Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an excuse, and it's not a crime if someone is not of right mind. I've had this happen with two loved ones, it's a common occurrence. If someone has dementia its a whole different ballgame you cannot compare to a right minded individual.
Slo - your points about possible dementia are well-taken but a reader gets the impression that your view is, 'oh well, too bad, people are just going to have to suffer being accosted by an oldster with dementia who is inclined that way.'
Is that your view?
My opinion is that it's still no excuse. Rather the responsibility burden has then shifted to his caretakers to prevent it. If they can't keep him away from close proximity of females when in public, then don't take him out. That's life, too bad for him. No one has the responsibility to endure being physicially "handled".
More nonsense. No prosecutor would ever think of claiming those things for a guy in a wheel chair with the purported victim able to simply step forward or backward. In fact a defense attorney would likely point out she consented to the squeezes by not doing so.
But no rational prosecutor would ever attempt to prove "sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse" under such circumstances.
No evidence or allegation of an erection or ejaculation. As to sex abuse...
Legal Definition of sexual abuse
1 a :the infliction of sexual contact upon a person by forcible compulsion
b :the engaging in sexual contact with a person who is below a specified age or who is incapable of giving consent because of age or mental or physical incapacity
2 :the crime of engaging in or inflicting sexual abuse
Not very skilled at this are you?
Two victims have now indicated that he groped them. Their testimony would be adequate to support the element of "for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse." Neither erection nor ejaculation would be required for this crime to occur.
A defense attorney would try to argue consent, but it seems quite clear that both women would testify that they did not consent.
You'll need to get a lot better before you assert I am unskilled.
Possibly. Whether or not it is a crime in whatever state it occurred in, it IS inappropriate which is a point many here have seemed to miss. I personally will not fault her for being upset about it. Would I have come forward publicly? Probably not. But I would feel uncomfortable, because it is an inappropriate and uncomfortable moment for HER no matter what his intentions ultimately were and despite his age and who he is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
He chose her backside because that was where his hand was. And the intention was likely humorous. As I have stated elsewhere she should have turned around and whacked his wandering hand which would have been an appropriate shaming in this public arena. And yes it had connotations but likely anti-sexual. Really making a joke that he appreciated her sexuality even though he could do nothing with it.
He could have chosen the back of her knee. Or her calf, or the back of her thigh. His hand was in those zones also. Probably even her lower back or mid-back, which would probably be most appropriate. A person's butt is considered a sexual region, by law, probably in all states, and colloquially as well.
She is not going to turn around and whack a former president's hand off her body. Especially not during a photo op type of opportunity, or an official press event. You must think the same about Taylor Swift's recent successful countersuit against the DJ who touched her as* during a photo when he met her. She didn't do anything about that, either, until after it was over, when she told his boss what he did. They fired him, he sued her, she counter sued for sexual assault and she won. She did not want to file criminal charges, but that doesn't make it not a crime.
Did you miss the part in the NJ statute, that I bolded, that states the jury is NOT to discuss why the victim did or didn't react a certain way, or how it's not the state's burden at all to even discuss the victim's reaction or lack of any action?
He chose her backside because that was where his hand was. And the intention was likely humorous. As I have stated elsewhere she should have turned around and whacked his wandering hand which would have been an appropriate shaming in this public arena. And yes it had connotations but likely anti-sexual. Really making a joke that he appreciated her sexuality even though he could do nothing with it.
Yup, I predicted it up above. A guilty conscience. All of the excuses being made blare it like a megaphone.
Slo - your points about possible dementia are well-taken but a reader gets the impression that your view is, 'oh well, too bad, people are just going to have to suffer being accosted by an oldster with dementia who is inclined that way.'
Is that your view?
My opinion is that it's still no excuse. Rather the responsibility burden has then shifted to his caretakers to prevent it. If they can't keep him away from close proximity of females when in public, then don't take him out. That's life, too bad for him. No one has the responsibility to endure being physicially "handled".
Two victims have now indicated that he groped them. Their testimony would be adequate to support the element of "for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse." Neither erection nor ejaculation would be required for this crime to occur.
A defense attorney would try to argue consent, but it seems quite clear that both women would testify that they did not consent.
You'll need to get a lot better before you assert I am unskilled.
Of course it would. How does sex work in your life, No arousal? No orgasm? Ohh you do it only to procreate? Use a sheet with hole in it to make sure you don't get interested.
Of course it would. How does sex work in your life, No arousal? No orgasm? Ohh you do it only to procreate? Use a sheet with hole in it to make sure you don't get interested.
You are wrong.
Plain wrong.
No, ejaculation or obvious arousal are NOT required, at least not under the NJ statute and from what I read, not under the CA one, either. It's obvious you do not know how to read law.
The better point to be arguing here is Slo's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Especially not during a photo op type of opportunity, or an official press event. You must think the same about Taylor Swift's recent successful countersuit against the DJ who touched her as* during a photo when he met her. She didn't do anything about that, either, until after it was over, when she told his boss what he did. They fired him, he sued her, she counter sued for sexual assault and she won. She did not want to file criminal charges, but that doesn't make it not a crime. 