Man, this thread is going off in some radical directions. Hands chopped off, 80s cigar-smoking arse whacking sentimentality, moral outrage, casual apathy. All the bases are covered, good work ST.

To lighten the mood, can I point out the following two excellent pieces of (ostensibly) accidental wordplay;





To unlighten the mood, for me, if the assaultee finds the assault to be sexual, then it is probably sexual. The difference in opinion between the assaulter and the assaultee is something for the judge to untangle, but if you put your hands on somebody without their permission then your fate is in their hands. The modern-thinking way to go about your business is to understand that somebody else's view may not be your own and, as such, it is probably not a good idea to smack a young woman* on the arse. As if that had to be said out loud.

*or a woman of any age, or any person for that matter. Seriously, just keep your hands to yourself and everything will be ok.

To those who find it a mild and unsexual thing to pat an unfamiliar young woman on the arse - it isn't up to you. It is up to the owner of the arse.

Cheers, Rich.

People fail to see how throwing gasoline on this fire from social media and the actual media (in how they report this) can have a negative effect on what they are trying to achieve.

trentnix wrote:

The tyranny of those who have decided that inappropriate should mean illegal.

If the butt-slapper was a girl and the reporter was a dude, this wouldn't even be a thing even though it is equally inappropriate.

I understand that we all love to bicker and disagree about things on this forum, but I can't for the life of me understand how this doesn't settle the matter conclusively, here and now. Is it even philosophically possible to debate this perspective?

The tyranny of those who have decided that inappropriate should mean illegal.

If the butt-slapper was a girl and the reporter was a dude, this wouldn't even be a thing even though it is equally inappropriate.

But charging him for assault is a bot over the top.

I haven't read the previous 6 pages but she wasn't doing the race and shouldnt have been on the course.

Of course it’s possible. Georgia appears to define sexual battery as intentionally making contact with the intimate body parts of another without that persons consent. Intimate body parts including genitals, anus, inner thighs, breasts of a woman and buttocks.

This act would appear to meet those elements.

However, in other jurisdictions that would not be the case. As an example, KS also has a sexual battery misdemeanor. It’s a misdemeanor, but is actually a good deal more serious than most misdemeanors as conviction requires registration.

That statute defines sexual battery as the touching of a victim who is not the spouse of the offender, who is 16 or more years of age and who does not consent thereto, with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the offender or another.

You will note that it is the intent of the defendant that matters and not the feelings of the victim. Proving intent of that nature can be difficult.

As it stands, since this happened in Georgia this guy has some real problems. If it happened at the Gobbler Grind here in KS, we tell the prosecutor to pound sand on his offer to plea as charged and go on the list, set it for jury trial and end up pleading to garden variety battery since the PA isn’t an idiot and realizes that he’s never going to convince all of the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy slapped a woman’s behind, in the middle of a race, to satisfy sexual desires.

What is or it isn’t sexual battery or sexual assault will vary state to state and sometimes by city. I’m not going to spend my evening doing a survey of all 50 states, but I’d be surprised if any that require a sexual intent consider the victim’s feelings on whether it was sexual to the victim.