Hate to interrupt the hoops freakout, but they might have the Bama 'bagger
- Thread starter jakldawg
- Start date
- Status
I actually agree with a good portion of what you said. I have multiple problems with this particular subject though. Regardless of the severity of what just happened, I see what he just did as a sexual offense despite there not being any intent of sexual gratification. I do agree that as far as the spectrum of sexual acts that could be committed on someone, this would be on the very low end of things.<div>
</div><div>I do agree with what Johnson85 said about something like this shouldn't ultimately ruin his life. I do think that as far as being convicted as a sexual offender there should be a change in the current way things are. Again, agreeing with Johnson85 that the severity and other factors should be considered such as consent (statutory), victimless (public urination/flashing), etc... in order to determine what tier the assailant should fall under. I think if that were the case, this would be a minor offense.</div><div>
</div><div>Regardless of all that said though, I just can't see this as anything other than a type of sexual assault. I don't care if that's something that goes on at a lot of parties/frat houses, that **** is disgusting. I don't know any sane, heterosexual man that would be cool with another man's scrotum placed anywhere on their person and wouldn't consider that a sexual violation of their personal space.</div>
</div><div>I do agree with what Johnson85 said about something like this shouldn't ultimately ruin his life. I do think that as far as being convicted as a sexual offender there should be a change in the current way things are. Again, agreeing with Johnson85 that the severity and other factors should be considered such as consent (statutory), victimless (public urination/flashing), etc... in order to determine what tier the assailant should fall under. I think if that were the case, this would be a minor offense.</div><div>
</div><div>Regardless of all that said though, I just can't see this as anything other than a type of sexual assault. I don't care if that's something that goes on at a lot of parties/frat houses, that **** is disgusting. I don't know any sane, heterosexual man that would be cool with another man's scrotum placed anywhere on their person and wouldn't consider that a sexual violation of their personal space.</div>
in many states as well as with the federal govt. This guy may very well carry a label, and I think he should, but he's not going to get questioned every time there's a sex crime in his area.
I agree with you on this. My youthful days were pretty wild. Never once did I witness a man put his genitalia on another man's head. Seeing it happen would not have been cool. Having it done to me would've led to bloodshed.
I agree with you on this. My youthful days were pretty wild. Never once did I witness a man put his genitalia on another man's head. Seeing it happen would not have been cool. Having it done to me would've led to bloodshed.
I always assumed that the sex offender tag carried the same weight when the offender is out of custody despite whatever the crime may have been.
his pants (but much worse). I love hearing that Roll Tide chant in NO though. That must have pissed them off big time.
Two days of Teabag Talk. I don't know if Sam the guy that called in was really the victim or a Finebaum set up. He said he got drunk watching the game in a bar on Bourbon St. with his girlfriend. He and his girlfriend were going to split a Sackful from Krystal. She got pissed at him at Krystal and left. He said he didn't remember anything after that.
After he hung up Finebaum kept referring to the caller as Sad Sack Sam.
Link to the MP3 of Sam's phone call.
http://www.finebaum.com/A...d=1958637&spid=38693
After he hung up Finebaum kept referring to the caller as Sad Sack Sam.
Link to the MP3 of Sam's phone call.
http://www.finebaum.com/A...d=1958637&spid=38693
and be forced to spend the rest of his natural born life explaining his actions to kids all across Louisiana.
An extended jail sentence, to me, wont do a damn thing but make him the next ***** behind bars. He needs to make sure he does as much to prevent the next sexual assault as he did to create the next one by making this look like a prank.
NO human being who would do this in public to another defenseless human deserves to walk around without the flashing arrow sign, "I'm a danger to your family" above his head.
An extended jail sentence, to me, wont do a damn thing but make him the next ***** behind bars. He needs to make sure he does as much to prevent the next sexual assault as he did to create the next one by making this look like a prank.
NO human being who would do this in public to another defenseless human deserves to walk around without the flashing arrow sign, "I'm a danger to your family" above his head.
Not everything that involves naughty bits is rape. Some of y'all need to chill.
I look at it the same as writing all over someone who passed out. Or sticking their hand in warm water.
I look at it the same as writing all over someone who passed out. Or sticking their hand in warm water.
A kick to the balls is a LOT different than ********** a defenseless drunk guy. It's not rape, but there's no way that's not a sexual crime. Hell, supposedly most rapes aren't about sex at all but anger. So should we call those an anger crime instead of a sex crime? I honestly can't see how anyone is defending this piece of **** to any degree. That's just sick.
an intentional kick to the balls is intentionally harming someone in a sexual manner. it's done to intentionally cause severe pain by means of the sexual organs. sounds like a sex crime to me.
i'd say this case is more like pissing on someone, or throwing **** at someone, or rubbing your foot or *** on someone. it's demeaning, it's criminal, it's just gross,but it's not sexual assault.
if putting my balls on you is a sex crime, then you kicking my balls should be too.
i'd say this case is more like pissing on someone, or throwing **** at someone, or rubbing your foot or *** on someone. it's demeaning, it's criminal, it's just gross,but it's not sexual assault.
if putting my balls on you is a sex crime, then you kicking my balls should be too.
boomboommsu said:
One involves writing immature crap on someone.
The other involves literally exposing yourself in public, climbing on top of another man, and rubbing your balls on his face.
Yeah...just not in the same boat to me.
Bit hey, next time a girl passes out and a random unknown guy forces his balls to rub on her face, you can just explain to her that it's no different than having words and pics temporarily drawn on her by friends while she is passed out.
most experts will tell you that their gratification is more about exerting power over the vulnerable. That is what this guy did. He is no better than any other pedophile or sexual offender. Nobody stopped Sandusky for his "locker room pranks" either, until one of the vulnerable stepped up. If what he did is a "locker room prank" instead of a sexual offense in your mind, then I obliviously run in different circles than you do. There is something wrong with any man that thinks it is funny to "tea bag" a passed out stranger in public. If you and your friends want to "tea bag" each other as a prank, that's fine. But sexually assaulting a vulnerable stranger is a different story.
Would you rather suffer unknown sackface, or have your wallet and phone stolen?
Either way, I say public shaming: yes; sex offender list; no
Either way, I say public shaming: yes; sex offender list; no
I'm glad some of you did not what went on when people passed out during my college days. The sexual offenders list would be twice as long.</p>
There should be a window of time for something stupid like this. Like if you don't do anything else scrotum to face related in the next 3 years you're in the clear. They really make life hard for SO's here. And I do think that the crime is of a sexual nature. The perpetrator may not but I bet the victim does. I mean balls to a passed out dude's face and simulated humping is pretty obvious.</p>
I'm curious to see how you'll react when kicked in the balls vs a hairy sack placed firmly onto your face. Then again, you may consider both all in good fun. If that's the case... enjoy yourself...
If that were a passed out female,there is no question he'd be charged with sexual assault.The gender of the victim in this case is playing a large part in how people view it.mstateglfr said:
They guy, in an attempt to humiliate another person, exposed himself in public, placed his genitals on that person's face, and even simulated humping theperson's head. That's sexual assault. And it's sexual assault in your frat house, too.It's just that the culture that is created in a frat house lends toit just getting passed off as a funny prank.But let's say a cop, or even a parent, walked in and saw genitals on the face of someone who was passed out.... think it would still get passed off as a funny prank?
There are always going to be people who say "well that kid really wanted the older woman" or "he's now going to be the cool kid at school" or "trust me, the boy hasn't been harmed". If it were a female with a male teacher, then no one ever sees it that way.
In this scenario, since it is one guy "playing a prank" on another guy there are people who don't get the fact that the two men are not friends, fraternity brothers, acquaintences, and in fact (to my knowledge) they had never met each other prior to that night. Additionally, both individuals were not even awake when this took place so there was no chance for the guy to defend himself. Last, just because itwas two dudes doesn't mean itwas OK and all in good fun. If that was a woman, most of the people in the crowd (I hope) would have either stopped it before it actually happened or they would have kicked the guy's *** for doing it.
In this scenario, since it is one guy "playing a prank" on another guy there are people who don't get the fact that the two men are not friends, fraternity brothers, acquaintences, and in fact (to my knowledge) they had never met each other prior to that night. Additionally, both individuals were not even awake when this took place so there was no chance for the guy to defend himself. Last, just because itwas two dudes doesn't mean itwas OK and all in good fun. If that was a woman, most of the people in the crowd (I hope) would have either stopped it before it actually happened or they would have kicked the guy's *** for doing it.
is just as bad as what the guy did. Passing out in the Krystal on Bourbon St. makes you a complete idiot that probably deserves to get hauled off to the drunk tank for the night. In no way should an entire restaurant of people allow another person to put his junk in your face. </p>
The more you put it this way, the more serious I'm starting to take it. I guess in the past (which I have seen this before... unfortunately... disgusting as it may be... I was an RA for several years on campus... but I've only seen it done once as a drunk prank). I guess I was thinking "Hey, he's just showing off for his buddies or trying to earn cool points or be remembered for some awesome story..." not serious enough to be listed as a sexual offender.
He DOES deserve to be punished... I never disagreed with that... anyone who rips their junk out in public should be punished... especially putting them on someone else, but I think your points really drove home how serious this is. I guess I was thinking the S.O. list should be left for those who actually harmed others... or God forbid children... for sexual pleasure, but my opinion has been swayed.
He DOES deserve to be punished... I never disagreed with that... anyone who rips their junk out in public should be punished... especially putting them on someone else, but I think your points really drove home how serious this is. I guess I was thinking the S.O. list should be left for those who actually harmed others... or God forbid children... for sexual pleasure, but my opinion has been swayed.
If he were convicted of sexual battery (I think that's what this would qualify as - correct me if I'm wrong), he would be looking at 25 years minimum. That's what the statute requires in LA for battery against an individual who was incapacitated. http://law.justia.com/cod...11/rs/title14/rs14-43-1/
I'm extremely naive of the real-world legal system. What would be the likely charge this guy is convicted of? I would think even toughest of DAs would agree that 25 years is overboard and would try a lesser charge...
I'm extremely naive of the real-world legal system. What would be the likely charge this guy is convicted of? I would think even toughest of DAs would agree that 25 years is overboard and would try a lesser charge...
Yeah, it was without consent, as isall sexual battery. That 3A clause basically prevents a predator from tricking a mentally incapacitated person into saying yes, and it also prevents you from taking advantage of some one with physical handicaps.
The victim in this case was drunk. Does being intoxicated of your own accord and passing out in public fit into that clause? Depends on how they want to go about it. Seems to me they could easily shoot for something under 10 years (C.1). He'll get some lengthy probation, a fine, a few months in the clink... just a guess by someone who's extent of experience with the law was the Business Law class you had to take in the College of Business.
The victim in this case was drunk. Does being intoxicated of your own accord and passing out in public fit into that clause? Depends on how they want to go about it. Seems to me they could easily shoot for something under 10 years (C.1). He'll get some lengthy probation, a fine, a few months in the clink... just a guess by someone who's extent of experience with the law was the Business Law class you had to take in the College of Business.
- Status