It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It also should not be up to a 3rd party that was not directly involved to decide for you either, should it?
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Krakatoa
It also should not be up to a 3rd party that was not directly involved to decide for you either, should it?
I understand what you're saying but I'm not so sure about that. Sometimes we do have a responsibility to stop bad people doing bad things even when they're not doing it to us.
If someone bonks me on the head and robs my unconscious body, should witnesses step in? Or just leave it up to me to decide?
If gangbangers commit a driveby shooting and the victims are too afraid of retaliation to speak up, should other witnesses step up? Or should they stay out of it because they weren't directly involved?
If I see someone breaking into my neighbor's house through a window while they're sleeping, should I call and warn them? Should I yell at the perp and scare him off? Or call the cops? Or should I just leave it to them to decide?
We also know that this isn't the only woman so victimized. If women know he victimizes women this way, they have every reason to worry that he will do the same to them. They do have a vested interest in stopping him. Especially if he is in a position of power and authority.
I disagree that any of those circumstances are comparable, and therein lies the rub.
It seems that nowadays it is actually valid to compare extremes like this.
Sorry to disagree with your examples when I kind of agree with your point, in a way but here we are.
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Jonjonj
I disagree that any of those circumstances are comparable, and therein lies the rub.
It seems that nowadays it is actually valid to compare extremes like this.
Sorry to disagree with your examples when I kind of agree with your point, in a way but here we are.
Okay... but in what sense are they not comparable? I tried to use examples of witnessing a crime before, during and after the fact. How is this different?
originally posted by: Words
originally posted by: Jonjonj
originally posted by: Words
It was Krauss' fault for grabbing a woman's breast. What makes him think he can do that?
Nothing probably. What makes you think you can converse on the internet?
Perhaps misunderstanding?
He accidentally grabbed her boob?
I have to be honest, given the response of the victim I don't consider this a crime.
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Jonjonj
I have to be honest, given the response of the victim I don't consider this a crime.
I'm not sure it's technically a prosecutable crime either; and it happened in Australia, not here. At this point we're really only discussing a violation of ASU's sexual harassment policy.
But your comment makes no sense to me.
The response of victim doesn't determine if it's a crime or not. The laws on the books determine if it's a crime. Do you think she had already given him some kind of consent -- or at least reason to believe he had her consent?
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Slap him in the face and send him back to work.
Brouhaha over and dealt with.
Go find some new victims.
By taking away the victim's ability to decline to press charges? I mean you lost me here, what are you saying exactly?
...this scorched earth approach for guys being guys even if they are ass-hats is beyond me.
I agree. the person that was actually touched dealt with it as an adult. Then, considered it over.