Florida man arrested after he allegedly gave girlfriend a 'wet willy,'

Sorry, I misreferenced your quote. I would correct the pronoun, but I can no longer edit it.
The topic is about a reported abuse and 'touching hair' is being held up as a comparable act. Your post was quoted as a reminder of the context of this discussion.

Are pranks stupid? Sure they are.
Are actions that might be a prank in some cases possibly both abuse and a crime in other cases? I think so.
Should everyone be morally outraged at every "wet willie" and "hair touching"? Probably not.

It is the suggestion that 'anyone not ready to lynch the accused simply because someone accused him of something must support the abuse of women' which I find objectionable. People were once presumed innocent until proven guilty. Now people are convicted on Social Media with the facts taking a back seat to political correctness. [Police shoot a black man ... it must be racism. A woman accuses a man of rape, then he must be guilty ... because people NEVER lie.]

 

I apologize for my post. Your comments rubbed me against the fur. Now you have had a chance to meet the OLD me ... poison pen and all.
Sorry.

 

All good. No worries. I appreciate the gesture.

 

Of course this is based on truth, but I am frequently reminded as my philosophy professor explained that the understanding and appreciation of basic logic and critical thinking skills must come through the value of drawing out the truth in a structured argument and once this tool becomes part of your reasoning and part of your life it becomes a very frustrating experience to recognize that the vast majority of people in the world look upon "arguments" as merely a form of continuous feuding and fussing rather than a means of concluding with the truth which you believe should always be the ultimate goal.

Therefore, trying to point out logic to one who only wants to fuse and feud is like trying to offer lettuce to a hungry lion.

 

That sounds virtuous enough. So what would be the purpose of trying to reignite an argument that the two parties just settled and walked away from cordially? Odd timing.

 

Not that I was "trying to reignite" your fusing and feuding as you see it, but rather affirming to a brother about the difficulties of trying to break down an argument to draw out the truth in it, which I recognized of his efforts, can be frustrating and in many cases that his good deed will not go unpunished.

 

I think a lot of your problem is that you mix in snark and other little digs while trying to break it down. God knows I do it all the time. Most of our recent argument it’s about all we did to each other.

 

I guess the practical question is, concerning this particular case, is bringing a charge of battery a valid response by this woman?

Based on what I read, grabbing the wrist, holding her against her will, and continuously shoving his finger in her ear...while her daughter was a witness, leads me to say yes, bring the charges. If proven, they rise to the level of a crime.

Others have read the same thing I did and say, even if true, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime.

I have seen people say it isn't really abuse if no marks are left. I seen people say it wasn't real violence. I've seen people say that anyone who would pursue these charges should be slapped. To me, that is dismissing the victim and her accusations.

It really doesn't require us to say, "lynch him without a trial" on the one hand or, "she should be slapped for bringing the charges" on the other.

Rather, we can ask "are these charges reasonable" considering what we know?

I say yes.

 

I agree. Based on what she claims happened filing criminal charges is a reasonable course of action (more for the attack than the wet willie). However, I think that there are far easier means to achieve relief from this problem than dragging all three parties through a long expensive criminal case. Yet a long criminal case is her right.

Your verbiage is biased and emotionally pre-loaded towards a conclusion.
“Grabbing the wrist” ... how hard? ... for how long? ... with what intent?
“holding her against her will” ... did he commit battery or kidnapping?
“continuously shoving his finger in her ear” ... what does ‘continuously’ mean in this context? ... did it come out the other side?
If what you describe is proven true, he mugged her, kidnapped her and murdered her by piercing her brain with his finger ... that certainly sounds like a crime to me!

Now the only question is ... Is that even close to what actually happened?

The opinions of others are of little concern to me, except to note that others are entitled to their opinions.

In defense of Revmitchell, he and I have disagreed often on many things, but he never really advocated slapping the woman. I read his initial remark as a rhetorical statement addressed to the need to slap anyone who thought simple acts of stupidity (like a wet willie) should be treated as a criminal assault. He even later explained his intent himself. Is there something about that particular Baptist Brother in Christ that leads you to believe that he does not mean what he says? I never got that sense about him. He can be annoying, but I never sensed dishonesty in him.

“Lynch him without a trial” was a bit of hyperbole on my part, but the fierceness of the attacks against anyone who was unwilling to immediately condemn the man lend a grain of truth to the accusation.

“Are these charges reasonable considering what we know?”
Interestingly, you see the issue one that hinges on “reasonable” and conclude that the charges are reasonable based on what we know. I see the real issue hinging on “what we know” since the article was anything but unbiased. We have one side of a story presented from the testimony of the alleged victim. The only witness is anything but impartial and we have been allowed to hear nothing from the other side. Yes, it is reasonable from what we know and the fact that the police filed charges lends some credibility to the claims. However, we are by no means in possession of all the facts or the complete story.

What we have here is an emotional response based on a one-sided story written to stir emotional responses. Yellow journalism at its worst.

 

So, you think there are "far easier means to achieve relief for this problem...", even though you no nothing about this couple or their history.

How hard did he grab her wrist? How long? Are you kidding? Apparently hard enough to keep her from breaking free and long enough to humiliate her in front of her daughter.

But, you seem to think that grabbing a woman's wrist against her will must be measured in some way to determine "how hard? and how long?" before you can decide if it was a crime.

"Sorry little lady. I know he grabbed your wrist and you couldn't break free, but he only applied 5 pounds of pressure per square inch and I believe 6 pounds of pressure per square inch is necessary for a crime to be committed. If you were a little bit stronger, little lady, he would have had to use more pressure to hold you, and then I might decide a crime was committed. In the meantime, you should work on those big boy push-ups and next time you might have a case."

The daughter is biased? Really? How about the daughter was terrified to see her mother man-handled and humiliated by a drunk.

Oh, that's right, we haven't heard from the drunken man. I'm sure his side of the story will be enlightening.

Thanks for the conversation. Peace to you.

 

I'm sorry that offends you so much. Gelotophobia? Perhaps there is help:

Gelotophobia - AllAboutCounseling.com

 

Wrong thread.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten me on what insight you have on this couple and their history that I lack?
Otherwise, you also know "nothing about this couple or their history".

With respect to my claim of "faster and easier means to achieve relief", which will protect the woman faster and with less effort in your opinion:

OPTION A:
Arrest the man.
A Court date is set and the man makes bail.
The man hires a lawyer to defend him.
The woman and daughter are interviewed by the prosecutor preparing the court case.
The woman gives a deposition to the defense attorney.
The daughter gives a deposition to the defense attorney.
The woman testifies in court and is cross examined in court.
The daughter testifies in court and is cross examined in court.
A jury finds the man guilty or not guilty. He is fined and serves up to 1 year in jail (or not).

OPTION B:
The woman files a trespass against the man and if he ever returns to her property it is a felony.
The woman files for a restraining order with a judge and if the man ever comes near her or her daughter again it is a felony.

Which option gets the woman protection faster and with less effort and missed work for the woman and daughter?

 

Have you ever seen the movie "The Quiet Man" or the scene in "ET" where ET is watching John Wayne grab Maureen O'Hara and kiss her and the boy with ET acts out the scene with a girl in the class involuntarily? Should John Wayne and the little boy both be arrested and charged with battery?

All "grabbing" is not automatic abuse. Sometimes we grab an arm just to get someone's attention. I am arguing that I do not know his intent ... Did he grab her intent on abuse or with the assumption that it was playful consent? Neither do you. That is a fact for a jury to decide.

 

Really.
A daughter testifying for her mother against her mother's boyfriend is the definition of a biased witness. If a mother was found by the police standing over her boyfriend with a gun in her hand and the boyfriend had been shot in the back three times, would you be surprised if her daughter agreed with the mother that it was self-defense?

Just for the record, did the article actually say " the daughter was terrified to see her mother man-handled and humiliated" or are you just inserting your emotions into the story?

 

Guilty until proven innocent, right?

 

Thanks for the conversation. Peace to you.

 

Consent....and again I say into you, consent. That's the difference between a battery and non-battery. If you kiss your wife, this is presumably with her consent. If you kiss a random woman in the street, that is not with her consent and so is a battery. If you touch your wife's hair, that is with her consent and is not a battery. If you touch a random woman's hair, that is a battery.

The type of touching is irrelevant, the key is whether it is consensual touching or not

 

Not and either/or necesarily: the civil remedy in option B can be pursued as well as criminal prosecution