I don’t think it’s fair to assume an argument that hasn’t happened, especially as in this case I don’t believe you to be correct. Simply grouping others opinions into an absurd hypothetical that hasn’t been discussed doesn’t in any way validate your opinion on the subject.
If he had grabbed her arm and prevented her from touching his face, I don’t think anyone here would be saying he over reacted - why would they? Even if he’d arrested her for some broad ‘breaching the peace’ type offence I don’t see why anyone would bat an eyelid, as she was quite clearly acting inappropriately.
None of the above changes the fact that this is an obviously trumped up charge.
I could be just as ridiculous as you and claim that this debate is pointless, because clearly even if she hadn’t touched him you’d still think she sexually assaulted him. It’s a no-win situation, apparently.
