HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » According to your opinion...

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:07 PM

According to your opinion, are non consensual cavity searches a form of sexual assault?

Particularly cavity searches that involve penetrating the anus or vagina.
28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, non consensual cavity searches are a form of sexual assault.
24 (86%)
No, non consensual cavity searches are not a form of sexual assault.
2 (7%)
I don't really care for the above two options, but I don't really like the "Pass" button either.
2 (7%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

56 replies, 6880 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply According to your opinion, are non consensual cavity searches a form of sexual assault? (Original post)
ZombieHorde Aug 2013 OP
bunnies Aug 2013 #1
Koios Aug 2013 #4
bunnies Aug 2013 #5
Koios Aug 2013 #6
bunnies Aug 2013 #8
Koios Aug 2013 #9
bunnies Aug 2013 #12
Koios Aug 2013 #14
bunnies Aug 2013 #16
Koios Aug 2013 #17
bunnies Aug 2013 #18
Koios Aug 2013 #26
bunnies Aug 2013 #29
ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #31
Koios Aug 2013 #41
bunnies Aug 2013 #43
Koios Aug 2013 #49
bunnies Aug 2013 #50
uppityperson Aug 2013 #35
uppityperson Aug 2013 #20
Koios Aug 2013 #28
uppityperson Aug 2013 #34
Koios Aug 2013 #37
uppityperson Aug 2013 #40
bunnies Aug 2013 #47
uppityperson Aug 2013 #42
ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #10
Koios Aug 2013 #13
Yavin4 Aug 2013 #2
MrSlayer Aug 2013 #3
Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #7
limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #39
RedCappedBandit Aug 2013 #55
trueblue2007 Aug 2013 #11
randome Aug 2013 #15
JVS Aug 2013 #19
uppityperson Aug 2013 #23
davidn3600 Aug 2013 #25
JVS Aug 2013 #27
bunnies Aug 2013 #32
Nevernose Aug 2013 #21
uppityperson Aug 2013 #22
Nevernose Aug 2013 #33
uppityperson Aug 2013 #38
elehhhhna Aug 2013 #36
Aerows Aug 2013 #24
Brigid Aug 2013 #30
LWolf Aug 2013 #44
derby378 Aug 2013 #45
KG Aug 2013 #46
Egalitarian Thug Aug 2013 #54
madokie Aug 2013 #48
MADem Aug 2013 #51
elleng Aug 2013 #52
mythology Aug 2013 #53
RedCappedBandit Aug 2013 #56

Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:10 PM

1. absofuckinglutely.

 

Get a warrant or fuck off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:14 PM

4. Warrant, or ...

 

Consent
Plain Sight
Incident to Arrest
Oops (edit) Exigent circumstance

Where most screw up in Consent. We give it too freely, thinking we'll seem less suspicious (tip: no law against being suspicious)

Also, we enter places which deem consent upon entry, such as airport, special events, etc. That's another form of consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:27 PM

5. They'd never get my consent.

 

And I'd never allow them to to it. I dont care how guilty it would make me look. No judge on the planet would issue a warrant for a cavity search just because the car smelled like pot. But Im guessing the women involved felt intimidated into complying. Not exactly consent, imho.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:32 PM

6. They might without you knowing it ...

 

.... say your car passed a warning sign saying car searches ahead. That's informed consent, in the eyes of the law.

Or you buy a professional sports event or concert ticket. They often include privacy rights waivers in the small print. So informed consent is assumed upon entry.

Ditto at airports, federal buildings, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:35 PM

8. And what does that have to do with penetrating my orifices?

 

We're talking about sexual assault here. Not a peek in my backpack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:38 PM

9. It has to do with searching your person ...

 

... which a search consent, in fact, allows, unless specifically barred in the consent agreement.

The truth is, they could, vis a vis the consent upon entry. But most do not. Indeed it's very, very rare. They choose what works, and not merely what they're limited to: search hand bags, jackets, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #9)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:46 PM

12. Ive never been handed a consent agreement by police.

 

Have you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:54 PM

14. Nope, but ...

 

... cops go for verbal, or often lie that they got it. So staying mute helps, since if you say nothing, the judge might more plausibly believe that you're being truthful when saying you did not consent to any search. So say you wish an attorney present when questioned, and that you consent to no searches of any kind. Then go mute. They might violate your rights, but you still have them. And in court, you stand a better than even chance that anything they got in a bad search will be inadmissible in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:11 PM

16. Consent for physical violation...

 

is something I dont think can ever be implied because theres no reason to expect that sort of thing would happen. Its pretty sad that women in this situation, even IF consenting to a search, need to explicitly state they will not allow police to sexually assault them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:22 PM

17. Consent to personal search ...

 

... and "violation" is pretty subjective. However, to avoid much risk of that being the case, legally, steps are taken, which are not common in sexual assaults: privacy; glove; same-sex searcher; lubes to minimize discomfort; quick and purposeful, the purpose not being the enjoyment of the person doing the search.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:32 PM

18. Are you a woman?

 

Because I can promise you that a consent to a personal search does not involve my consenting to someone putting their fingers in my bits. And I'm sorry... getting invaded by a cop right on the side of the damn road in front of a dash-cam is not exactly private. No. The fact that its a person of the same sex does NOT make the practice more acceptable nor does a glove or lube.

By that logic, if a woman doesnt say no and a rapist uses lube and protection in some private place its a-ok. Quick and purposeful. Check and check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #18)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:11 PM

26. No; a man ...

 

... and not keen on the thought of being sexually abused, which of course is filled with terror, pain and much worse. I do experience annual benefits of being over 40, and having a finger up places I'd prefer they not go. But to characterize that as abuse, would be a bit absurd, not to mention arrogant ... my fanny and bung hole are perhaps not as erotic as I might like to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:18 PM

29. A cop vs a doctor.

 

Hardly the same, really. You go to the doctor for the test because you want the test done. He doesnt pull you out of your car on the side of the road and jam his finger is your ass for speeding. Thats a pretty absurd comparison dontcha think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:36 PM

31. Damn straight.

I completely agree with you. Asking a doctor to examine you in a doctor's office is completely different than being forced to be examined on the side of the road. One is consensual, and for your benefit, while the other is neither.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #29)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:22 PM

41. Agreed, but ...

 

... that's not what the OP queried, and incidents in Texas are as yet, alleged, and not factual. While it's hair-raising and worrisome, and one might question the official police denial of the incidents, if proven true, some cop is going to wind up a security guard and the agency will pay out millions.

In the US, all searches require consent, or ...

Plain sight
Exigent circumstance (prevent crime from happening, which is eminent)
Incident to arrest
Cause for a warrant, signed by a judge.

Non consensual searches are un-American, if some other circumstance deemed okay by the court, is not present.

And as an aside, cops can violate rights, but take them away. And when they do, if proven in court, you recourse against the cop, and the city or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:33 PM

43. The cops have been fired...

 

and the women awarded a settlement. Alleged my ass.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57591418-504083/women-settle-with-texas-state-police-for-$185k-over-illegal-body-cavity-search-report-says/

AND

Trooper Kelly Helleson was fired and Trooper David Farrell suspended for conducting a roadside body cavity search on two women. Helleson was also indicted for two counts of Sexual Assault and two counts of Official Oppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bunnies (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:58 PM

49. Sorry ...

 

... I missed that it had been settled. Great news; and that would indeed be an assault. No question.

But cavity searches which are legit, are not assault. So my point was, and where this started was, in re: the OP, and not the Texas matter which came later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #49)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:59 PM

50. non-consentual searches are not legit.

 

Unless one is taken into custody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #26)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:10 PM

35. You equate giving your doctor permission to check your prostate to being pulled over and assaulted

next to the road?

Indeed absurd and arrogant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:48 PM

20. Those are not common in sexual assaults? W.T.F?

Privacy, check. Glove/condom, check. Same sex, it depends. Lubes, check. Quick and purposeful, check. Enjoyment of the person doing the search or assault? It depends as often rape is for power, not sexual enjoyment. Rather like a cop probing without permission.

I think you need to do some research about rape, including talking to those of us who have been raped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:15 PM

28. Advice (yours): I think you need to do some research about rape, including talk ...

 

... K. I'll ask my significant other if her experience was a smidge more terrifying and physically painful and damaging than a "cavity search by a woman cop."

Any thoughts on how she might weigh in on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #28)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:09 PM

34. Good grief. You are changing the goal posts, aren't you?

From "steps which are not common in sexual assaults" to how "terrifying and physically painful and damaging" an assault was.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #34)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:17 PM

37. No, I'm ....

 

... not minimizing the terrifying and awful act of sexual assault by equating it to the merely demeaning/embarrassing experience of a cavity search. In fact, I'm astonished how any would, since it's an insult to all who've been sexually assaulted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #37)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:21 PM

40. My experience has ranged from being groped to beaten and raped so don't try what you are trying to

do.

There is a wide range of sexual assault and shame on you for minimizing all but the worst. These women were assaulted. They were penetrated without permission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #40)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:47 PM

47. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:23 PM

42. "consent to personal search is pretty subjective"? So "No" can mean "yes"?

How the fuck is "no, you can not search me" "pretty subjective"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Koios (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:41 PM

10. The point I am taking away from your post is

there is a difference between legal consent and actual consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:51 PM

13. Yes, but ...

 

... not in terms of what's admissible evidence against you.

But the upside is, you have rights even before they're read to you, which for most is way too late. They blabbed; they took a breathalyzer without demanding an attorney be present during the testing (a right, if requested); they answered questions without demanding an attorney be present during questioning (a right, if requested)

Or maybe in a DV inquiry, they didn't understand the minutia. For example, you do not consent, but the spouse does. (all they need) Or you do not consent, but the roommate does (enough, but the only the common areas, and not your bedroom, private bath or your car in the garage.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:11 PM

2. Sexual assault, police brutality, and violation of public trust

A badge does not give you license to commit a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:11 PM

3. Yeah, what else can they be described as?

 

You're being digitally penetrated against your will. That's definitely sexual assault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:33 PM

7. The bottom line is NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHTS AT ALL as long as cops think pot smoking may be involved.

I mean, let's cut to the chase. That's what all these roadside cavity searches in Texas are about. "Got a bag of weeeeeed in there, dontcha"

It's the drug war, and it's been turned into a blank check for Law Enforcement to do whatever the fuck they want, whenever they want.

The woman in the Family Court who was assaulted and the Family Court judge didn't give a shit? She "needed" a "drug search". No reason, she just did. Gotta CHECK FER DRUGZ!

The fundamental conceit of the drug war is that the government owns your body and can tell you what you can or can't do with it. So of course they can probe every inch of it to check for prohibited psycho-alterants.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:21 PM

39. "The fundamental conceit of the drug war is that the government owns your body and can tell you

what you can or can't do with it."

Whoa - that was deep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 11:33 PM

55. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:44 PM

11. COPS ARE RAPING WOMEN IN TEXAS. story below

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/05/lawyers-illegal-body-cavity-searches-of-women-standard-policy-at-texas-traffic-stops/


Lawyer representing women who faced “unconstitutional” cavity searches of their genitals at traffic stops in Texas last year have said that the practice is essentially standard practice in many jurisdictions.

In two separate cases last year, four women said that they were humiliated with illegal cavity searches on the side of Texas highways. Angel Dobbs, 38, and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley Dobbs were searched after a trooper saw them throw a cigarette butt out the car window. And Brandy Hamilton, 27, and Alexandria Randle, 26, were searched after a trooper claimed he smelled marijuana.

“It’s ridiculous,” Dallas attorney and former police officer Peter Schulte told The New York Daily News. “We would never put our hands anywhere near someone’s private parts… When I saw that video I was shocked. I was a law enforcement officer for 16 years and I’ve never seen anything like it.”

“I think the Department of Public Safety is trying to figure out who in the world trained these troopers to think that this is OK,” Schulte added. “The law just doesn’t support that. It just doesn’t.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:59 PM

15. Unless there is a ticking time bomb inside, yes.

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:43 PM

19. I don't like the idea of them being used for spurious reasons, but...

I don't see them as sexual assault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #19)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:54 PM

23. If you manipulate or touch my sexual parts without my permission, how is it not

Sexual assault? Again, trying to clarify, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:01 PM

25. The courts are not going to care about your feelings or your consent

 

They side with the police 99% of the time on these issues.

We have no 4th amendment anymore. A police officer's opinion seems to be enough for probable cause these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:15 PM

27. Because I'd have to interpret the act of searching as sexual intercourse to make it fit the statute.

§ 3124.1. Sexual assault.
Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape) or 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant without the complainant's consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #27)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:56 PM

32. Definition of sexual assault.

 

In Texas where this happened:

Penal Code, Sec. 22.011.(a) creates the offence of sexual assault. It reads:

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally or knowingly:

(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or
(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:49 PM

21. Technically, doesn't it have to be

For the purpose of sexual gratification to be sexual assault, at least legally?

However, I think it's assault, whether its sexual or otherwise. While there is the rare instance of someone keeping a gun in places guns should not be kept, usually they're looking for drugs. Since I think drugs should all be legalized and the War on Drugs is a bullshit way to simultaneously oppress people and fund an entire industry, I think searching for them is an abusive, ineffective waste of time and money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #21)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 05:52 PM

22. So if a guy does not ejacultae, it can not be rape? Is this what you are asking?

Trying to clarify what you mean, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 07:24 PM

33. I think the technical definition

Is that it has to be contact with the purposes of sexual gratification. Orgasm, regardless of sex of offender, is not necessary. I know that this was the definition in some jurisdiction.

In fact, I just answered my own question, from the Nation Center for Victims of Crime:
Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person's body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person's consent


So, at least according to Wikipedia, the difference between assault and sexual assault isn't the place being touched, but the motives of the offender.

However, none of that was my original point. My original point was that it's wrong regardless of how one defines it, but the act in and of itself does not necessarily mean that it's an overtly sexual one. Those cops in Dallas who "searched" those two women? Fucking rapists who need to think quietly for a while, say ten years in a lovely Texas penitentiary. The search they give recently arrived prisoners in jail? Also assault, also wrong, and definitely immoral, but probably (hopefully) not rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:19 PM

38. Thanks for the in depth answer. I guess my issue is that sexual assault can and is not about

sexual gratification but about control. Yes, some is about sexual gratification, but it is also about controlling the other person, meant to demean, humiliate. Hence inserting objects into another person is sexual assault, though the assaulter may not have sexual gratification, if that makes sense.

When I was in 5th grade walking down a sidewalk, a boy passing on his bike stopped and grabbed my crotch. I shoved him away, was creeped out and did not understand wtf it was about. Later I figured out it was to creep me out. I don't know if he got any gratification beyond knowing he was able to creep me out but it was assault.

One of the reasons "sexual assault" is used more in a legal way is it is more widely applied than "rape", and the definition is broader. "Rape" used to be by a stranger, penis into vagina, she had to fight. It has evolved to a broader definition but "sexual assault" works better in a lot of cases, including rape.

Back to your original point, they deserve to be in prison for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #21)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:12 PM

36. stick your finger up someone's nose and see what the law calls it

 

whether you get off on it or not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:00 PM

24. Yes they are

 

and if it ever happened to me, particularly on the side of the damn road (since I don't do illegal drugs) prepare to be sued into bankruptcy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 06:23 PM

30. Of course they are.

What else would they be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:37 PM

44. Well, they are an assault.

When an "officer" performs an invasive body cavity search without cause, I'd rank that as a sexual assault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:41 PM

45. If they're done out in the open like those cases here in Texas, YES

Probable fucking cause. If you reasonably suspect someone is a drug mule, you arrest them, take them to the station, and perform the cavity search there, not on the highway where everyone can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:43 PM

46. man, i knew before i opened this thread, there'd be some fool defending this shit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KG (Reply #46)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 11:10 PM

54. It gets more reich-wing every day, it seems.

 

The last few months have been strange for me as I've been stuck at home working in 6 different time zones, so I didn't have many options for activity (or sleep) as I have been tied to my system and phones.

DU was the main way I passed the time waiting to make or take the next call, and in that time I was sure that the whole damned world had gone 'round the bend. Well, the deal's done and I can get out and about again, and guess what... While the number of staggeringly stupid people has not obviously diminished, the rest of the world is pretty much the same as it was before.

Now, I'm here for a few minutes in the morning and a bit at night just to see what kind of crazy is being pushed by the authoritarians that live here on any given day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 08:50 PM

48. Damn sure is

Should be a warrant required before anything like that happens. No if, and or buts to it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 09:01 PM

51. You'd better be under arrest, in a sterile facility, and the search performed by a medical

professional...a cop groping yer bizniz is not on, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 09:02 PM

52. No, 'assault' but not 'sexual' assault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 10:09 PM

53. How about I just go with it sucks, it needs to stop

 

In an intellectual philosophical sense, it may matter what it's called, but in the general sense, I don't care. The sorry excuses for human beings doing this should be tried and then where applicable sentenced to prison.

But in general, I would say it's sexual assault since the goal is probably to sexually humiliate the victims. I can't imagine what else it might be for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Original post)

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 11:36 PM

56. If some random stranger on the street did it, would it be sexual assault?

Pretty sure every rational person in the world is going to say yes.

Then it makes no difference if the person is a cop, without a warrant or consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread