• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The butt whacker turns out to be a youth minister and scout leader

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Well, if he wants to contest the charges, he's welcome to testify that he only slapped her on the back - although that would still meet the elements of the crime of battery.

She, no doubt, will testify that he hit her in the ass - and the jury will decide who of them is more credible.
Click to expand...

He's already admitted he hit her. That's battery. If he flat out denied he hit her on the butt, that's one thing but he waffled and says he doesn't remember. That's a clear sign he does remember and it's a sign of guilt. Now all he needs to do is plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The "standard" of sexual battery is set by the statute.

(b) A person commits the offense of sexual battery when he or she intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-6-22.1
Click to expand...

I understand what the law says. Guess NBA, NFL, NHL players need to start filing charges. No swatting allowed. It is criminal, right?. :lamo
 
Mashmont said:
So where's the intent to harm? That's where you lose.
Click to expand...

...you missed the "OR"

(a) A person commits the offense of simple battery when he or she either:

(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; OR

(2) Intentionally causes physical harm to another.
 
mike2810 said:
I understand what the law says. Guess NBA, NFL, NHL players need to start filing charges. No swatting allowed. It is criminal, right?. :lamo
Click to expand...

By competing in sports, players have given implied consent to physical contact. Consent is an absolute defense to both criminal charges of battery, as well as the tort of battery.
 
Amelia said:
43-year-old youth ministers need to come up with a higher class of prank.

A lot of pranks are illegal. A lot of teens will get off for committing such pranks. But when a 43-year-old man decides to roll the dice, then he needs to be willing to take the consequences.

The consequences will not be severe. But it's unrealistic to think there will not be any consequences for purposefully winding up and hitting a professional woman hard enough to make her stumble while she is doing her job.

Just curious -- do you think it would have been okay for him to "prank" other women with a swat on the bottom? How about a schoolteacher while she was teaching her class? A police officer at a traffic stop?
Click to expand...

Already answered. No it would not be appropriate. Yet, I am not sure the women should file criminal charges. All depends on the context of the situation.

Do you believe NFL, NBA , etc. players should file charges against another player who "swats" their butts after a good play?
 
Rising Sun said:
He's already admitted he hit her. That's battery. If he flat out denied he hit her on the butt, that's one thing but he waffled and says he doesn't remember. That's a clear sign he does remember and it's a sign of guilt. Now all he needs to do is plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court.
Click to expand...

No, battery requires an intent to harm. Nobody in America thinks he tried to harm the girl.
 
Rising Sun said:
Interesting that you complain the young woman needs to grow up but do not say the same for the married father of two, Boy Scout leader and Church Youth group leader who hit her.

Interesting that you complain of insults by others then sling around a few of your own. I can tell the difference between battery and a prank. Battery is a crime, a prank is something done between friends. Obviously you think hitting strange women on the butt is a "prank". Time for you to grow up, sir.

Yes, I've done some things that I should have been charged with, but I was in my 20s then. Certainly not my 40s as Tommy the Sexual Batterer should have known.

Good you realize that because your fellow MRA's do not. As I've stated several times, I doubt this will go to court because Tommy will plead out.
Click to expand...

Sorry. It was assumed because I have already stated the guy should not have done it.

There are lot's of pranks done that are not among friends.

What fellow MRA's? You are making assumption about me.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
...you missed the "OR"

(a) A person commits the offense of simple battery when he or she either:

(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; OR

(2) Intentionally causes physical harm to another.
Click to expand...

He can say he wasn't trying to insult or provoke her, and it's clear he wasn't. He was just having fun in a light-hearted moment.
 
Mashmont said:
Long hard rain coat over both areas. Might be hard to tell where the back ends and the butt begins.
Click to expand...

Not her problem. He should never have touched her. Now he gets to have his day in court facing a jury of his peers and video tapes of his hitting her and his confession on television.

Tommy Callaway: Man accused of slapping reporter Alex Bozarjian's bottom on live television is charged - CBS News
The man accused of slapping a reporter's bottom during a live television report was arrested Friday, Savannah police said. Tommy Callaway, 43, was charged with misdemeanor sexual battery, Bianca Johnson of the Savannah police department confirmed to CBS News. Callaway posted bond, Johnson said.


5380ec3508824c3d8dd53c815031e767_md.jpg
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
By competing in sports, players have given implied consent to physical contact. Consent is an absolute defense to both criminal charges of battery, as well as the tort of battery.
Click to expand...

So there is no difference in your world from someone blocking someone in football and swatting a player in the butt.
 
mike2810 said:
Sorry. It was assumed because I have already stated the guy should not have done it.

There are lot's of pranks done that are not among friends.

What fellow MRA's? You are making assumption about me.
Click to expand...

He's been arrested. Feel free to defend his actions all you like. I'm guessing men who don't care if strange men smack the butts of their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters mustn't care much about those women.
 
mike2810 said:
Already answered. No it would not be appropriate. Yet, I am not sure the women should file criminal charges. All depends on the context of the situation.

Do you believe NFL, NBA , etc. players should file charges against another player who "swats" their butts after a good play?
Click to expand...


You're asking me about people who know each other exchanging a traditional action in their field ... as if that had anything in common with a 43-year-old man hitting a stranger when she didn't even have warning to brace herself.

I guess we are done here.
 
mike2810 said:
So there is no difference in your world from someone blocking someone in football and swatting a player in the butt.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. The common factor is consent.

If a football player is particularly upset about the coach slapping his ass, he could try to bring charges. I find it unlikely that any would.
 
mike2810 said:
So there is no difference in your world from someone blocking someone in football and swatting a player in the butt.
Click to expand...

Swatting a fellow player or the opposition? Do you know what the penalty for a "late hit" is?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
You're missing the point. The common factor is consent.

If a football player is particularly upset about the coach slapping his ass, he could try to bring charges. I find it unlikely that any would.
Click to expand...

The MRA's and Incels think just because he's a man and she's a woman means there is implied consent. :)
 
Rising Sun said:
Wow. You must have been really pissed off at me to make so many typos that your post doesn't even make sense. :)
Click to expand...

5171 of those 'senseless posts' put forth to date, and counting.
 
Mashmont said:
No, battery requires an intent to harm. Nobody in America thinks he tried to harm the girl.
Click to expand...

/// Nobody in America thinks he tried to harm the girl /// <--- If true, stop the whining. The idiot is entitled to a jury trial, and according to your misguided, unfounded, positive claim, he will be acquitted by a jury of his peers. Hell, you can even start a Go fund Me legal fee account, and put all of your millions where your mouth is. :lol:
 
Mashmont said:
I see the reporter girl chose to prosecute, as the police said they would follow her instructions. Very disappointing. This girl lacks basic Christian compassion. I doubt seriously if she was brought up in a Christian home. I wonder if her parents are even together. But it is a signal of the godlessness our society has fallen into. As I have noticed, the irreligious have a startling hardness of heart. In EVERY irrelgious family I've ever knwn, without exception, there are one or more estranged family members. These aren't the kind of families that all get together at Christmas and exchange presents. There's just a coldness. Church people don't have that, as a rule.

The best advice I can give people is to start attending Christian church, preferably your nearest Catholic Church. Start over. Get it right.
Click to expand...

This young woman was doing her job and was subjected to a humiliating and trivializing attack by an older strange man and you think she should just accept it and move on. The hard heart is yours. Holding an attacker accountable is not hardness of heart. It is a demand for justice.
 
bearpoker said:
This young woman was doing her job and was subjected to a humiliating and trivializing attack by an older strange man and you think she should just accept it and move on. The hard heart is yours. Holding an attacker accountable is not hardness of heart. It is a demand for justice.
Click to expand...

Good summation and agreed. Again, I doubt this will go to court. Tommy will do the right thing and cop a plea; better yet if he just pleads guilty and throws himself on the mercy of the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom