I welcome discussions of “what should be.”
But they ought to be precise attempts to narrow down what should be, not vague generalities. It’s the vague generalities that I mention with disapproval in the OP.
[quote=“x-ray_vision, post:59, topic:799294”]
The legal protection is that both are willing participants in a legal sporting event.
James Butler was jailed after this post-fight punch:
[/QUOTE] Its absurd to compare a blindside punch to a peck on the lips.Do you believe that this guy (famous vj day kiss) should also have been prosecuted?
So what you are looking for is whether the action described in the OP falls under the legal definition of “sexual assault”…but you are sure you already know the answer to this question?
What is it you want to debate again?
I answered a question regarding whether or not someone should be protected from prosecution at a press conference when they have agreed to a boxing match at a later time.
Possibly. I don’t know enough details to make my unprofessional determination.
The standards of 1945 are not the standards of today-I doubt police(let alone the courts) would have pursued the matter. Got any more totally-out-of-context examples?
(1) Does it?
(2) Should it?
In neither case are vague, conclusory, ill-supported definitions of any value.
IF we are discussing whether or not we personally would call such an action "sexual assault"then, yes, I would.
Its not out of context in any way. In fact, its a much better example than the probable planned kiss in the op. No police would have pursued this matter either.
He knows but he wants to debate others with differing views. You understand the concept of debate, right?
I totally agree the boxer should have been charged. His intent was to injure. The female boxer was simply trying to get (successfully) publicity.
Yes, in line with this argument and if the woman had pressed charges. I will note that this kiss, despite the woman’s later statement, is more blatantly sexual than the OP’s example, e.g., bending her backwards and restraining her.
I also reject the notion that arousal is a necessary component of the crime, in line with the UCMJ.
Slight hijack: I can wrap my mind around a stair down while they are in the ring and the ref is going over the rules…
But a stair down photo op? That’s just lame.
Anyway: I vote sexual assault.
He knows “the” legal definition of sexual assault…but doesn’t think it’s worth posting?
In a thread asking if a specific action was an example of that definition?
Of course he should have. That’s why I posted it. Read again what post I responded to.
You are correct, if what we are discussing are official definitions, and not what we personally consider it to be.
Where have you done this(not counting your links to someone else’s post concerning the U.C.M.J., since this isn’t the military were are discussing here)?
My apologies then for misreading.
Since the incident took place in Norway, I doubt he or any of us would know. As a topic of interest in the Weinstein era it makes sense to ask what might be considered sexual assault.
There are always prefight staredowns (press conferences, weighins etc). My fave, iirc, ended with Mike Tyson telling his opponent that ‘…I’m gonna Fuck you till you love me.’ :eek:
There are fifty states, one federal government, and one Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Which should I have posted?
So, he knows the definition…but he doesn’t. Thanks for clearing that up.