Context is context is context. Lips touching something isn’t necessarily sexual contact, otherwise parents would all be arrested.
The same “contact” as in the real scenario - touching a helmet.
Yet another person making my point for me. Explain to me how, if the powerful can’t prosecute under the law, it gets better for anyone?
I am rubber, you are glue.
(Since we’re not going to have an argument and just sling accusations)
Demonstrably not so.
and now these days you have to double check that its not theon1on…
1 Like
London police have the right to bite, and protesters are assuming the power to kiss – what’s next, Weaponized Wet Willys?
It’s a slippery slope1.
1because of all the saliva
1 Like
I’m still not sure what you’re on about.
Yeah, I don’t think Kent State will ever be “funny”.
2 Likes
Plus, never kiss and tell.
It was a non-response to a non-response.
Is it sexual assault? Yeah, I’d say so. Then again, it happened in Italy – the country where a judge decided a rape victim could not have been raped because at the start of the assault, she was wearing tight jeans.
The wet-finger-on-lips thing is icky, but neither this nor kissing the helmet visor at all compare to genital touching or penetration.
And no, I don’t think gender matters, because assault is assault. And since assault really is assault, I’d expect non-police sexual assaults to be taken as seriously as well, to be fair and consistent. Not that I think that will actually happen.
More like that seeing the exact same things get trotted out every single time anything regarding cops is mentioned on BoingBoing. Not that cops are somehow flawless, or even that the majority of stuff posted to BB about cops doing fucked up shit isn’t fucked up; maybe just that the knee-jerk reaction here seems to be “fukkin’ pigs,” regardless of circumstance.
Also, I am a sexist, or else I wouldn’t be a “MRA trolling this thread,” “pathetic [wimp] who can’t stand up to all of the oppressive women out there” as I was informed that I apparently am.
Well, no, as far as I can tell, you appear to be arguing some very fine point of authoritarianism, where the Law is the Law, and if this girl is prepared to protest, she should get what’s coming to her, and be prosecuted exactly the same way as someone who actually committed an assault on someone (i.e. forced themselves on them in some way). I disagree. As others have also pointed out, the inherent power-balance in this situation makes that unlikely to fly, as anyone who’s ever bothered to do so much as look out of a window can see. It’s going to be thrown out of court, either immediately, or on appeal, because it’s bloody stupid. Exactly the same way as the other two cases I mentioned were. You’re engaging in sophistry and logic-games when what’s happening is pompous idiots are stretching the definition of an offence in order to bully someone who is standing in their way. Something that happens every day. Using the law.
2 Likes
Hrrrmmm…egads, it’s been so long since formal logic…which, at the time, I was good at…I mean, I think I can see how an affirmation of an opposite hypothetical to justify an actual thing is equivalent to a refutation of a misrepresentation, but then I get a headache.
Nope, I’m saying she actually assaulted someone. My conception of ideal law isn’t some fairy-land where you magically charge people who haven’t done anything with a crime. You saying that something isn’t assault, doesn’t make it not assault.
The is the same as saying “you’re intellectually dishonest” or other such nonsense. It’s the equivalent of saying “You’re wrong!” but with more syllables. It’s not a rebuttal.
What about this lady here ? Should she also have been tried for assault ?
The presence of riot police at a demonstration – with the police’s heavy armor, prominently displayed weapons, and their deployment in obvious combat formations – is an overt threat to use violence against demonstrators. That’s anti-democratic and a moral outrage on the face of it.
3 Likes
Doesn’t work all that well when the comments use infinite scroll loading.
1 Like
Still a bit more context: the police union filing the complaint, the COISP, is the same union that organized demonstrations in solidarity with the policemen condemned for the murder of Federico Aldrovandi, an italian student killed in 2005 at the age of 18. A demonstration under the windows of the student’s mother’s office. After the mother went down to confront them armed with a big picture showing the body of her dead son, they turned their back. Then Franco Maccari (the COISP guy talking about kissing and WWIII here) said that the picture was a montage. The mother, disgusted, filed a complaint. In the meantime, the officers convicted for the murder of her son will spend no more than 6 months in prison. The same COISP also had called for a demonstration on the anniversary date of the murder of Carlo Giuliani (protestor killed by the police during the G8 in genoa).
Now, tell me again this is about fighting against sexual assault, and not a fucking media coup by a very right-wing and disgustingly cynical cop union clown.
sources:
http://www.notav.info/post/denunciata-per-violenza-sessuale-per-il-bacio-al-poliziotto/ (in italian)
3 Likes
