
>Sexist bigots demand a " right " to assault, without any consequence,
Yes, you guys do seem to be doing that.
Okay, maybe not assault, but certainly 2nd degree harassment.
>men, while decrying any impoliteness to women...
I don't care if you're touching a woman's ass or a man's ass. It's
wrong.
How would you react if you were shopping and one of the male employees
came up to you and TWICE patted your ass?
In fact, it sounds like this guy got lucky because the prosecutor
fucked up.
IOW, the only reason he wasn't convicted of 3rd degree sex abuse is
that "the complaint did not properly allege the crime because it did
not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to gratify a sexual desire -- a
required element in a charge of third-degree sex abuse."
Do you think he touched her ass TWICE and didn't think anything
sexual?
>
>>>LOL!
>>>
>>>another caring, nuturing person.
>>
>> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
>> asses?
>
>A lot more than anyone committing illegal acts of *violence*.
Not when they only escaped a sex abuse conviction on a technicality.
>
>People who cannot tell the difference, ought to turn off their computers,
>and stick to watching killer slash movies, where there is no degrees to
>actions.
>
So how would you react to a man patting your ass more than once?
>Andre
conn...@hotmail.com
L Sternn wrote:
> On 19 May 2005 06:07:16 -0700, conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> But those are women that you know well enough that there is a mutual
> understanding that certain things are okay.
>
I had only been at the workplace a few weeks; she told me "I know you
like it" [the touching]
> It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that in this case,
> the touching was not welcome.
>
I must admit one particular pinch on the bottomasshole did hurt!
> yeah - how anyone could liken this to friendly horseplay among
> co-workers is beyond me.
Girls tempt men and thats okay; men who tempt women ... tempt their own
careers. Its because women control sex/social.
BTR1701
" \"- Prof. JonezŠ\"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <Mm2je.38$oI2....@news.uswest.net>,
Nope.
Obsess much?
conn...@hotmail.com
Avenger wrote:
> "L Sternn" <linc...@hm.net> wrote in message
> news:pubo811kq7t5aj0rp...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:43:54 GMT, "Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk>
wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> If done for sexual reasons, Nuruzzaman's alleged pat would
constitute
> > >> third-degree sex abuse
> > >
know if
> it
> > >was for sexual reasons?
> >
> > Are you saying you would be comfortable having your ass patted by
> > other guys?
>
> I wouldn't file a complaint over it lol
Me neither, I'd be flattered, given my "fat, butt ugly, pimpled, geek"
look. ;-0)
Only the insecure cry to big moooma over such trivialities.
A pinch on the bumb!
Avenger, call the United Nations, we got pinched on the bum, a crime
against our humanity!!!!!!!
BTR1701
" \"- Prof. JonezŠ\"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <vl2je.37$oI2...@news.uswest.net>,
No reason why I shouldn't "evade". That's what one does with nutjobs.
I'm discussing an entirely different issue here. I'm under no obligation
to drop whatever I'm currently talking about with others and respond to
you every time you go off your meds and start obsessing over this one
thing year after year after year.
Andre Lieven
L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) blabs kindergarten lies:
> On 19 May 2005 23:30:43 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) writes:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
>>> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>>>> breed.
>>
>>Sexist bigots demand a " right " to assault, without any consequence,
>
> Yes, you guys do seem to be doing that.
Non sequitur. It was the " defenders of women's asses " who claimed
to a right to commit felonious assault for such an act.
> Okay, maybe not assault, but certainly 2nd degree harassment.
Thus, failing to rise to the " imminent danger " aspect of self
defense.
Thus, anyone who *assaulted* a " pincher " would themselves, be guilty
of a major crime.
>>men, while decrying any impoliteness to women...
>
> I don't care if you're touching a woman's ass or a man's ass. It's
> wrong.
But, its NOT assault...
> How would you react if you were shopping and one of the male employees
> came up to you and TWICE patted your ass?
Tell them to stop it. Tell them that you'll tell their boss.
> In fact, it sounds like this guy got lucky because the prosecutor
> fucked up.
Perhaps. My point was about the loons who claimed a " right to
commit assault " for an ass pat.
> IOW, the only reason he wasn't convicted of 3rd degree sex abuse is
> that "the complaint did not properly allege the crime because it did
> not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to gratify a sexual desire -- a
> required element in a charge of third-degree sex abuse."
Well then, then that wasn't an act of 3rd degree sex abuse. In which
case, his not being found guilty of such, was proper justice.
> Do you think he touched her ass TWICE and didn't think anything
> sexual?
Not at issue. Its the prosecution's burden to prove that.
>>>>LOL!
>>>>
>>>>another caring, nuturing person.
>>>
>>> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
>>> asses?
>>
>>A lot more than anyone committing illegal acts of *violence*.
>
> Not when they only escaped a sex abuse conviction on a technicality.
LOL ! Yeah, the " technicality " of not having committed a sex crime.
>>People who cannot tell the difference, ought to turn off their computers,
>>and stick to watching killer slash movies, where there is no degrees to
>>actions.
>
> So how would you react to a man patting your ass more than once?
Man, woman, if someone were doing such, it would first be my responsibility
to react appropriately, and without " going nuclear ", unlike the defenders
of women assault claiming loons.
L Sternn
wrote:
>
>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) blabs kindergarten lies:
>> On 19 May 2005 23:30:43 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) writes:
>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
>>>> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>>>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>>>>> breed.
>>>
>>>Sexist bigots demand a " right " to assault, without any consequence,
>>
>> Yes, you guys do seem to be doing that.
>
>Non sequitur. It was the " defenders of women's asses " who claimed
>to a right to commit felonious assault for such an act.
>
I didn't necessarily say it was a "right", I just said I think it's an
appropriate response.
>> Okay, maybe not assault, but certainly 2nd degree harassment.
>
>Thus, failing to rise to the " imminent danger " aspect of self
>defense.
Hey, he thought it was okay to touch her ass, so she can safely assume
it's okay if she puts her foot on his nuts.
Besides, it's like a reflex action that is done in the spur of the
moment. "Fight or flight" thing, mitigating circumstances.
Give her deferred adjudication assuming she has an otherwise clean
record and give the guy a small fine and a few hours of community
service as long as he isn't a repeat offender.
>
>Thus, anyone who *assaulted* a " pincher " would themselves, be guilty
>of a major crime.
Not in this jurors opinion.
>
>>>men, while decrying any impoliteness to women...
>>
>> I don't care if you're touching a woman's ass or a man's ass. It's
>> wrong.
>
>But, its NOT assault...
But it's not merely "impolite".
>
>> How would you react if you were shopping and one of the male employees
>> came up to you and TWICE patted your ass?
>
>Tell them to stop it. Tell them that you'll tell their boss.
>
doormat
>> In fact, it sounds like this guy got lucky because the prosecutor
>> fucked up.
>
>Perhaps. My point was about the loons who claimed a " right to
>commit assault " for an ass pat.
>
I never called it a "right".
I simply think someone with the unmitigated audacity to touch
strangers asses deserve to be kicked in the balls.
There's a big difference.
>> IOW, the only reason he wasn't convicted of 3rd degree sex abuse is
>> that "the complaint did not properly allege the crime because it did
>> not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to gratify a sexual desire -- a
>> required element in a charge of third-degree sex abuse."
>
>Well then, then that wasn't an act of 3rd degree sex abuse.
No, it simply means the prosecutor fucked up. Proving he did it to
gratify a sexual desire might not have been possible, but in my
opinion he thought she had a nice ass and wanted to touch it because
it turned him on.
Why do you think he did it?
>In which
>case, his not being found guilty of such, was proper justice.
He simply wasn't found guilty of that, although I believe he was.
Perhaps the judge didn't think it fair to make someone register as a
"sex offender" simply for patting someone on the ass.
I agree - people think the worst when they hear "sex offender", and
it's not really fair to make someone wear that label if all they did
was pat someone on the ass.
We shouldn't register people as sex offenders at all IMO. The ones we
really need to worry about should never be let out of prison in the
first place.
>
>> Do you think he touched her ass TWICE and didn't think anything
>> sexual?
>
>Not at issue. Its the prosecution's burden to prove that.
And like I said, the prosecutor fucked up. I believe it was sexual in
nature although I'd love to hear an alternative explanation
>
>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>
>>>>>another caring, nuturing person.
>>>>
>>>> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
>>>> asses?
>>>
>>>A lot more than anyone committing illegal acts of *violence*.
>>
>> Not when they only escaped a sex abuse conviction on a technicality.
>
>LOL ! Yeah, the " technicality " of not having committed a sex crime.
>
No, the prosecutor just sucked or maybe he purposely failed to make
his case as he thought the guy was being punished enough.
>>>People who cannot tell the difference, ought to turn off their computers,
>>>and stick to watching killer slash movies, where there is no degrees to
>>>actions.
>>
>> So how would you react to a man patting your ass more than once?
>
>Man, woman, if someone were doing such, it would first be my responsibility
>to react appropriately, and without " going nuclear ", unlike the defenders
>of women assault claiming loons.
A swift kick in the nuts isn't "going nuclear".
"Going nuclear" would be beating them to a pulp.
All I'm saying is if you go around groping women you don't know,
expect one or more of them to retaliate someday and in my opinion you
would deserve a kick in the balls.
That's just so much simpler than making a court case out of it and it
serves as a good deterrent too.
>
>Andre
>
Thomas Baskette
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote in message
news:vl2je.37$oI2...@news.uswest.net...
> BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <hnUie.1408994$Xk.11541@pd7tw3no>,
>> "Heidi Graw" <heid...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > > news:_XTie.7599$_f7.5219@trndny01...
>> > >
>> > > "MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > May 18, 2005
>> > > > N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
>> > > >
>> > > > NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible
>> > > > touching charge filed against a man who patted a woman's
>> > > > buttocks, ruling that a mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted,
>> > > > does not rise to the level of that crime.
>> >
>> > > Avenger wrote:
>> > > As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to
>> > > find someone guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>> >
>> > Private reprisal would have probably be far more effective in this
>> > case than trying to get the courts to punish this guy for his
>> > insolent behavior.
>> >
>> > Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat
>> > ugly broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked
>> > at you. What would you do in response to that?
>>
>> Just tell her to fuck off.
>
> So same thing if somone pats the drunkard Bu$h twin's fanny?
>
>
That will be twenty dollars please!
Thomas Baskette
"jsn" <jano...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1116543852....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Now there's a distinction. What if someone's color-blind? Does that make it
ok? What if we do what animals do, lean down and smell it instead? To whom
would that offensive to: the smeller or smellee? In fact, that might deter
the whole touching thing.
Dustbin
>>"Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:_XTie.7599$_f7.5219@trndny01...
>>
>>"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>>news:1116464790.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>May 18, 2005
>>>N.Y. Judge Tosses Forcible Touching Charge
>>>
>>>NEW YORK (AP) -- A Manhattan judge has dismissed a forcible touching
>>>charge filed against a man who patted a woman's buttocks, ruling that a
>>>mere pat on the rear, even if unwanted, does not rise to the level of
>>>that crime.
>
>
>>Avenger wrote:
>>As any reasonable people already knows. It would be absurd to find someone
>>guilty of a crime for such trivial nonsense.
>
>
> Private reprisal would have probably be far more effective in this case than
> trying to get the courts to punish this guy for his insolent behavior.
>
> Now the question: Let's say you were at the newstand and some fat ugly
> broad with a gazillion zits patted you on the butt and winked at you. What
> would you do in response to that?
>
Run ;-)
D.
> Heidi
>
>
>
conn...@hotmail.com
Glitter Ninja wrote:
> conn...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> >FOr fucks sake, in the workplace I've had women throttle their hands
> >around my throat (in front of other women), invite me home for a
beer
> >(in front of other women), touch, pinch, you name it .... just
playing
> >games.
>
>
At the local wimins centre for gender justice.
conn...@hotmail.com
L Sternn wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:31:29 GMT, "Falky foo"
> <falk...@bonksbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> The SILENT masses of sexually deprived men want sex no matter how
they
> >> get it.
> >
> >And, um, something tells me you're one of them.
> >
>
> You've quite the talent for stating the obvious.
Ahhhh no, some men just don't find sex all that interesting or
important.
Asmodeus
news:1N9je.1871$6k7...@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> It's a sexual touching, Asmodoofus, and that aggravates a simple
> assault and battery, enhancing the punishment. My state has a
> statute on it.
Oh no doubt. That's what we get when we let liberals vote, idiotic
laws and restrictions that demonstrate absolutely no sense of
proportion or damage whatsoever.
Hell, patting somebody on the ass may be puishable by the death
penalty in your state--but that sure as the fuck doesn't mean
that it can in any way be called assault, molestation or rape.
--
The best thing about winning the election is all the howling
loony leftist moonbats. I get a warm fuzzy feeling everytime
a liberal squeals.
L Sternn
Are you capable of following simply English?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
>
> > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article <Mm2je.38$oI2....@news.uswest.net>,
> > >
> > > > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > > In article <_XTie.7599$_f7.5219@trndny01>,
> > > > > "Avenger" <m...@avengers.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > > The only charge that survived was second-degree
> > > > > > > harassment, a violation considered about as serious as a
> > > > > > > moving traffic offense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not a crime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Depends on the jurisdiction. In some places, a moving
> > > > > violation is a (minor) criminal offense.
> > > >
> > > > And is some places, like Texas, using fraudulent ID in the
> > > > commission of a crime is a FELONY... unless the SS jackboots are
> > > > aiding and abetting the commission of that crime.
> > >
> > > Damn, it's your day for spectacular non sequiturs.
> > >
> > > Obsess much?
> >
> > Aid and abet felons/felonies much?
>
> Nope.
Liar.
>
> Obsess much?
Aid and abet felons in the commission of felonies much?
"- Prof. Jonez坼
>
> > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article <vl2je.37$oI2...@news.uswest.net>,
Your continued and habitual evasion is noted.
Dave Symn
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>> breed.
>>
>>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>another caring, nuturing person.
>>
>>
>
> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
> asses?
classic self-excusal tactic, "i'm not bad, because somebody else is so much
worse"
Dave Symn
> So you'd better be careful what you're advising those bitter girlies to
> do there Parg...it might not work out so well for them :-)
>
LOL! hell, she's only advocating they all buy guns and kill men, what harm
could come from that?
Dave Symn
>
> I don't care if you're touching a woman's ass or a man's ass. It's
> wrong.
>
>
I agree.
However i think a reply of a violent kick to the testicles is just as
wrong.
BTR1701
" \"- Prof. JonezŠ\"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <KA8je.894$XT1....@news.uswest.net>,
> > " \"- Prof. JonezŠ\"" <jo...@norcom.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > In article <vl2je.37$oI2...@news.uswest.net>,
Good. When you finish that notebook, send me a copy. I'll laugh.
Andre Lieven
L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) displayed shocking ignorance:
> On 20 May 2005 02:12:13 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
> wrote:
>
>>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) blabs kindergarten lies:
>>> On 19 May 2005 23:30:43 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) writes:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
>>>>> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>>>>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>>>>>> breed.
>>>>
>>>>Sexist bigots demand a " right " to assault, without any consequence,
>>>
>>> Yes, you guys do seem to be doing that.
>>
>>Non sequitur. It was the " defenders of women's asses " who claimed
>>to a right to commit felonious assault for such an act.
>>
> I didn't necessarily say it was a "right", I just said I think it's an
> appropriate response.
Non sequitur. " Appropriate responses " are considered to be " right ".
A wrong act would be an INappropriate response.
In this case, an act of criminal assault would NOT be either/or right
or " appropriate ", unless one was a sexist bigot.
>>> Okay, maybe not assault, but certainly 2nd degree harassment.
>>
>>Thus, failing to rise to the " imminent danger " aspect of self
>>defense.
>
> Hey, he thought it was okay to touch her ass, so she can safely assume
> it's okay if she puts her foot on his nuts.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
The LAW doesn't see it your way, so, once again, your claim is neither
right nor appropriate...
> Besides, it's like a reflex action that is done in the spur of the
> moment. "Fight or flight" thing, mitigating circumstances.
Thank you for pointing out your view that women are mindless automatons.
> Give her deferred adjudication assuming she has an otherwise clean
> record and give the guy a small fine and a few hours of community
> service as long as he isn't a repeat offender.
Hmm.. Since you show AbZero understanding of the law, we can safely
place this sexist sow view into the bozo bin, where it " appropriately "
belongs...
" No one is entitled to their opinion. They are only entitled to an
*informed* opinion. " Harlan Ellison.
>>Thus, anyone who *assaulted* a " pincher " would themselves, be guilty
>>of a major crime.
>
> Not in this jurors opinion.
Irrelevent.
>>>>men, while decrying any impoliteness to women...
>>>
>>> I don't care if you're touching a woman's ass or a man's ass. It's
>>> wrong.
>>
>>But, its NOT assault...
>
> But it's not merely "impolite".
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>>> How would you react if you were shopping and one of the male employees
>>> came up to you and TWICE patted your ass?
>>
>>Tell them to stop it. Tell them that you'll tell their boss.
>
> doormat
" Ad hominem: The last refuge of the fact free scoundrel. "
>>> In fact, it sounds like this guy got lucky because the prosecutor
>>> fucked up.
>>
>>Perhaps. My point was about the loons who claimed a " right to
>>commit assault " for an ass pat.
>
> I never called it a "right".
Wrong.
> I simply think someone with the unmitigated audacity to touch
> strangers asses deserve to be kicked in the balls.
IOW, you claim that its a right. Got it.
> There's a big difference.
" A difference which makes NO difference IS no difference. " James
Blish.
>>> IOW, the only reason he wasn't convicted of 3rd degree sex abuse is
>>> that "the complaint did not properly allege the crime because it did
>>> not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to gratify a sexual desire -- a
>>> required element in a charge of third-degree sex abuse."
>>
>>Well then, then that wasn't an act of 3rd degree sex abuse.
>
> No, it simply means the prosecutor fucked up.
No proof offered ? Claim and charge fails.
> Proving he did it to
> gratify a sexual desire might not have been possible, but in my
> opinion he thought she had a nice ass and wanted to touch it because
> it turned him on.
Thank you for proving that, as with the Feminist anti sex loons
still out there, you view any act where a man might even imagine a
sexual connection to be evil and criminal.
Congratulations: You are hereby proven to be a sufferer of the
bbrain rot known as " Feminism ". We can thus safely understand
the pathology of your misandristic views now.
> Why do you think he did it?
Don't know. Don't care. The point that an act of criminal assault
NOT being an " appropriate response " is my point, and the law's
point.
>>In which
>>case, his not being found guilty of such, was proper justice.
>
> He simply wasn't found guilty of that, although I believe he was.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> Perhaps the judge didn't think it fair to make someone register as a
> "sex offender" simply for patting someone on the ass.
" Perhaps ", the sign that the Feminist is about to create unsupported
*fiction*...
> I agree - people think the worst when they hear "sex offender", and
> it's not really fair to make someone wear that label if all they did
> was pat someone on the ass.
Then, it is NOT " appropriate " to treat such an act as that.
> We shouldn't register people as sex offenders at all IMO. The ones we
> really need to worry about should never be let out of prison in the
> first place.
<yawn> See Ellison.
>>> Do you think he touched her ass TWICE and didn't think anything
>>> sexual?
>>
>>Not at issue. Its the prosecution's burden to prove that.
>
> And like I said, the prosecutor fucked up.
No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> I believe it was sexual in
> nature although I'd love to hear an alternative explanation
Ever notice football players patting each other's asses in a show
of " well done " ? There you go...
>>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>another caring, nuturing person.
>>>>>
>>>>> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
>>>>> asses?
>>>>
>>>>A lot more than anyone committing illegal acts of *violence*.
>>>
>>> Not when they only escaped a sex abuse conviction on a technicality.
>>
>>LOL ! Yeah, the " technicality " of not having committed a sex crime.
>
> No, the prosecutor just sucked or maybe he purposely failed to make
> his case as he thought the guy was being punished enough.
IOW, you know AbZero, but you *wish* that it were so.
Got it. See Ellison.
>>>>People who cannot tell the difference, ought to turn off their computers,
>>>>and stick to watching killer slash movies, where there is no degrees to
>>>>actions.
>>>
>>> So how would you react to a man patting your ass more than once?
>>
>>Man, woman, if someone were doing such, it would first be my responsibility
>>to react appropriately, and without " going nuclear ", unlike the defenders
>>of women assault claiming loons.
>
> A swift kick in the nuts isn't "going nuclear".
According to criminal law, it IS.
> "Going nuclear" would be beating them to a pulp.
That would be " continuing nuclear ".
> All I'm saying is if you go around groping women you don't know,
> expect one or more of them to retaliate someday and in my opinion you
> would deserve a kick in the balls.
" All I'm saying is that if you go around spouting misandry, expect
one or more men to retailiate someday and in my opinion you would
deserve a kick in the clit. "
If it's sexism, when aimed at women, then it's the same sexism when
aimed at men.
> That's just so much simpler than making a court case out of it and it
> serves as a good deterrent too.
Yes, sufferers of your chosen brain rot clearly cannot grasp the
complexities of modern life and law.
That why we don't make policy on your simplistic and sexist views.
HTH.
Hyerdahl
conn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hyerdahl wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree.
> >
>
> I tender the "fuck me sex dolls" who dress to get masculine attention
> not do so for their own health and wellbeing.
>
> > I can't speak for the nutter you're addressing, but I would not
> likely> file a criminal charge. Perhaps a more rational response
would be to> swat the FLY with the paper. :-)
>
> Again, women who dress slutty to get masculine attention often get a
> response that is sometimes very unwelcome.
>
> The "balls" are in your court, gals.
Actually, women can dress as they please AND defend themselves up to
and including reasonable, even when deadly, force. A woman who is
touched by a man's hand will be entitled to swat his balls. No
problem.
David Chesler
> You think that a simple pat is equivalent to battery.
Pretty much is in most places.
Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.) says "bodily injury or an offensive
touching"
California Penal Code section 242 says
A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
upon the person of another.
I forget who adds "No matter how slight", but see Copwatch,
http://www.copwatch.org/reforms.html item 30:
For example, in some states, any "unwanted touching" of a
police
officer, no matter how slight that touch may be, constitutes
a felony
offense (a high-degree assault or battery, which is sure to
be
prosecuted to the maximum extent). However, a civilian
touching
another civilian in exactly the same manner constitutes
merely a
misdemeanor (and the transgression is unlikely to be charged
or
prosecuted).
That's for the non-sexual. "Forcible touching" is a sex offense in
NYS, Penal Code 130.52, and required elements include:
- sexual or intimate parts, and
- for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person; or for the
purpose of gratifying the actor`s sexual desire.
I can see that either a pat on the ass nor a kick in the balls might
not be forcible touching.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
Hyerdahl
David Chesler wrote:
> Avenger writes:
> > You think that a simple pat is equivalent to battery.
>
> Pretty much is in most places.
> Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed.) says "bodily injury or an offensive
> touching"
That definition is only appropriate to civil battery, which means, she
may, if she chooses file a civil claim. Most criminal offenses require
a bit more.
>
> California Penal Code section 242 says
> A battery is any willful and unlawful use of force or violence
> upon the person of another.
Right, and that is where the judge or jury has some lattitude.
>
> I forget who adds "No matter how slight", but see Copwatch,
> http://www.copwatch.org/reforms.html item 30:
> For example, in some states, any "unwanted touching" of a
> police> officer, no matter how slight that touch may be,
constitutes
> a felony
> offense (a high-degree assault or battery, which is sure to
> be
> prosecuted to the maximum extent). However, a civilian
> touching
> another civilian in exactly the same manner constitutes
> merely a
> misdemeanor (and the transgression is unlikely to be
charged
> or
> prosecuted).
>
> That's for the non-sexual. "Forcible touching" is a sex offense in
> NYS, Penal Code 130.52, and required elements include:
> - sexual or intimate parts, and
> - for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person; or for the
> purpose of gratifying the actor`s sexual desire.
>
Not all ass-touchings ARE sexual. For example, look at all those ball
players who do grab ass. What about a spank for a child? What about a
pat for effect, i.e. "you bad boy/girl". Proving sexual gratification
may be a bit more difficult in a criminal matter, whereas civil battery
is much easier to show.
> I can see that either a pat on the ass nor a kick in the balls might
> not be forcible touching.
Sure. Like I said, if I was the person being touched that way, I'd
simply respond in kind, if not in kindness. :-) In fact, I might just
embarass the person asking why he or she did what they did.
Ken Chaddock
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:50:46 GMT, Ken Chaddock
> <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>>>You pat my ass without an *invitation*, and I'll kick you in the balls. No
>>>crimes? No fouls.
>>
>> and if he winks ;-) you just start shooting right ?
>>
>> Two issues: 1/ if you *retaliate* for a pat on the bum YOU are as
>>guilty of assault as the person who "patted you on the bum" and
>
> No, not as guilty because there were mitigating circumstances.
Then you would be entirely wrong. You have NO right to retaliate or to
seek revenge other than via the police and the courts. I'll give you
another example. If I were to walk up to you on the street and punch you
in the face, then turn and walk away, you have NO LEGAL RIGHT to accost
me, you can call the police and perfer charges against me but if you
strike me *back*, you are "retaliating" and you have no legal right to
do so and you to will be charged with assault...that's the law, like it
or not...it's there to stop the "Hatfields and McCoys" situations...
> I suppose the person who touched her ass could try to claim there were
> mitigating factors for him too, since her ass was just so fine he
> couldn't resist touching it.
Nope, there were no "legal" mitigating circumstances The only possible
legal mitigatinbg circumstance for him would be if he can make a
credible claim that she, by word or deed, "invited" him to touch her...
>
>> 2/ a "kick in the balls" in response to a "pat on the bum" is a
>>violent response and constitutes a substantial escalation and, even *IF*
>>it were considered "self defence" would constitute excessive
>>force...
>
> That's arguable - If the man is bigger than his victim there is
> certainly a degree of intimidation and there is definitely a threat of
> him doing more than just touching if he sees that he can get away with
> it.
If she were to be able to make a credible claim that he tried to do
more than just "pat her on the bum" she would have a credible "self
defence" argument however if he "patted her on the bum" then walked away
or made no further move toward her she would be hard pressed to make
such a claim...
>>remember, there IS NO legal justification for retallation...only
>>self defence and you can't "defend" yourself after the fact...
>
> But how would one know that the assault was over?
A "pat on the bum" isn't an assault, at best it rises to the lavel of
"unwanted touching"...legally, you have to go fairly far beyond a "pat
on the bum" to get to assault...
...Ken
L Sternn
<chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>L Sternn wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 21:50:46 GMT, Ken Chaddock
>> <chad...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>You pat my ass without an *invitation*, and I'll kick you in the balls. No
>>>>crimes? No fouls.
>>>
>>> and if he winks ;-) you just start shooting right ?
>>>
>>> Two issues: 1/ if you *retaliate* for a pat on the bum YOU are as
>>>guilty of assault as the person who "patted you on the bum" and
>>
>> No, not as guilty because there were mitigating circumstances.
>
> Then you would be entirely wrong. You have NO right to retaliate or to
>seek revenge other than via the police and the courts.
Show me where I said it was a "right".
> I'll give you
>another example. If I were to walk up to you on the street and punch you
>in the face, then turn and walk away, you have NO LEGAL RIGHT to accost
>me, you can call the police and perfer charges against me but if you
>strike me *back*, you are "retaliating" and you have no legal right to
>do so and you to will be charged with assault...that's the law,
Well, you'd have to prove me guilty first.
From where I was standing, it sure looked like you were just gearing
up for another swing.
> like it
>or not...it's there to stop the "Hatfields and McCoys" situations...
>
>> I suppose the person who touched her ass could try to claim there were
>> mitigating factors for him too, since her ass was just so fine he
>> couldn't resist touching it.
>
> Nope, there were no "legal" mitigating circumstances
Each case is decided on its own merits and certain people receive the
maximum sentence, and certain other people are given a slap on the
wrist.
That's why there is a judge and a jury to consider all the facts of
the case and make sure the punishment fits the crime.
HTH.
> The only possible
>legal mitigatinbg circumstance for him would be if he can make a
>credible claim that she, by word or deed, "invited" him to touch her...
That's not a mitigating circumstance, that's a completely different
scenario.
Perhaps you don't understand what mitigating means.
Try using a dictionary.
>>
>>> 2/ a "kick in the balls" in response to a "pat on the bum" is a
>>>violent response and constitutes a substantial escalation and, even *IF*
>>>it were considered "self defence" would constitute excessive
>>>force...
>>
>> That's arguable - If the man is bigger than his victim there is
>> certainly a degree of intimidation and there is definitely a threat of
>> him doing more than just touching if he sees that he can get away with
>> it.
>
> If she were to be able to make a credible claim that he tried to do
>more than just "pat her on the bum" she would have a credible "self
>defence" argument however if he "patted her on the bum" then walked away
>or made no further move toward her she would be hard pressed to make
>such a claim...
In this particular case, he not only didn't walk away, he did it
again.
It certainly seems to me like this was a case of an ongoing attack on
this woman's ass.
>
>>>remember, there IS NO legal justification for retallation...only
>>>self defence and you can't "defend" yourself after the fact...
>>
>> But how would one know that the assault was over?
>
> A "pat on the bum" isn't an assault, at best it rises to the lavel of
>"unwanted touching"...legally, you have to go fairly far beyond a "pat
>on the bum" to get to assault...
If you swing your fist at my face, technically, it's not an assault
until you make contact.
Often the first volley in an attack is something that seems relatively
innocuous.
>
>...Ken
L Sternn
<DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:58:31 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
>> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>>> breed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL!
>>>
>>>another caring, nuturing person.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
>> asses?
>
>
>
>classic self-excusal tactic, "i'm not bad, because somebody else is so much
>worse"
I'm not making excuses for myself, however you seem to be making
excuses for the guy who goes around groping people's asses.
L Sternn
wrote:
>
>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) displayed shocking ignorance:
>> On 20 May 2005 02:12:13 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) blabs kindergarten lies:
>>>> On 19 May 2005 23:30:43 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>L Sternn (linc...@hm.net) writes:
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:50:38 -0400, Dave Symn
>>>>>> <DSymn...@yahoo.comnope> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 19 May 2005 00:35:13 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit - if you can't take a kick in the balls after molesting an
>>>>>>>> unwilling female, then you're a pussy who shouldn't be allowed to
>>>>>>>> breed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sexist bigots demand a " right " to assault, without any consequence,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you guys do seem to be doing that.
>>>
>>>Non sequitur. It was the " defenders of women's asses " who claimed
>>>to a right to commit felonious assault for such an act.
>>>
>> I didn't necessarily say it was a "right", I just said I think it's an
>> appropriate response.
>
>Non sequitur. " Appropriate responses " are considered to be " right ".
>A wrong act would be an INappropriate response.
Wrong.
>
>In this case, an act of criminal assault would NOT be either/or right
>or " appropriate ", unless one was a sexist bigot.
Hey, if a man touched me on the ass, I just may kick him in the balls
too.
There's nothing sexist about it.
>
>>>> Okay, maybe not assault, but certainly 2nd degree harassment.
>>>
>>>Thus, failing to rise to the " imminent danger " aspect of self
>>>defense.
>>
>> Hey, he thought it was okay to touch her ass, so she can safely assume
>> it's okay if she puts her foot on his nuts.
>
>No proof offered ? Claim fails.
No proof needed.
>
>The LAW doesn't see it your way, so, once again, your claim is neither
>right nor appropriate...
I never said it would be legal.
>
>> Besides, it's like a reflex action that is done in the spur of the
>> moment. "Fight or flight" thing, mitigating circumstances.
>
>Thank you for pointing out your view that women are mindless automatons.
No, once again, you misintrepret me.
Is it on purpose or are you really just that ignorant?
>
>> Give her deferred adjudication assuming she has an otherwise clean
>> record and give the guy a small fine and a few hours of community
>> service as long as he isn't a repeat offender.
>
>Hmm.. Since you show AbZero understanding of the law,
Wrong.
>we can safely
>place this sexist sow view into the bozo bin, where it " appropriately "
>belongs...
Courts will pass sentences as they see fit.
It is the reason everyone does not receive the same sentence for the
same crime.
There is nothing inherently sexist about that.
>
>" No one is entitled to their opinion. They are only entitled to an
>*informed* opinion. " Harlan Ellison.
Let us know when you are ready to join us in reality.
>
>>>Thus, anyone who *assaulted* a " pincher " would themselves, be guilty
>>>of a major crime.
>>
>> Not in this jurors opinion.
>
>Irrelevent.
>
Not if I'm on the jury.
>>>>>men, while decrying any impoliteness to women...
>>>>
>>>> I don't care if you're touching a woman's ass or a man's ass. It's
>>>> wrong.
>>>
>>>But, its NOT assault...
>>
>> But it's not merely "impolite".
>
>No proof offered ? Claim fails.
No proof offered that it is merely impolite.
In fact, the court in this case disagreed with you.
>
>>>> How would you react if you were shopping and one of the male employees
>>>> came up to you and TWICE patted your ass?
>>>
>>>Tell them to stop it. Tell them that you'll tell their boss.
>>
>> doormat
>
>" Ad hominem: The last refuge of the fact free scoundrel. "
I just call 'em as I see them. If you can't take it, don't bother
replying.
Furthermore, you've already offered such attacks, so you're also a
hypocrite.
>
>>>> In fact, it sounds like this guy got lucky because the prosecutor
>>>> fucked up.
>>>
>>>Perhaps. My point was about the loons who claimed a " right to
>>>commit assault " for an ass pat.
>>
>> I never called it a "right".
>
>Wrong.
Then please provide the quote.
>
>> I simply think someone with the unmitigated audacity to touch
>> strangers asses deserve to be kicked in the balls.
>
>IOW, you claim that its a right. Got it.
You're wrong.
>
>> There's a big difference.
>
>" A difference which makes NO difference IS no difference. " James
>Blish.
And claiming something that is false does not make it true.
>
>>>> IOW, the only reason he wasn't convicted of 3rd degree sex abuse is
>>>> that "the complaint did not properly allege the crime because it did
>>>> not state Nuruzzaman touched the woman to gratify a sexual desire -- a
>>>> required element in a charge of third-degree sex abuse."
>>>
>>>Well then, then that wasn't an act of 3rd degree sex abuse.
>>
>> No, it simply means the prosecutor fucked up.
>
>No proof offered ? Claim and charge fails.
The proof is there. That you didn't look at it is not my problem.
>
>> Proving he did it to
>> gratify a sexual desire might not have been possible, but in my
>> opinion he thought she had a nice ass and wanted to touch it because
>> it turned him on.
>
>Thank you for proving that, as with the Feminist anti sex loons
>still out there, you view any act where a man might even imagine a
>sexual connection to be evil and criminal.
Ha!
No proof offered. You're either lying or stupid, probably both.
>
>Congratulations: You are hereby proven to be a sufferer of the
>bbrain rot known as " Feminism ". We can thus safely understand
>the pathology of your misandristic views now.
More ad hominems.
BTW, I don't think the sex of the victim matters, so if a male pats
another male on the ass inappropriately, I think he deserves a kick in
the balls too.
>
>> Why do you think he did it?
>
>Don't know. Don't care. The point that an act of criminal assault
>NOT being an " appropriate response " is my point, and the law's
>point.
Evasion noted.
>
>>>In which
>>>case, his not being found guilty of such, was proper justice.
>>
>> He simply wasn't found guilty of that, although I believe he was.
>
>No proof offered ? Claim fails.
You want me to prove my beliefs?
Start with the religious fanatics.
>
>> Perhaps the judge didn't think it fair to make someone register as a
>> "sex offender" simply for patting someone on the ass.
>
>" Perhaps ", the sign that the Feminist is about to create unsupported
>*fiction*...
Sorry, but I'm not a feminist.
You're resorting to more ad hominem attacks, hypocrite.
>
>> I agree - people think the worst when they hear "sex offender", and
>> it's not really fair to make someone wear that label if all they did
>> was pat someone on the ass.
>
>Then, it is NOT " appropriate " to treat such an act as that.
That the law is badly formed does not mean they are not guilty of it.
>
>> We shouldn't register people as sex offenders at all IMO. The ones we
>> really need to worry about should never be let out of prison in the
>> first place.
>
><yawn> See Ellison.
See common sense.
>
>>>> Do you think he touched her ass TWICE and didn't think anything
>>>> sexual?
>>>
>>>Not at issue. Its the prosecution's burden to prove that.
>>
>> And like I said, the prosecutor fucked up.
>
>No proof offered ? Claim fails.
The judge pointed it out himself.
Take it up with him.
>
>> I believe it was sexual in
>> nature although I'd love to hear an alternative explanation
>
>Ever notice football players patting each other's asses in a show
>of " well done " ? There you go...
So you think this was a case of a store clerk telling the woman "well
done"?
>
>>>>>>>LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>another caring, nuturing person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How caring or nurturing is the guy walking around touching people's
>>>>>> asses?
>>>>>
>>>>>A lot more than anyone committing illegal acts of *violence*.
>>>>
>>>> Not when they only escaped a sex abuse conviction on a technicality.
>>>
>>>LOL ! Yeah, the " technicality " of not having committed a sex crime.
>>
>> No, the prosecutor just sucked or maybe he purposely failed to make
>> his case as he thought the guy was being punished enough.
>
>IOW, you know AbZero, but you *wish* that it were so.
>
>Got it. See Ellison.
See common sense.
>
>>>>>People who cannot tell the difference, ought to turn off their computers,
>>>>>and stick to watching killer slash movies, where there is no degrees to
>>>>>actions.
>>>>
>>>> So how would you react to a man patting your ass more than once?
>>>
>>>Man, woman, if someone were doing such, it would first be my responsibility
>>>to react appropriately, and without " going nuclear ", unlike the defenders
>>>of women assault claiming loons.
>>
>> A swift kick in the nuts isn't "going nuclear".
>
>According to criminal law, it IS.
Actually, it isn't, especially under certain circumstances.
>
>> "Going nuclear" would be beating them to a pulp.
>
>That would be " continuing nuclear ".
You're simply playing games now.
>
>> All I'm saying is if you go around groping women you don't know,
>> expect one or more of them to retaliate someday and in my opinion you
>> would deserve a kick in the balls.
>
>" All I'm saying is that if you go around spouting misandry, expect
>one or more men to retailiate someday and in my opinion you would
>deserve a kick in the clit. "
So you think you have a "right" to kick me in a body part that I don't
even possess?
>
>If it's sexism, when aimed at women, then it's the same sexism when
>aimed at men.
I'm not the one claiming "sexism".
The question here is who drew "first blood" (figuratively speaking).
>
>> That's just so much simpler than making a court case out of it and it
>> serves as a good deterrent too.
>
>Yes, sufferers of your chosen brain rot clearly cannot grasp the
>complexities of modern life and law.
Actually, it appears to me that you cannot.
>
>That why we don't make policy on your simplistic and sexist views.
>
Law of the jungle, baby.
>HTH.
>
>Andre