Was this sexual assault? What's the appropriate response?

[TSwizzle]

No, you see, this is the problem. You don't know he was waiting for a specific person. He might have been waiting for any person. He might have been staring at a hedge in a trance.

He knew the girl from school, it had happened twice and the second time was premeditated.

[Metaphor]

Even if none of his actions "added up", his actions don't and can't amount to sexual assault.

That he was hiding behind a hedge

He was not "hiding". You are introducing this element. He was looking at the hedge.

evidently waiting for her to approach--

It is not evident he was waiting for her specifically

as strongly indicated by the fact that, once she got close enough to him, he suddenly sprang out at her with the apparent intention of touching her on her breast,

That is not apparent. It was speculation on the part of the girl.

but because she moved, he ended up touching her arm--is itself, at the very least, assault. Minor, but assault nonetheless.

I already said it was common assault.

That a supposedly chronically shy and awkward person does roughly the exact same overt action to her--only in a more direct and less awkward manner, including deliberate eye contact while touching her--several days after being rejected previously by her, however, puts the earlier event in particular into a more alarming light.

Only if you already believed his malintent in the first place.

It was not just random happenstance; the hiding by the hedge

He was not "hiding", you have introduced that element.

not just some bizarre random act; and the admission that he recognised her adding to the premeditation

No--it does not make it premeditated.

in both instances. He was rejected, yet that somehow emboldened him to act again, only in a more direct manner.

That he used the defense that he was chronically shy and awkward likewise adds to the suspicion, since people suffering from such conditions generally do not (a) make any such bold moves or, (b) after having made one such attempt that failed try to do the exact same thing to the same person again.

And that was his only excuse for his actions.

I didn't say his actions were not weird or inappropriate. I said they don't look like sexual assault.

So if you take that away, what you have--at least prima facie--is someone acting both times out of premeditation; both times physically touching the girl against her wishes and without her consent; both times in a sudden and thus threatening manner--the second time bolder than the first--with an excuse that actually contradicts his actions, not explains them.

You only believe the 'excuse' contradicts them because you already believe he is manufacturing excuses.

Without hearing any more evidence than that, I would at the very least agree he should have been arrested and investigated. He saw her coming toward him, so he hid behind or near a hedge (not quite sure exactly what that is all about from the articles).

None of that happened. He did not hide behind a hedge. He was staring at a hedge.

He then jumps out at her or suddenly turns toward her upon her approach and apparently tries to grab her breast, but she prevents him, says "Stop" (no mistaking that) and moves away from him into the street. He then moves away quickly (i.e., in a guilty fashion).

People move away quickly from situations when they are embarrassed or scared, not just 'guilty'.

There is no mistaking the fact that he was openly rejected by the girl in no uncertain terms.

If that were the end of it, then, like the girl, none of us probably would have thought much more about it. But it wasn't the end of it. Her rejection escalated matters, not ended them. That alone is a big yellow flag warning.

So, again, without going any further than just the two accounts we have in the papers, you have premeditation; escalation after being rejected; contradictory defense excuse; and two counts of assault (i.e., touching her against her will).

There's no evidence of premeditation; you have imagined that from whole cloth. The defence is only "contradictory" if you think everybody responds to the same stimulus the same way.

[Metaphor]

No, you see, this is the problem. You don't know he was waiting for a specific person. He might have been waiting for any person. He might have been staring at a hedge in a trance.

He knew the girl from school, it had happened twice and the second time was premeditated.

There's no evidence that either assault was premeditated nor that he was waiting for a specific person. You are drawing conclusions that are not evidenced.

[TSwizzle]

No, you see, this is the problem. You don't know he was waiting for a specific person. He might have been waiting for any person. He might have been staring at a hedge in a trance.

He knew the girl from school, it had happened twice and the second time was premeditated.

There's no evidence that either assault was premeditated nor that he was waiting for a specific person. You are drawing conclusions that are not evidenced.

Convicting Griffiths, the magistrates told him: “The complainant’s evidence was very clear, logical and without embellishment. We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual. Had she not taken evasive action the assault was likely to have been even more serious. The first assault can be recognised as opportunistic, however there is more evidence of premeditation in the second.”

Apparently there is evidence the second encounter was premeditated.

[Metaphor]

I think it could be sexual assault and we should not draw conclusions. For example, if he gently but disturbingly touched her two inches from the base of her breast, distant enough to qualify as "on the side," then that is pervy. Statutorily, it qualifies as sex assault.

I looked up what the UK statute defines as 'sexual'. This is the text:

78“Sexual”

[F1For the purposes of this Part ([F2except sections 15A and 71 ]), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that—

(a)whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or

(b)because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.]

On the face of it, and maybe I'm just not that smart, that seems like a very bad definition, 'sexual' things are things with a 'sexual nature'.

I don't find it reasonable to conclude that touching somebody on the arm is sexual in nature.

Holding his hand there 3 to 5 seconds while looking in her face in an isolated area after that first encounter where she withdrew and exclaimed "stop," is hard to make excuses for.

I don't understand this "excuse" business. What he did was weird and inappropriate. I just don't think it was sexual assault.

We don't know with precision where on the side he touched her. But it seems like something a court would ask. Thus, memes such as "show me on the doll where so and so touched you." I cannot say with certainty the court asked that. Who knows, but in my opinion, it is plausible the actions of Griffiths meet the statutory definition of sex assault.

As for common assault, people expect that to be violent, not gentle creepy, sexualized touching. Did you already look up UK statutes to see if criteria are met or are you drawing conclusions from lack of information?

It's any assault that does not cause bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, in Australia anyway.

You're characterising the touching as sexualised again, when that's the main thing I'm saying I can't see.

Maybe he intended to go for the side right next to the breast both times. How can we say, not having taken part in full interviews of both persons, only being exposed to soundbites from a news article?

The soundbite of the prosecution says people say hello or wave. When they asked him in court why he didn't wave, what did he say?

I don't know what they asked him, but what the prosecutor said to the press and what the prosecutor cross-examined him with are bound to be different.

What she actually discussed was the trajectory of his hand, i.e. headed for the breast. If she were wrong, then it would be only slightly physically off. Nowhere near that area is appropriate to touch. Only by moving while he was moving, did she cause the contact location to change to her arm.

That's her conjecture. All we know is that he did, in fact, only touch her arm.

What was your opinion of her full interview in court and her demeanor, as opposed to a soundbite from a news article?

I didn't see the case, as you well know, and neither did you.

The judge probably made that decision from multiple factors, not all of which you would expect to find in an article. Probably.

We cannot say for sure as we do not possess the trial transcript and exhibits of evidence, just some soundbites.

Well, what kind of evidence turns the first touching into a sexual assault? Don't you have to have done the action? Is anything sexual assault as long as there is an assault and you had sexual thoughts? You don't think the actual act in question has any bearing?

I think you are asking the wrong questions. You seem to want to ask how SHOULD sexual assault be defined as opposed to how is it defined.

I do, I suppose, have a problem with criterion#2 because it when interpreted as sexual intent or sexualization, one has to deduce intent and that seems to have a higher risk of being wrong than a mere--were you touched in the genitals. I would be fine with the law as is, provided risks to defendant are mitigated by trial by jury or something else. I am suspicious of a single magistrate deciding cases in summary judgments where no jury takes part. I speculate this is as much a broken part of UK law as the assembly line like plea deal system we have in US.

But I don't actually know the magistrate failed in this specific case to provide the most lawful reasonable conclusion. The offender is plausibly guilty of sexual assault and we should not expect to come to confident conclusions based on a news article's soundbites.

Do you honestly believe a magistrate cannot find contradictions in testimony that you would not find in your news article?

"Not acting the way I expect a normal person to act" is not a "contradiction".

Maybe more details will come out. But if what's been presented in the newspaper articles is enough for some people to think it was two cases of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, I don't know what to say. There'd be far too much doubt in my mind.

[Jarhyn]

I looked up what the UK statute defines as 'sexual'. This is the text:


On the face of it, and maybe I'm just not that smart, that seems like a very bad definition, 'sexual' things are things with a 'sexual nature'.

I don't find it reasonable to conclude that touching somebody on the arm is sexual in nature.

Holding his hand there 3 to 5 seconds while looking in her face in an isolated area after that first encounter where she withdrew and exclaimed "stop," is hard to make excuses for.

I don't understand this "excuse" business. What he did was weird and inappropriate. I just don't think it was sexual assault.

We don't know with precision where on the side he touched her. But it seems like something a court would ask. Thus, memes such as "show me on the doll where so and so touched you." I cannot say with certainty the court asked that. Who knows, but in my opinion, it is plausible the actions of Griffiths meet the statutory definition of sex assault.

As for common assault, people expect that to be violent, not gentle creepy, sexualized touching. Did you already look up UK statutes to see if criteria are met or are you drawing conclusions from lack of information?

It's any assault that does not cause bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, in Australia anyway.

You're characterising the touching as sexualised again, when that's the main thing I'm saying I can't see.

Maybe he intended to go for the side right next to the breast both times. How can we say, not having taken part in full interviews of both persons, only being exposed to soundbites from a news article?

The soundbite of the prosecution says people say hello or wave. When they asked him in court why he didn't wave, what did he say?

I don't know what they asked him, but what the prosecutor said to the press and what the prosecutor cross-examined him with are bound to be different.

What she actually discussed was the trajectory of his hand, i.e. headed for the breast. If she were wrong, then it would be only slightly physically off. Nowhere near that area is appropriate to touch. Only by moving while he was moving, did she cause the contact location to change to her arm.

That's her conjecture. All we know is that he did, in fact, only touch her arm.

What was your opinion of her full interview in court and her demeanor, as opposed to a soundbite from a news article?

I didn't see the case, as you well know, and neither did you.

The judge probably made that decision from multiple factors, not all of which you would expect to find in an article. Probably.

We cannot say for sure as we do not possess the trial transcript and exhibits of evidence, just some soundbites.

Well, what kind of evidence turns the first touching into a sexual assault? Don't you have to have done the action? Is anything sexual assault as long as there is an assault and you had sexual thoughts? You don't think the actual act in question has any bearing?

I think you are asking the wrong questions. You seem to want to ask how SHOULD sexual assault be defined as opposed to how is it defined.

I do, I suppose, have a problem with criterion#2 because it when interpreted as sexual intent or sexualization, one has to deduce intent and that seems to have a higher risk of being wrong than a mere--were you touched in the genitals. I would be fine with the law as is, provided risks to defendant are mitigated by trial by jury or something else. I am suspicious of a single magistrate deciding cases in summary judgments where no jury takes part. I speculate this is as much a broken part of UK law as the assembly line like plea deal system we have in US.

But I don't actually know the magistrate failed in this specific case to provide the most lawful reasonable conclusion. The offender is plausibly guilty of sexual assault and we should not expect to come to confident conclusions based on a news article's soundbites.

Do you honestly believe a magistrate cannot find contradictions in testimony that you would not find in your news article?

"Not acting the way I expect a normal person to act" is not a "contradiction".

Maybe more details will come out. But if what's been presented in the newspaper articles is enough for some people to think it was two cases of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, I don't know what to say. There'd be far too much doubt in my mind.

I'm going to go with "just not that smart". Touching someone you have a sexual attraction to, with the end result of hopefully initiating a sexual relationship, is of a "sexual nature", thus qualifies as the "sexual" portion of "sexual assault". Otherwise, you could have some asshat claim some touching is not sexual assault because it is not literally an "assault involving sex".

[Metaphor]

I'm going to go with "just not that smart". Touching someone you have a sexual attraction to, with the end result of hopefully initiating a sexual relationship, is of a "sexual nature", thus qualifies as the "sexual" portion of "sexual assault". Otherwise, you could have some asshat claim some touching is not sexual assault because it is not literally an "assault involving sex".

Gospa moja, Jarhyn, do you know how to edit things out that you are not responding to?

Also, what? When was it established that the defendant had a sexual attraction to the girl, or hoped to initiate a sexual relationship? Try not to be so heteronormative in your thinking.

[Toni]

I'm going to go with "just not that smart". Touching someone you have a sexual attraction to, with the end result of hopefully initiating a sexual relationship, is of a "sexual nature", thus qualifies as the "sexual" portion of "sexual assault". Otherwise, you could have some asshat claim some touching is not sexual assault because it is not literally an "assault involving sex".

Gospa moja, Jarhyn, do you know how to edit things out that you are not responding to?

Also, what? When was it established that the defendant had a sexual attraction to the girl, or hoped to initiate a sexual relationship? Try not to be so heteronormative in your thinking.

Sexual assaults are not necessarily predicated on sexual attraction to the victim.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is impractical to continue discussing this issue with incomplete information from the news article. Yet not everyone is realizing it. So, I am dropping.

After a month, it will be interesting to see his sentence.

[Metaphor]

I'm going to go with "just not that smart". Touching someone you have a sexual attraction to, with the end result of hopefully initiating a sexual relationship, is of a "sexual nature", thus qualifies as the "sexual" portion of "sexual assault". Otherwise, you could have some asshat claim some touching is not sexual assault because it is not literally an "assault involving sex".

Gospa moja, Jarhyn, do you know how to edit things out that you are not responding to?

Also, what? When was it established that the defendant had a sexual attraction to the girl, or hoped to initiate a sexual relationship? Try not to be so heteronormative in your thinking.

Sexual assaults are not necessarily predicated on sexual attraction to the victim.

I agree. It seems to me the mental state of a perpetrator ought not be able to turn an act most reasonable person would not regard as sexual, into a sexual act, under the law.