Peter Sagan....it was just a pinch (Page 15)

When I initially pointed that out, many were quick to say "maybe she wasn't offended". That's supposition that attempts to deflect from the conversation.

I'll state it differently. I'm more concerned about the impact.

I remain concerned at your inability or unwillingness to get that.

I don't care if you didn't intend to step on my toe. But if you do, and I alert you to the fact that you're causing me pain, I expect your next move to be one of accommodation. If you'd rather just offer excuses as to how you didn't mean to be there and not change your behavior once you've been enlightened to the degree of my pain, I'm going to work with the assumption that you're not a very nice person. I'll question your ability to empathize.

As a gender, we've been told that our collective way of being is hurtful. Let's stop making excuses and debating whether or not we're obliged to act. Let's stop questioning whether or not we're actually causing harm. Let's just move. 

As it related to this being criminal or not, this was absolutely not a deflection.  Her being offended is an element of the crime, so it is necessarily part of the discussion. 

Again ... if nobody formally calls what you did when you drove home from a party with a BAC of .09 as DUI, you still drove under the influence.

No, you're wrong.  I'll defer to the prosecutor who very clearly explained that her reaction mattered.  If the person whose rear is pinched is not offended, it's not a crime.  You may not like it, but that's the law.  At least in Maryland.

Wrong again.  Intent isn't an element of DUI.  If my BAC is above the limit, I committed a crime.

Most everything I have said so far falls in line with this. He made a mistake, apologized, and should not be doing that again. I am not understanding where what I have said contradicts your point of view.

I agree what he did was wrong.

I agree in an even broader sense that this kind of behavior is not acceptable.

Now, I say he didn't go into the act with the intention of demeaning the model. His intention was to make a joke. In this act he DID do something that demeaned the model.

I am not saying this is acceptable, I am saying that considering his apology, and assuming that there is not a repeat of this behavior, we should accept this outcome.

So I have been reading this thread and we all agree that what he did was dumb, it was a mistake.

Now another world leader has made a mistake and is being called out for it. President Obama recently said that "Kamala Harris would be the best looking attorney general in the country" while he did not grab her butt or anything, alot of people are claiming what he said is sexist and he has since apologized.  Thoughts?

You can counter that it hasn't been proven in a court of law and I'll concede that you're correct. I'll counter that what he did still met the legal definition. I'm not necessarily wrong, it's just that my opinion doesn't result in any sort of consequence. 

So I have been reading this thread and we all agree that what he did was dumb, it was a mistake.

Now another world leader has made a mistake and is being called out for it. President Obama recently said that "Kamala Harris would be the best looking attorney general in the country" while he did not grab her butt or anything, alot of people are claiming what he said is sexist and he has since apologized.  Thoughts?

You haven't identified a component of intent with why you're not calling Sagan's actions an assault. You've only identified no articulated impact.

Sexist, moronic, insensitive, and part of the problem.

This is what confuses me.  I give you that you have said you think it was wrong/bad/inappropriate and on the same page with most of the people in this thread.

BUT, when you even mention his only "intention" was to make a joke appears to imply justification/excuse/dismissal.  Maybe that's not the case.  That's how it comes across, or how many of us seem to be taking it, small or big words.

IT DOES NOT MATTER if he woke up premeditating this or if it was impromptu or a joke.  The effect to the girl was the same.  To even imply that his intent should alter the way the girl feels about being violated or how we view it, is a wrong message, IMO.

If someone gropes my wife in the show, IT DOES NOT MATTER to her, or to me if he woke up planning it or it just happened as a joke.  I want to punch him just the same.  If his friend came up and said "relax, he didn't mean any harm by it" doesn't fly with me.  He DID harm, and that's what matters.

No, it has nothing to do with anything being proven in court.  What legal definition are you using, because her being offended is an element (in Maryland)?

It seems you are trying to stifle discussion by suggesting that the discussion of whether or not she was offended is inappropriate.  As it relates to whether or not this is a crime, it is absolutely necessary.

I agree, his effect on the girl was the same, he did do harm. However, it DOES matter in his punishment, and it should matter in your perception of him.  Its the difference between intentionally running over a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and getting into a car accident that kills someone. The end result is the same, someone is dead. But the punishment sure isn't the same. How that person should be viewed isn't the same. One is a murderer, and the other one accidently caused someones death.

Obviously that example is very exaggerated from the incident, but the principle applies.

Her articulating offense is, perhaps, a component of whether or not prosecution is instigated in this case. The state can still bring charges if they deem the action to be egregious enough. In those instances (when the state proceeds despite the victim's uninvolvement) her level of offense (articulated or not) becomes mostly moot. 

I agree, his effect on the girl was the same, he did do harm. However, it DOES matter in his punishment, and it should matter in your perception of him.  Its the difference between intentionally running over a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and getting into a car accident that kills someone. The end result is the same, someone is dead. But the punishment sure isn't the same. How that person should be viewed isn't the same. One is a murderer, and the other one accidently caused someones death.

Obviously that example is very exaggerated from the incident, but the principle applies.

Can you refer me to an authority that would support this in this context?  Namely, the state could prosecute a bum pinch even if the person consented to the pinch or wasn't offended.  Now, I understand they never would, but I would like to see something that suggests they could.

I'm saying, though, that if a tree (bum pincher) falls in the forest (pinches a bum) and nobody is there to hear it (in the absence of an authority who would prosecute without articulated offense), it still made a sound (he has still committed an assault). 

Its not a defense, its the reality of the situation. This is where you are losing me. The punishment needs to fit the crime, or the punishment and the crime both lose their meaning.

I feel like what I'm about to say will come across in a negative way, but I sincerely don't mean it that way, I just don't know how else to say this.

When you speak/act like this, you lose your audience. I have had several people PM me about this today saying they agree with me but are afraid to say anything because they don't want to be looked down upon. The way I see your opinion/position is very much. This is what is right, if you aren't doing it you are wrong and SHAMING ALL MEN EVERYWHERE. Really? I appreciate your dedication to this issue, and I think most of your message DOES need to be shared and spread. But some of it just seems unreasonable to me. You can never forgive Sagan for making a dumb joke when he was 23. Where is the room to learn and grow as a person. I would have thought that you would be pushing for counseling or for someone to teach Sagan about what is appropriate, not just casting him aside as wrong and beyond redemption. 

And as far as that not being a funny joke, whether we like it or not, look around at humor in today's society. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but for him to think that would be funny is not only reasonable, it is expected. The first thing I did was chuckle at it when I saw it. I'll admit that even though I will probably be flamed for it. To imply that he should  know that i is "Stupid to think that joke still flies" is out of touch with reality. Now it was completely innapropriate, especially considering the situation, but it falls well within the realm of humor that you can flip around on your television.

Intention does matter.  It may not matter to the victim, or it may.  The difference in first degree murder and manslaughter does not really matter to the victim, but the punishment is different.