Fondled date?

[cdwolf]

I'm sure some have read this, but for those that haven't, take a look.
Good read!!

A Nation of Cowards

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[centermass]

I think only one person in this entire thread has said he would brush it off until the second approach. No offense, but you did come in later in the thread, have you read all of the posts?

The rest of the posters have mostly advocated a firm but nonviolent response, and possibly leaving the situation. The debate here is about the *immediate* violent response. Which, IMO means that individual just started a fight and lowered himself to the same level as the pathetic groper.

Centermass, you even claim that even if it were a mistake that the guy still has it coming, and you claim YOU are amazed?? Not as much as me.

Has anyone thought about the fact that violence could be the EXACT response the loser is looking for? Perhaps he is looking to start fight and he knows just how you will respond. Putty in his hands...

Gee, you must not have read all of my comments.(post 97) I said I would run my mouth and let him decide to either walk away or esculate it into a physical confrontation. If he swings, it's on. If not, he just got clowned in front of a bunch of people. As far as an accidental groping, I'm married, so I make sure I know who's butt to grab. Ooops, sorry. Just don't cover it. The people make the statement that it's not that big of a deal. Maybe not to you, but to some women it is. And it is to me when the women is the mother of my kids and my wife for ten years.

I get the feeling that some of you have the additude that it's just a little butt grab. Is that like saying it's just a little sexual assault? Who are you to determine when it's ok or not that big of a deal? I would think the person being assaulted would be a better judge of that. I know how my wife would feel and that's what matters to me.

[SelfDefense]

I did some research into the Arizona law and guess what...there is no law the groper violates.

It is not sexual contact without consent as defined in the Arizona state statutes; it is not assault as there is no intent to injure or provoke. It is simply one of life's inconveniences.

So, for all our brave, chivalrous ninjas, physically attacking the groper is most definitely assault and if you are carrying you may find yourself defending aggravated assault, a class 3 felony.

[centermass]

I did some research into the Arizona law and guess what...there is no law the groper violates.

It is not sexual contact without consent as defined in the Arizona state statutes; it is not assault as there is no intent to injure or provoke. It is simply one of life's inconveniences.

So, for all our brave, chivalrous ninjas, physically attacking the groper is most definitely assault and if you are carrying you may find yourself defending aggravated assault, a class 3 felony.

LA Sexual Assault
Specific laws vary by state, but sexual assault generally refers to any crime in which the offender subjects the victim to sexual touching that is unwanted and offensive. These crimes can range from sexual groping or assault/battery, to attempted rape.

[cdwolf]

MS and AZ are WORLDS apart!!
This is a large country with different moral, social, racial, and financial areas!
Even on this board not everyone will always agree.
It is safe to say we run in different circles!!
The rules change with area I promise!!

If you find yourself down this way a word of advice, keep your hands to yourself!
Someone has not made it a law yet, so you just stand there why he legally feels up your wife if you want.

Touch mine in my neck of the woods, You will meet a redneck ninja!
Some of these sheep sound like victims to me!

[SelfDefense]

LA Sexual Assault
Specific laws vary by state, but sexual assault generally refers to any crime in which the offender subjects the victim to sexual touching that is unwanted and offensive. These crimes can range from sexual groping or assault/battery, to attempted rape.

Yes, the statutes of particular states do vary. I will only comment on Arizona law. I certainly understand why anyone would be upset over the situation just as I understand why someone would be upset if someone cuts them off in traffic. But resorting to anything but verbal comments is not justified and could result in charges and revoking a CCW permit. You just can't beat people up no matter how mad you are. Especially if you are a supposedly level headed person that has learned physical confrontation should be avoided if at all possible.

13-1401. Definitions
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

2. "Sexual contact" means any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact.

5. "Without consent" includes any of the following:
(a) The victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force against a person or property.
(b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental defect, drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition and such condition is known or should have reasonably been known to the defendant. For purposes of this subdivision, "mental defect" means the victim is unable to comprehend the distinctively sexual nature of the conduct or is incapable of understanding or exercising the right to refuse to engage in the conduct with another.
(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.
(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.


13-1404. Sexual abuse; classifications
A. A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.

13-1203. Assault; classification
A. A person commits assault by:
1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or
2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or
3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

[Cakewalk]

Touch mine in my neck of the woods, You will meet a redneck ninja!

"Redneck ninja." Now that's a new one!

You just can't beat people up no matter how mad you are. Especially if you are a supposedly level headed person that has learned physical confrontation should be avoided if at all possible.

Well, at least some people get it. Honestly, the percentage of people that don't get is why the idea of America having completely open laws on carrying firearms scares me.

[deadeye72]

So, for all our brave, chivalrous ninjas, physically attacking the groper is most definitely assault and if you are carrying you may find yourself defending aggravated assault, a class 3 felony.

I am no lawyer, but I think it would only become a felony if you present your firearm in the process.

[cdwolf]

That's what you lawyers are good for, talking.

I will hire a good one!
TX,LA,MS,AL are there on little worlds.

[centermass]

Wouldn't it be logical to assume someone would be provoked or insulted if their butt was grabbed without their permission.

13-1203. Assault; classification
A. A person commits assault by:
1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or
2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or
3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

And it would seem that if there is a law stating that, it would be against the law to touch them, much less grope them. Right?

[SelfDefense]

Wouldn't it be logical to assume someone would be provoked or insulted if their butt was grabbed without their permission.

13-1203. Assault; classification
A. A person commits assault by:
1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or
2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or
3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

And it would seem that if there is a law stating that, it would be against the law to touch them, much less grope them. Right?

The applicable word is intent. It may provoke the victim of the touching but there is no intent for someone trying to 'cop a feel' to provoke, injure or insult the victim. The intent of the law is to codify the prohibition of, say, pushing someone while you are arguing.

No matter how distasteful the groping act is, it is no different than someone patting you on the back, which I personally don't like either. But it is not a crime. And it certainly doesn't justify retaliation.

[cdwolf]

I will make a C A and he will resist
Then I will hand this perv over to the leo.
What if you just leave and he happens to catch your neighbors 12 year old( which just stepped out to use the phone).
He was brave enough to touch a grown woman in a crowded area, what will he do with a child alone?
Life is too short too walk around scared!
This is what we have evolved to? You need a law or a judge to tell you what you can live with?
I will take my chances!

[centermass]

The applicable word is intent. It may provoke the victim of the touching but there is no intent for someone trying to 'cop a feel' to provoke, injure or insult the victim. The intent of the law is to codify the prohibition of, say, pushing someone while you are arguing.

No matter how distasteful the groping act is, it is no different than someone patting you on the back, which I personally don't like either. But it is not a crime. And it certainly doesn't justify retaliation.

Where you awake when you wrote that? It's kinda funny that someone with that username would post that comment. Do you really believe that someone that does that isn't trying to provoke a reaction. So it's ok for people to run around grabbing womens butts and breasts, as long as they don't intend to offend or provoke them? You can hide behind the legal wording all you want. It's wrong and you know it.

[cdwolf]

Sleep typing, now this thread makes sense

[bmcgilvray]

I did some research into the Arizona law and guess what...there is no law the groper violates.

It is not sexual contact without consent as defined in the Arizona state statutes; it is not assault as there is no intent to injure or provoke. It is simply one of life's inconveniences.

So, for all our brave, chivalrous ninjas, physically attacking the groper is most definitely assault and if you are carrying you may find yourself defending aggravated assault, a class 3 felony.

OK, you win. There's no law against it so the creep is free to grope to his heart's content. As often, as much, and with as many as he wants. You can verbally fuss about his improper behavior with your gal but don't you dare lay a finger on him as long as he's only groping and doesn't threaten physical harm to anyone. Your gal can't clobber him either. He's not required to comply with requests to stop the fondling. Her only recourse is to attempt to get away from him. What if he tags along?

Simply one of life's inconveniences and no different than someone patting you on the back. ... But it is not a crime. And it certainly doesn't justify retaliation.

As you say.