Protect your child, go to jail.

[69nites]

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

intent to do the action is necessary

he didn't touch the kid on accident.

as per your own link

Although an intent to harm the victim is likely to exist, it is not a required element of either offense.

 

[Marlat]

intent to do the action is necessary

he didn't touch the kid on accident.

as per your own link

As I said, you were confused as to what I was saying.

 

[69nites]

intent to do the action is necessary

he didn't touch the kid on accident.

as per your own link

the reason this intent is mentioned is because can't trip and fall touching someone inappropriately and be charged with assault and battery due to your accident.

 

[Gard]

I have 4 step kids, 3 girls (well, one young lady, two girls) and a young man (who has cerebral palsy and cannot defend himself).

If anyone, regardless of age, mental state, or gender ever did anything to threaten the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of one of these persons, they could take me to jail and hold me for trial after cleaning up the greasy spot that offender once occupied. This can also be applied to any number of family members, my wife, friends, and my pets.

Legally, I'd be "wrong", and I know this very well. However, morally, I believe I would have every right to dish out this type of response to such a situation.

I understand the father in this situation has crossed a "legal line", and must face the consequences, but I totally support his reaction. The 71 year old dude, no matter why he did what he did, needed the wakeup call he just received, and should get an even more severe response from the legal system, but he probably won't.

 

[wazzel]

It is going to be hard for the old dude not to get convicted. He did not accidentally reach under the stall to touch the kid.

 

[69nites]

As I said, you were confused as to what I was saying.

well you were talking about intent.

intent to the action is all that matters. not the intention of causing damage.

he admitted to touching the kid while he was going to the bathroom on purpose.

I don't understand what you don't get about why he qualifies for the charges....

 

[Marlat]

well you were talking about intent.

intent to the action is all that matters. not the intention of causing damage.

he admitted to touching the kid while he was going to the bathroom on purpose.

I don't understand what you don't get about why he qualifies for the charges....

if you want to get it, quote me where I said he didn't qualify for charges.

 

[wazzel]

I have 4 step kids, 3 girls (well, one young lady, two girls) and a young man (who has cerebral palsy and cannot defend himself).

If anyone, regardless of age, mental state, or gender ever did anything to threaten the physical, mental, or emotional well-being of one of these persons, they could take me to jail and hold me for trial after cleaning up the greasy spot that offender once occupied. This can also be applied to any number of family members, my wife, friends, and my pets.

Legally, I'd be "wrong", and I know this very well. However, morally, I believe I would have every right to dish out this type of response to such a situation.

I understand the father in this situation has crossed a "legal line", and must face the consequences, but I totally support his reaction. The 71 year old dude, no matter why he did what he did, needed the wakeup call he just received, and should get an even more severe response from the legal system, but he probably won't.

Wrong. In this country you still have the legal right to defend yourself, family or even a stranger.

 

[69nites]

if you want to get it, quote me where I said he didn't qualify for charges.

whether or not it was intended as a perverted act it still falls under indecent assault and battery.

that's the original point you've been arguing against.

 

[mjolnir]

I have to agree with this. Were it my child, I would probably react in exactly the same way, rough the guy up a bit, but I would also calm down and wait for the police, and I wouldn't object in the slightest if they told me I was being charged with assault. What the old guy did was wrong, but resorting to beating him senseless is wrong as well, and accepting the consequences of one's actions is the only thing one can do and still be a good role model for their kids.

...And for that I'd recommend anger management for you, or maybe some good ol' fashioned therapy perhaps.

I am not opposed to getting physical if needs require it, and I'll admit as I have before that I would have probably reacted the same way as this father did if I were in his shoes, but I also acknowledge that such measures are just plain unnecessary. I'm a lover, not a fighter, and accepting responsibility for my actions would be a must if I went and beat up on some old dude if my child or I were not in danger.

Have I defended him?... Man, must have missed that... I coulda sworn I said I'd have roughed him up myself...

I just believe that breaking the law is breaking the law. If the man pulled a knife, or a gun, or even at the very least raised a hand to my child, his life would be very much in danger 'cause of me, and I'd give my own life to make sure my child was safe from him. The guy pinched a leg in a less than dangerous manner. Maybe it was a sexual advance, and maybe I'd take it that way and pound his face in. Doesn't make it right.

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?

...Huh.

Looks like I would.

 

[Marlat]

it doesn't matter what his intent was....

The quote above is what concerned me. I thought thoughout my posts, my point was reasonably clear. Let me highlight the relevant bits:

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.

So you need the common law definitions of indecent assault and battery - which I suspect will require intention.

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

that's the original point you've been arguing against.

I can see how you could have missed that. But, as I said you misunderstood what I was saying. I never claimed he couldnt be charged (he already was charged). I was just saying that intent was a necessary element of the crime. I think the parts bolded above make that fairly clear, but if not, I'm sorry.

 

[69nites]

The quote above is what concerned me. I thought thoughout my posts, my point was reasonably clear. Let me highlight the relevant bits:









I can see how you could have missed that. But, as I said you misunderstood what I was saying. I never claimed he couldnt be charged (he already was charged). I was just saying that intent was a necessary element of the crime. I think the parts bolded above make that fairly clear, but if not, I'm sorry.

ohh yes I never said they didn't require intent to commit the crime.

only that they didn't require any perverted intent.

but it didn't make sense to my why the intent you speak of was ever brought up because he already confessed to having that intent.

 

[Bassic83]

Mark, you ought to move to Texas...it's like a whole 'nother country!

 

[Marlat]

Mark, you ought to move to Texas...it's like a whole 'nother country!

I believe it was, originally!

 

[wazzel]

...Huh.

Looks like I would.

Went back and read our back and forth in continueous stream. So you would hit the guy while feeling it was wrong, legally? I would hit the guy feeling it was legal in defence of my kid. As far as I know it is still legal to defend your kid.

 

[Bassic83]

As far as preverts go, most rapes are not about the sex, they're about the control. Major exception to that? Pedophilia. That usually IS about the gratification of the perp, and not about the control.

Someone tries something with my 7-yo daughter, they have a serious problem. Firstly, because I have taught her to defend herself with all her might, like her life depends on it (it very well could), and secondly, because I'm big, and I will HURT someone who tries to hurt my daughter. Period, end of story, legalities be damned.

I, personally, would rather leave this country and move to a foreign land than be jailed because some sicko pervert has more rights than me! And it may come to that someday, who knows?

 

[KsToaDangr]

personally, that guy needs a baseball bat to the kneecap...and the ribs...and a hammer to his fingers...and a .44 to the back of his head...in that order

 

[mjolnir]

Went back and read our back and forth in continueous stream. So you would hit the guy while feeling it was wrong, legally? I would hit the guy feeling it was legal in defence of my kid. As far as I know it is still legal to defend your kid.

Yes, I would feel it was wrong legally. Morally I'd feel some righteous indignation but assault is assault.

Speaking completely hypothetically, if I were put in that situation I imagine after assaulting the guy, I'd wait. I'd be arrested, hopefully the police arresting me would allow me to arrange something for my child if he couldn't come with me, I'd be out on bail within a few hours, and have my day in court.

 

[aborgman]

It's easy for you to sit there and armchair QB this thing. You have no children to be responsible for. And you only seem have the vaguest notion of how damaging this kind of predatory behavior is. The fact that this pervert did it in front of the boy's father indicates how little the molester cares.

Additionally, this is only the first time the pervert in question has been caught.

Or maybe it indicates mental illness - specifically dementia. It is not especially uncommon for people suffering from dementia, who have never molested anyone in their life, to do so due to their mental illness.

If this guy were 20, I'd say odds are he's a molester. An old man - he might be, or he might just be mentally losing it.

 

[Toasted]

personally, that guy needs a baseball bat to the kneecap...and the ribs...and a hammer to his fingers...and a .44 to the back of his head...in that order

I agree, beating up an old guy isn't cool.