Was this sexual assault? What's the appropriate response?

[repoman]

Ok, this is a non sexual example that just happened a couple days ago at work.
I saw the sales guy who books events for my work and who knows the specific details of the events about to leave a meeting. Those details make a difference as to how much effort or money will be involved.

So I waited until he left and "accidentally" walked by him and got the information I needed. It is a separate issue that more of this information should be given in a semi detailed forecast like it is in other similar businesses.

So this guy was doing this with women, which can be dicey and has a wide grayscale from cute to stalkerish.

If a good, committed relationship was started by this "accidental" method is this a red flag? Should the pursuer disclose this later? What if the pursuer rarely does that vs the pursuer doing it chronically?

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, this is a non sexual example that just happened a couple days ago at work.
I saw the sales guy who books events for my work and who knows the specific details of the events about to leave a meeting. Those details make a difference as to how much effort or money will be involved.

So I waited until he left and "accidentally" walked by him and got the information I needed. It is a separate issue that more of this information should be given in a semi detailed forecast like it is in other similar businesses.

So this guy was doing this with women, which can be dicey and has a wide grayscale from cute to stalkerish.

If a good, committed relationship was started by this "accidental" method is this a red flag? Should the pursuer disclose this later? What if the pursuer rarely does that vs the pursuer doing it chronically?

The issue comes when someone indicates that they do not want to have such interactions, as the woman did in the OP example. They said NO.

In a real relationship, a healthy relationship, few secrets are kept. "I always wanted to get to know you, so I MIIIGH have spent my afternoons hanging around in a place where I thought you might run into me instead of one where you wouldn't."

The disclosure there is, undeniably, kind of romantic. Stalker would go to an extent of going singificantly out of a person's way to engineer such a thing, or doing legwork to track down where someone goes, such as following them, or googling them. IE picking one cafeteria for lunch instead of another, because you saw her there the one time you ended up there for other reasons vs following a girl around campus to find out what cafeteria she eats at so you can go there instead. Active measures at data collection quickly become stalkerish.

As to disclosure, if they react with "stalker!" on the basis of acting differently on the basis of minor changes to create exposure, that's the sign that someo e is probably unhealthy-paranoid and judgemental and not worth being with in the first place: don't stick your dick in crazy.

But if a behavior would result in "Stalker!" From disclosure on the basis of active data collection, you Should STILL say so and beg for forgiveness for being a creeper.

 

[Metaphor]

He was not "looking" at the hedge. You are introducing this element. According to the girl, he was "facing" the hedge. Either way, it's indicative of someone attempting to hide (or being caught in some manner),

It's indicative of nothing of the kind. You don't know what the word 'hiding' means. You'd have been terrible at playing "Hide and Go Seek".

Yes, it could have been a remarkable coincidence that on this routine day of facing hedges--like all kids do these days--he "suddenly swung round" at the exact instance that she was near enough for him to touch her, if it weren't for the facts that (a) he seemed to the girl to be reaching out to touch her breast and (b) he repeated his behavior days later, only in a bolder fashion.

He denies he was trying to touch her breast, and the undisputed facts are that he did not, in fact, touch her breast.

So, in light of everything we have so far (which isn't much) taken as a whole, is it more likely that he saw her walking in the distance coming toward him, panicked, wasn't sure what to do, so he turned away and ended up facing a hedge (in the way people caught doing something will try to pretend they're just doing anything else than what they were caught doing),

My goodness you sure are happy to imagine out entire scenarios.

waited for her to get close enough for him to suddenly swing round to try and grab her breast, or it was his regular hedge facing day and the distraction from focusing on that particular fascinating hedge was so great that he tried to simply stabilize himself by reaching out to her and was so embarrassed by his actions on hedge facing Wednesdays that he--days later--tried to explain what a coincidence it all was, but on that day too, he somehow became innocently unstable and touched her a second time just to again right himself?

Yeah, false dichotomies be false.

Do you not know what the word "apparent" means?

Better than you know what 'hiding' means.

"Common"? So you agree he assaulted her twice, what you are having troubles with is understanding how sexual assault isn't actually sexual. Got it. It's common.

I'm saying it's barely common assault, and I cannot understand at all how it's sexual assault, from the presented facts.

Yes, when somebody touches you without permission, it's common assault, though usually it has to be something like a shove or someone spitting on you to even get to a legal response, and usually it has to be worse than that.

You are introducing that element. He was facing a hedge.

Incredibly, you think facing a hedge is more indicative of 'hiding' than it is of 'staring' at it. When I face something my eyes generally rest on what I'm facing. It's hard not to, as my eyes face forward, and I close them usually only when I sleep.

And people move quickly away from situations when they are guilty.

Yes, and you already believed he was guilty, and that's how you interpret his moving away.

There is no mistaking the fact that he was openly rejected by the girl in no uncertain terms.

So the fact that he--a supposedly chronically shy and awkward kid--would then days later do the same thing to the same person contradicts his claim of being a chronically shy and awkward kid.

It's only a contradiction for you because you can't imagine mental states different from your own.

Part of the issue with being shy is that you will be rejected if you were to not be shy. Having his worst fear realized would shut him down further, not embolden him to do the same thing to the same person days later.

Again, this is not an 80's teen movie, where the sidekick named "Booger" convinces the innocent hero to come out of his shell and try to rape the girl because that's what "real" women want. If his claim were at all true, being rejected like that on his first solo attempt to "make a friend" would have sent him into deep remission, not somehow jazzed him into acting again in the same manner to the same person days later.

You don't know how hiding or shyness works, apparently.

That's what happens to rapists, but not to chronically shy teenagers.

Oy gevalt, I'm done responding to this.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Oy gevalt, I'm done responding to this.

Like you matter.

 

[Metaphor]

The sentencing is out:

He was fined, got a 12-month, 200 hour community order, a 12 month restraining order, and will be on the sex offender registry for five years.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...0/news-story/08f5e276d943f8042777097a99eaf54d

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Griffiths was further ordered to pay costs of £735 ($A1300) plus a further £78 ($A146) for damaging a teacher’s chair during an unrelated incident.

First time reading about this.

Not enough information on the teacher victim or why this physical damage was done to understand the psyche of the offender.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...
Maybe more details will come out. But if what's been presented in the newspaper articles is enough for some people to think it was two cases of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, I don't know what to say. There'd be far too much doubt in my mind.

SNIPPED beginning of this. You still aren't accepting what I wrote. The case was decided by a judge. If "more details" come out [your phrase], it STILL is going to be an incomplete representation of what the judge saw as evidence and reasoned out. You will keep making decisions based on information where you SHOULD KNOW that the info you are viewing is very incomplete. You still are getting info from limited sources with a political bent, i.e. News Corp.

Don't you know you should go to primary sources? If you want to know why a judge made an opinion, then read his opinion, not a soundbite from a biased news article.

ANYWAY, here are some interesting details no one in the thread knew about because of the limited information made available about the case:

A man from Knutsford has been convicted of sexual assault after inappropriately touching a teenage girl.

Jamie Griffiths was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault following a one-day trial at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court on Thursday 10 October.

The 19-year-old, of Blackhill Lane, Knutsford, has been released on bail and is due to be sentenced on Wednesday 23 October.

The charges related to incidents which occurred in October and November 2018.

On both occasions a 17-year-old girl was inappropriately touched by Griffiths.

In October 2018 he touched the victim on her arm using the palm of his hand after she walked past him on Blackhill Lane.

Just weeks later Griffiths touched the victim on her hip and smirked at her after coming face-to-face with her.

Griffiths was arrested in connection with the incidents on Tuesday 13 November 2018.

A subsequent examination of his mobile phone revealed a number of deleted text messages that he had sent to a family member.

Within the messages, which were sent on the morning of Thursday 8 November 2018 – just hours after investigating officers had made house-to-house enquiries in the street where he lived – Jamie talked about the incidents.

He wrote: “It wasn’t just one incident but I’m done now. Please I have uni to think about. I was just so lonely.”

A message sent to Griffiths from the family member read: “So you grabbed her butt and then ran immediately?”

Upon the completion of the trial, Police Constable Lawrence Price said: “Incidents of this nature are rare in the Knutsford area and Griffiths’ actions understandably caused a large amount of concern in the local community.

“He also caused the victim unnecessary stress and trauma.

“She was left feeling extremely anxious as a result of what he did to her and she was unable to leave her home alone, at a time when she was due to sit her mock exams.

“I hope that this conviction will provide reassurance to the victim, and local residents, and also acts as a warning to other people who feel that it is acceptable to act in this manner.”

During the trial Griffiths was also found guilty of causing criminal damage in relation to an incident at Knutsford High School.

https://cheshire.police.uk/news-and-appeals/news/knutsford-teenager-convicted-of-sexual-assaults/

Text messages were surely some kind of evidence in court, yet none of the news articles from News Corp mention them. None of those articles mention another incident of criminal behavior either.

So, what was ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE JUDGE? What are a complete set of reasons he decided the conviction based on ALL THE EVIDENCE? No soundbites.

 

[Metaphor]

Don't you know you should go to primary sources? If you want to know why a judge made an opinion, then read his opinion, not a soundbite from a biased news article.

The opinion of a judge is not available before the judge has made that opinion.

In October 2018 he touched the victim on her arm using the palm of his hand after she walked past him on Blackhill Lane.

You've highlighted this but I don't know what you think it implies. When I touch people on the arm, the palm of my hand is usually involved. In fact, without this additional description, I had already thought that's what happened.

Just weeks later Griffiths touched the victim on her hip and smirked at her after coming face-to-face with her.

The "smirk" information was already documented, and I have the same problem with it that I did before: a smirk is a subjective interpretation of a facial movement. What some people see as a malevolent smirk, others see as a nervous smile.

A message sent to Griffiths from the family member read: “So you grabbed her butt and then ran immediately?”

If Griffiths had grabbed her butt, that's how the incident would have been reported. Not even the prosecutor said he grabbed her butt. Are you now suggesting that he grabbed her butt?

During the trial Griffiths was also found guilty of causing criminal damage in relation to an incident at Knutsford High School.
https://cheshire.police.uk/news-and-appeals/news/knutsford-teenager-convicted-of-sexual-assaults/

Okay...so what? Does that mean he committed sexual assault?

So, what was ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE JUDGE? What are a complete set of reasons he decided the conviction based on ALL THE EVIDENCE? No soundbites.

I don't have all the evidence and neither do you. I'm going on the evidence we do have. If you are absolutely loathe to exercise independent judgment, that's your choice, but it ain't my choice.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The opinion of a judge is not available before the judge has made that opinion.

You have not observed the opinion.

You've highlighted this but I don't know what you think it implies. When I touch people on the arm, the palm of my hand is usually involved. In fact, without this additional description, I had already thought that's what happened.

It is evidence you didn't have. No, a person getting someone's attention by touching their arm would tap them, i.e. fingertips. Someone trying to intimately touch someone may touch with the palm of the hand. It goes to intent and eliminates certain hypotheticals.

Just weeks later Griffiths touched the victim on her hip and smirked at her after coming face-to-face with her.

The "smirk" information was already documented, and I have the same problem with it that I did before: a smirk is a subjective interpretation of a facial movement. What some people see as a malevolent smirk, others see as a nervous smile.

So why are you discussing that as opposed to someone being grabbed on their hip, which is new information?

A message sent to Griffiths from the family member read: “So you grabbed her butt and then ran immediately?”

If Griffiths had grabbed her butt, that's how the incident would have been reported. Not even the prosecutor said he grabbed her butt. Are you now suggesting that he grabbed her butt?

Clearly, the offender was having a private discussion with his relative about the incident. The discussion, since deleted, would have included where he touched her and his relative's interpretation was that it was on the butt. The conclusion most parsimonious with these data is that he touched her on the hip, his fingertips extended out to upper buttock muscles...because if his palm were on her hips, the upper buttock muscle is where his fingertips would be.

But moreover, this more precise location than previous news articles' "on the side," shows intimate touching. A young man would not grab a 17 year old girl on the hip to make a platonic friend.

During the trial Griffiths was also found guilty of causing criminal damage in relation to an incident at Knutsford High School.
https://cheshire.police.uk/news-and-appeals/news/knutsford-teenager-convicted-of-sexual-assaults/

Okay...so what? Does that mean he committed sexual assault?

He was violent. It shows some violent incident occured where he was the offender. The magistrate would know more about it.

So, what was ALL THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO THE JUDGE? What are a complete set of reasons he decided the conviction based on ALL THE EVIDENCE? No soundbites.

I don't have all the evidence and neither do you. I'm going on the evidence we do have. If you are absolutely loathe to exercise independent judgment, that's your choice, but it ain't my choice.

Once again, the issue is NOT MERELY that you don't have all the evidence. It's that the evidence you have is easily non-representative of evidence because of bias. It's also true you don't have all the evidence. Like we didn't know the offender was violent, that there were deleted text messages used in court, or that he touched her hip, which may have meant the tips of his fingers were on her upper buttocks. All of this info, including asking the offender about it, may have been done in court which would get to the issue. You can't rely on expected lack of evidence to say, "look there's not enough evidence for a guilty verdict." That is fallacious reasoning.

 

[Metaphor]

You have not observed the opinion.

No, I've said that multiple times.

It is evidence you didn't have. No, a person getting someone's attention by touching their arm would tap them, i.e. fingertips. Someone trying to intimately touch someone may touch with the palm of the hand. It goes to intent and eliminates certain hypotheticals.

That's your own projection. He didn't say he was trying to "get her attention". He said he was trying to reach out to make a friend. We've already established that the way he went about it is weird, but people like you absolutely cannot get past projecting their own minds into the situation.

By the way, when I touch somebody intimately, it usually starts with my fingers, not my palms.

So why are you discussing that as opposed to someone being grabbed on their hip, which is new information?

Because you highlighted irrelevant parts. If you are going to add emphasis, step back and make sure there are not alternative interpretations to your intended one.

Clearly, the offender was having a private discussion with his relative about the incident. The discussion, since deleted, would have included where he touched her and his relative's interpretation was that it was on the butt. The conclusion most parsimonious with these data is that he touched her on the hip, his fingertips extended out to upper buttock muscles...because if his palm were on her hips, the upper buttock muscle is where his fingertips would be.

If there were evidence he had touched her on the ass, that would have come out in the trial, no? Who would be reporting that he touched her on the side (hip) when he actually touched her ass?

But moreover, this more precise location than previous news articles' "on the side," shows intimate touching. A young man would not grab a 17 year old girl on the hip to make a platonic friend.

A neurotypical one wouldn't.

He was violent. It shows some violent incident occured where he was the offender. The magistrate would know more about it.

Again, so what? Is this relevant to whether the incidents in question were sexual assaults? If so, how?

Like we didn't know the offender was violent,

He did some unrelated violent act in public. That does not make him habitually violent. A former friend of mine, in a fit of frustration one day on the street, started screaming and kicking his baby stroller (there was no baby inside--he had been trying to collapse it for storage and it was being unreasonably uncooperative). It was sudden and unexpected and violent. But he is not a violent person.

that there were deleted text messages used in court, or that he touched her hip, which may have meant the tips of his fingers were on her upper buttocks. All of this info, including asking the offender about it, may have been done in court which would get to the issue. You can't rely on expected lack of evidence to say, "look there's not enough evidence for a guilty verdict." That is fallacious reasoning.

I have never denied that there might be evidence we don't have that could change my view of the situation. In fact, I keep saying "on the evidence we have, this seems unreasonable". Now some people don't even think it (a conclusion of sexual assault) is unreasonable from the evidence in the OP, let alone anything additional. I disagree with them.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

but people like you absolutely cannot get past projecting their own minds into the situation.

You mean, exactly like you are doing.