Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Protect your child, go to jail.
- Thread starter fourstringdrums
- Start date
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5995595&postcount=120
I know a lot about the charges because I was there when the lawyer was telling us what he could be charged with.
it was a really unfortunate situation. Not for my family member but for his victim. He got off with a slap on the wrist and she'll be messed up for life.
Truly sorry to hear about that
Sometimes a good old fashioned *ss-kicking is justified..as I said, I have 3 kids and may very well have done the same, no doubt.
Often the courts work as intended, sometimes they fall flat. Sounds like the latter in your case which is unfortunate.
See the problem is that you don't open a dictionary to see these things, you open a statute. I would be very surprised if, in the US, either of these crimes didn't require an element of "mens rea". I will defer to anyone familiar with Rhode Island law, but until then I suspect that your assertion that "intention is irrelevant" is incorrect when it comes to the application of the crimes these men are charged with.
I did not say you specifically now did I? Using the argument that is beng used here unless the guy was actually in the process of stabbing nothing should be done.
Look at the part I bolded and tell me how this situation is not just that?
Massachusetts...
and here it is
Section 13B. Whoever commits an indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years, or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years; and whoever commits a second or subsequent such offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years; provided, however, that a prosecution commenced under the provisions of this section shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding.
No person serving a sentence for a second or subsequent such offense shall be eligible for furlough, temporary release, or education, training or employment programs established outside a correctional facility until such person shall have served two-thirds of such minimum sentence or if such person has two or more sentences to be served otherwise than concurrently, two-thirds of the aggregate of the minimum terms of such several sentences.
In a prosecution under this section, a child under the age of fourteen years shall be deemed incapable of consenting to any conduct of the defendant for which said defendant is being prosecuted.
So you need the common law definitions of indecent assault and battery - which I suspect will require intention.
You are leagally allowed to defend yourself or others. It's not like dad left the bathroon and came back later to beat the guy. At least the way I am reading, it was a continuous string of events.
Hmmmm... Perhaps I misspoke. In my family, the term "raising one's hand" towards another generally involves a beating of some kind.
Allow me to rephrase:
"...at the very least, physically attacking with his bare hands..."
If you had a child (not sure if you do) would you react badly if someone was touching them in a way that had sexual possibilities while they were using the public bathroom?
you'd be right if it had happened in the UK
An offense is indecent if a 'reasonable person' would believe it indecent here in the good ol' USA
in other words it's up the jury to intemperate whether or not it was indecent. Just judging from the talkbass response do you you doubt they will find it to be indecent?
it's past the point of arguing if it's chargeable. he's already been charged with it....
actually your article only supported what I said
all it says is that right minded persons must find it indecent and it must have been meant to have been done as found indecent.
touching a kid while he's going to the bathroom is indecent by most people's standards and that's exactly what his intention was to do.
that 3rd part would only apply if he accidentally touched the kid while he was going to the bathroom.
I deleted the post as the article quotes HK law. I thought it was talking about MA law. However, I think you are slightly confused about how it works. In order for it to be indecent assault (the reasonable person test), there must first be an assault. In order for there to be an assault, there must have been intention on the part of the perpetrator. You then ask the objective test as to whether the assault was indecent. There is no strict liability (ie intentionless) charge of assault.
Whilst with a bit of effort, I can debate the technicalities of Massachusetts law with you, I doubt its a fruitful exercise. If you think intention is irrelevant to assault and battery charges then feel free to keep doing so. Unless I see evidence and not just speculation to the contrary though, I won't change my opinion.
Where is the outrage against the people that think it's cool to beat up old men? And technically, I did say "could". I was just saying that there might be a possibility that everyone talking about how they would do the same thing would be just as guilty as the guy who beat up the old man (and here'es the possibility part) for a horribly stupid, but innocent act.
any unwanted touching that causes damage qualifies as assault and battery (there actually doesn't have to be any physical contact to constitute plain old assault)
a stranger touching a young boy when going to the bathroom does in fact cause damage....
Again, you're confused as to what I am saying. All I am saying is that intent is a necessary element of the crime. Peruse this at your leisure (noting in particular the section applicable to the US):
Invalid Link Removed
