Peter Sagan....it was just a pinch (Page 9)

Every case is fact dependent, but the facts here would be sufficient.

A second degree assault is an unlawful/ offensive touching (or an intent to frighten, depends on the theory you're going on). A fourth degree sexual offense is unlawful/ offensive touching on breasts, buttocks.

I am sorry that happened to you, but I would think having a traumatic experience like that would bias you on this subject matter no?

But in the case at hand here.........no.  I think this the point that everyone gets hung up on.  "Those who would be offended" see this as a clear crossing of the line.....those who worry more about SERIOUS and REAL assaults see this as stupid, and nothing more.  Stupid gets you into trouble, but let's not confuse the two, or the amount of trouble each can garner you.

Trinna.......I'm pretty sure I understand fighting for my life as well as anyone on this board.

Every case is fact dependent, but the facts here would be sufficient.

A second degree assault is an unlawful/ offensive touching (or an intent to frighten, depends on the theory you're going on). A fourth degree sexual offense is unlawful/ offensive touching on sexual body parts (ie breasts, buttocks)

You come up behnd me and strike me, my immediate response is that I am under threat and I will retaliate in kind.  It is a conditioned response.  It does not matter if you strike me on the butt or on the head or anywhere else.

However it would be helpful if you all quit changing the scenario.  First it was a smack, then it was a pinch now it is a light smack.  Next thing I know you all will be getting knocked cold for offering her tea and crumpets.

I am sorry that happened to you, but I would think having a traumatic experience like that would bias you on this subject matter no?

It is crossing the line but not it is not crossing the line to the same degree as what you deem to be serious I will agree with you.  It is, however, still crossing the line and until we stop the **giggle giggle snicker snicker** boys will be boys response the line will continue to get crossed to greater and lesser extents.  I know you remember a time when DWI was a joke and attitudes about drinking and driving were a great deal "looser".  That is no longer the case in part because the line was mads crystal clear and the consequences for crossing it were less than pleasant.

I am certain you do understand quite well about fighting for your life.  There is a difference.

This is why women shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. They can't tell the difference between a legitimate attack and a non-life threatening attack. They would just shoot first and ask questions later.

-Joe Salazaar

Or it gives me a greater range of experience from which to form an informed opinion.  If you are never allowed to chime in on something that is within your sphere of experience I guess that means you will be talking about the weather in Canada a lot!

I find this funny considering that in a court of law this type of bias can keep you off of a jury. That would insinuate that it COULD be an obstacle in ones ability to interpret the law. And your "well stated laws" require years of additional high level schooling to interpret. Sorry if I'm not taking the easy road and folding under your pressure and insults. I am not trying to offend anyone just raising points that are different from yours.

I think the point that gets lost by the "we WILL be offended" crowd, at least for my part, is that I in no way giggled or snickered here.  I said it was wrong.  It IS wrong.  I think the "one size fits all" response is not helpful in the discussion on how to end that type of behavior.....and once the discussion starts going down that road, I'm not going along for the ride.

This isn't a court of law.

I've been trying very hard to participate in this discussion without offering insult. I felt the need to point out how crass your question was. I'm not trying to insult, but there is really no other way to do that. I'm not big on the whole "sorry if you were offended" type apology ... just trying to state that you came across as crude.

To suggest that a woman who has experienced sexual assault is best to just keep quiet on the matter ... that her opinion is now tainted ... is part of the problem. 

Just for the sake of discussion......and of course, facts.....do we know that she was offended?  Because if she isn't, than the facts here certainly are NOT sufficient.

Oh I am not offended in the least and I do recognize that you for your part did not giggle etc.  You did however engage in the "Well let's just hang 'em and be done with it." ploy when responding to the argument that it was offensive.  I agree that there is no one size fits all response, that goes for many things in life. 

One size fits all means you wind up wearing a mumu by Omar the Tent Maker!

This isn't a court of law.

I've been trying very hard to participate in this discussion without offering insult. I felt the need to point out how crass your question was. I'm not trying to insult, but there is really no other way to do that. I'm not big on the whole "sorry if you were offended" type apology ... just trying to state that you came across as crude.

To suggest that a woman who has experienced sexual assault is best to just keep quiet on the matter ... that her opinion is now tainted ... is part of the problem. 

He never did that.  I would suggest that your over-the-top interpretation of what he said is part of the problem as well. (since everything else seems to be)

agreed, but in a legal sense this isn't always the case, and it would have been enlightening if you had mentioned your experience earlier. i probably would have tempered my responses a bit

I DID NOT tell her to keep quiet. The fact remains she does carry a bias. That doesn't mean her input isn't appreciated and shouldn't be considered. But when you are examining someone's point of view, and your own, it is imperitive that you understand where they are coming from and why. This includes any bias they may have from their personal experiences.

He did exactly that. How does "don't your experiences bias you on the topic" not suggest that "your opinions shouldn't really count here"?

 

Bernard, that's simply MORE over-the-top rhetoric......he never said anything like your last quoted comment..... he simply asked a question.  I did not see it as a suggestion that her opinion didn't count.....geez.

I DID NOT tell her to keep quiet. The fact remains she does carry a bias. That doesn't mean her input isn't appreciated and shouldn't be considered. But when you are examining someone's point of view, and your own, it is imperitive that you understand where they are coming from and why. This includes any bias they may have from their personal experiences.

You are just mad cause I have a bigger gun than you!