It was unexpected and done during a press conference where the kissee was dressed conservatively and definitely seemed to be surprised and unsure how to react.
Her immediate reaction was a face showing disgust, followed by a slap, followed by a laughing fit that went on for at least 20 seconds. I haven’t found any videos that show longer than that. She definitely seemed flustered. I think it’s fair to assume part of the intent was also to intimidate or mess with her head before the fight.
I’m sure Steken can do a better job than the online Nowegian translator I just used, but these are the results:
is
and
is
Obviously not a perfect translation, but if I had to guess I would think the kissing would have to have some sexual connotation to it.
http://www.etranslator.ro/norwegian-english-online-translator.php
Do you think it’s fair to assume there was any other intent? To do so would be like assuming a nutty old aunt laying a wet kiss on a baby was intended to be a sexual act.
Now what about a couple who are dancing together, one of them has their hand slip below the waist onto the other’s butt, sexual intent could readily be assumed but is it an assault?
Does anyone think that anyone could be convicted of a crime in the case presented in the OP or other similar circumstances of stepping just across the line in activities already agreed upon by the parties involved?
No, I don’t think there was a sexual intent.
I’m assuming that it could be in some jurisdictions, but don’t ask me to find such a place; it’s an assumption. I doubt it would be considered sexual assault between adults anywhere in the US, but I don’t know.
I just checked my state, and it seems it would be a sexual assault if the grabber was over 17 and the grabbee is under 13, so it wouldn’t be far-fetched that it could be defined as that somewhere else between adults.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-jersey-law/new-jersey-sexual-assault-laws.html
And Bricker has acknowledged that a strict construction of some law could be used that way, but do you think strict construction would apply in these cases? I can’t believe the law was intended to jam our courts with criminal or civil case of this nature.
The sole intent was to mess with her head/intimidate/fluster.
What’s the mechanism by which a kiss achieves this? Especially given that the more typical intimidation techniques common in these occasions - the hard stare, the imposing body language, the impicit and explicit promise of pain and violence - had no such effect? But the kiss - an action commonly associated with intimacy, affection and, yes, sexual contact - the kiss provoked a flinch and a slap. How and why? What message did it send that was so much more flustering than the hard stare and the aggressive body language?
My answer: the kiss was flustering precisely because a kiss on the lips is an intimate and (among non-relatives) mildly sexual act. That in kissing Braekhurst, Lauren crossed a boundary that Braekhurst did not consent to her crossing and that this boundary concerns where and when and with whom Braekhurst is prepared to engage in even mildly sexual acts. The crossing of that boundary flustered and intimidated Braekhurst, as it was intended to.
It doesn’t matter if Lauren intended to arouse or sexually gratify someone by kissing Braekhurst. She didn’t intend any such thing. But it was an assault, and it was sexual in nature, and its effectiveness as an assault stemmed directly from its sexual nature. Hence, sexual assault.
I don’t know what construction would be used; I have no expertise or experience in that area. I’m mostly discussing whether an act “was” a particular something, not whether or not it would be pursued legally.
You made a good argument until this point. If you mean “assault” and “sexual assault” in layman’s terms that are more subjective in nature, fine. But those terms are usually not used that way. They’re used as legal terms with precise definitions.
You are saying only the attackers intentions matter when deciding whether an attack is sexual or not?
What does how she was dressed have to do with anything?
Women who dress slutty are asking for it. Everyone knows that.
She seemed like she was more expecting a professional press conference, yes, even that it involved a stare down, and less expecting of something like that happening. It was a quickly written response and for whatever reason I threw threw that in. Why nit-pick? I NEVER do that!
Thanks!
If it’s simply a question of whether this specific incident falls under a legal definition of sexual assault, then it seems from the various cites that it probably does in Norway, probably does in the UK and probably doesn’t in the US.
Per Bricker, the point of this thread is to explore not only how the legal terms are currently defined in the myriad different jurisdictions one might care to explore, but also to debate the more precise contours between simple and sexual assault. My argument above is to show that the use of sexual contact as part of an assault should qualify the act as sexual assault, and that the intention to cause sexual arousal or gratification is insufficient to draw a contour between the simple and sexual assault.
Yes. Until I see a good argument against that position, anyway.
I disagree that it probably does in the UK and we need more than an online translator do decide regarding what it falls under in Norway, but based on what was translated, I disagree there too. I see no “sexual coloration” to that kiss and the sloppy translation said “sexual act” which I doubt it would have been considered.
Precise “contours” between simple assault and sexual assault require legal definitions and citing laws.
I didn’t get a “should” argument vibe from what you wrote, but okay.
What if the attacker intends to sexually humiliate the victim (by, say, groping their genitals in public) but this is purely a way to assert power and they gain no sexual arousal or gratification from it? A definition of sexual assault that excludes acts like this seems to me to be incomplete.
Actually, there’s a really good fictional illustration of this point, from BBC crime series Cracker.
The scene is a supermarket. The lead detective in a serial killer investigation is shopping with his wife. She goes round the corner to pick something up. We hear her scream. Running round the corner, the detective sees the serial killer with a knife to his wife’s throat. Keeping eye contact with the detective, the killer reaches up the wife’s skirt and gropes her genitals. Then he runs, the policeman chases, and serial killer lures him to an ambush and kills him.
Later, after he’s been arrested, he asks for a message to be passed on to the widow. He apologises for touching her like that, says he got no pleasure out of it and he’s sorry he had to do it.
Now, no-one is crass enough to pass that message on. But:
At the time, did the wife consider her attack to be sexual assault?
If she had been told of the killer’s intentions, is it likely that she would say she was not sexually assaulted?
Why is she wrong?
Who is better placed to characterise the assault - the attacker or the victim?
What about the UCMJ definitions in the link in post 46? (that’s between posts 45 and 47. :D).
I also linked to NJ sexual assault laws in post 124.
To be clearer: Yes, I think that’s how it should be. Until I see a good argument against that position, anyway.
Taking a better look at the NJ link, intent does matter there:
As far as I’m concerned concerned there’s nothing sexual about a simple kiss. If there were then I’d be wigged out by how many times a grandparent kissed me. shudder
If it was a French kiss or something overtly sexual then that’d be different. Basically, if a brother and sister doing it in public is acceptable then it’s not sexual.
As unwanted physical contact though I’d say regular assault fits.