8th grade Girls Attack/Strip 11-Year-Old Boy

[Shio]

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

The stripping of clothes. It's not performing a sexual act, but it is involving sexual parts. At the very least, they can charge for attempted sexual assault; in order to take off his clothes, particularly his underwear, there is unwanted physical/sexual contact. The very act of stripping off underwear is innately sexual even if the participants are not being sexual, because you're talking about a person's sexual parts and body that are being, in a sense, attacked.

I'll have to disagree there. Something being perceived by yourself as sexual doesn't make it a sexual assault. For example: I have a foot fetish. If my feet were groped without my consent, that would be an assault on a sexual part of my body. Of course that sounds outrageous and I wouldn't charge them, but I hope it helps demonstrate my point. If someone was stabbed and the knife happened to hit their genitals, I would also not call it a sexual assault. Myself and the law as I understand it defines sexual assault as an assault of an intended sexual nature, where the malicious intent is that of sexual conduct. The removal of clothes could be sexual, but I don't think it is here.

Nope. They stripped him, which is a sexual act.

Stripping isn't sexual in and of itself; I helped my niece take her clothes off and have a bath the other day.

 

[chach_face]

But if one wishes to define any event that comes into contact with or otherwise involves the genitals as sexual, then all murderers that glance upon their victim's body are guilty of sexual crimes. I agree with the police here; the act wasn't sexual in nature.

There are more pressing charges to pursue we someone's murdered somebody.
And of note, the police that you're agreeing with in this instance are some dips. They didn't even take the report seriously at first. not until the news got wind of it.

 

[bpm195]

If it were three little boys doing this to a little girl I'd be saddened that one moment childish idiocy earned them a life a persecution. I'm happy that the mother recognizes that there's no need to damage all of these children's lives by pressing charges.

 

[chach_face]

Stripping isn't sexual in and of itself; I helped my niece take her clothes off and have a bath the other day.

In this particular case, it is sexual. They aren't getting him ready for shower time

 

[Shio]

All murders that have stripped their victims so glancing upon the victims body would be glancing upon a naked body would be guilty of sexual crimes.

That's not how it works, though. Ever looked at a corpse? Sex crime. Ever accidentally been flashed by someone? Sex crime. Ever walked in on someone getting changed? Sex crime. Ever grabbed someone a bit too low or high because they moved? Sex crime.

That's just not how the law is defined.

Stripping isn't sexual in and of itself; I helped my niece take her clothes off and have a bath the other day.

In this particular case, it is sexual. They aren't getting him ready for shower time

I don't feel it was sexual. They stripped him as an act of power displacement and humiliation, not for sexual gratification or the like. The attackers clearly have issues, though.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

The most traumatic thing for the boy will be the fact that it was filmed, and is now immortalized on the internet. It's also a pretty serious criminal offence, and the film is of a minor under the age of thirteen as well. It's not totally beyond belief that these girls could wind up facing child pornography charges, especially considering they willingly distributed the video, and I'm not entirely convinced that such charges would be undeserved. I don't really want these girls to have a criminal record and have their lives screwed over by one mistake like that, but a part of me wouldn't be sorry to see them raked over the coals for what they did.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I don't see a sexual act here. I see idiots behaving like idiots and "battering" an innocent person.

The stripping of clothes. It's not performing a sexual act, but it is involving sexual parts. At the very least, they can charge for attempted sexual assault; in order to take off his clothes, particularly his underwear, there is unwanted physical/sexual contact. The very act of stripping off underwear is innately sexual even if the participants are not being sexual, because you're talking about a person's sexual parts and body that are being, in a sense, attacked.

I'll have to disagree there. Something being perceived by yourself as sexual doesn't make it a sexual assault. For example: I have a foot fetish. If my feet were groped without my consent, that would be an assault on a sexual part of my body. Of course that sounds outrageous and I wouldn't charge them, but I hope it helps demonstrate my point. If someone was stabbed and the knife happened to hit their genitals, I would also not call it a sexual assault. Myself and the law as I understand it defines sexual assault as an assault of an intended sexual nature, where the malicious intent is that of sexual conduct. The removal of clothes could be sexual, but I don't think it is here.

The genitals are inherently sexual, which is what I think separates your foot fetish scenario. If someone took off a shoe in public, nobody would bat an eye because it's a foot. Someone takes off their pants in public, you're going to get some looks.

But if one wishes to define any event that comes into contact with or otherwise involves the genitals as sexual, then all murderers that glance upon their victim's body are guilty of sexual crimes. I agree with the police here; the act wasn't sexual in nature.

The difference here being, you have to put your hand in a very close (or touching) position on someone's underwear in order to strip it from them. Whereas in your scenario, there is only visual recognition of the body part before you. You are not invading their personal bodily area as such you most definitely do when you strip someone's clothes from their body - skin usually touching skin at such point as well.

Any more intellectually dishonest comparison's you'd like to make?

 

[chach_face]

Stripping isn't sexual in and of itself; I helped my niece take her clothes off and have a bath the other day.

In this particular case, it is sexual. They aren't getting him ready for shower time

[quote="Shio"post=I don't feel it was sexual. They stripped him as an act of power displacement and humiliation, not for sexual gratification or the like. The attackers clearly have issues, though.[/quote]------ Shio


There were going for, how do I say, in terms which will make sense... sexual humiliation

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

snip

Do you at least agree with the child pornography charges a few people are calling for? That isn't really subjective. They recorded and released nude footage of a 11 year old boy.

 

[viranimus]

Honestly I can understand the parent though.. If my 11 year old son was screaming like a girl from having older girls trying to strip him.. I would be so ashamed I wouldnt want to have to go through court proceedings either.

So you think it is shameful that the boy who was stripped and humiliated in a public place while being videotaped didn't approve of the situation?

What kind of reasoning is that?

I think he's joking mate (slight sexual reference).

My point is simple. Im just stunned how hate filled the supposedly "enlightened" within the community thinks everyone is a victim.

I thank you Kayisking for getting what is painfully obvious if you take the time and illustrate the patience to read and comprehend what your reading.

Ill choose not to respond directly to the hate filled misinterpretations. I am a little disappointed, but not at all surprised.

 

[rapidoud]

Kids DO do this sort of stuff. (OT Rant)

Local paper, 3 boys from a school not 2kms away stole 3 chickens from their school and pretty much did everything they could 'for lulz' AKA they thought it was fun.

This involved:
Trying to drown them in a nearby river but disappointed it was too shallow
Repeatedly beating them to the point 1 had to be put down and another was dead
Beating them with rocks and the likes
Throwing them around
Dropping logs on their heads and wondering why they aren't dead
Laughing their asses off

Personally I would've had the kids seeing therapy for many years to understand how their parents screwed up so badly, I was disgusted when I read it. So these kids would think it's funny to do this stuff to a person if its AOK to do it to 3 innocent chickens? They would've kept going if not for the fact they got caught in the act.

And these kids were 11, 13 and 16.

 

[Shio]

The difference here being, you have to put your hand in a very close (or touching) position on someone's underwear in order to strip it from them. Whereas in your scenario, there is only visual recognition of the body part before you. You are not invading their personal bodily area as such you most definitely do when you strip someone's clothes from their body - skin usually touching skin at such point as well.

Any more intellectually dishonest comparison's you'd like to make?

But defining a sex crime as simple contact with genitals is wildly unreasonable. As I said, my hands must have come into contact or close enough to certain areas of my niece. Of course that wasn't in the least bit sexual. At all. In any way. Just as this attack doesn't appear sexual to the police or myself.

Also, the minor jab at myself, rather than the post, seems out of place. Looking at your account profile, you're real close to suspension. I'd try to remember not to address the user in that sort of fashion.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

They'll get out of it by saying it was harmless fun.

Besides, Charges arent being pressed (god knows why, I'd charge all three of them and their families) so nothing really will come out of this if the parents of the victim decide not to do anything.

... eh, at least its happening older, and not younger.

I don't get it though ... I mean it's bullying, and bullying should be discouraged, but charged?

They're kids ... when I was in high school me and 13 other kids picked up a teacher's VW during break and manhandled it to another car parking lot.

Technically theft of a motor vehicle and illegal operations of said vehicle on State roads. I don't see why you have to throw the book at people when kids are merely being kids.

The problem isn't that '...if they were boys...', the problem is '...if they were adults...'

Do you really think that it was a maliciously induced crime? Do you think the girls derived any sexual gratification from the act? Please... Bullies are bullies. I think the parents were right not to press charges, because there's other avenues of discipline and punishment that are more suited to the act.

Frivolous charges are frivolous.

Switch around "boys" and "girls" and you'd have them charged with sexual assault even if the boys' had no "intention" of deriving sexual pleasure from it. They'd play them up as sickos, rapists, and would quickly charge them as adults, whereas this is said to be a "prank gone too far". This was clearly a maliciously induced crime as they laughed and posted it on YouTube. You don't need to gain any sexual gratification to be motivated.

Which was my point, I mean there's no indication of sexual gratification ... so it was a pack of girls beating and humiliating a person.

TIt's a prank that went to far, sure, but ... what? Do you think it's a good idea people label them also as sick, twisted rapists in the making? As I said ... frivolous, is frivolous, is frivolous. Kid got bullied, therefore police and greater judicial presences are needed? Really...?

That's the kinda society you want?

So instead of having a child learn to stand up for himself and take their beatings with good humour you want to create more precedents for a kid crying wolf to media and police...? How exactly does this idea improve humanity?

Or hell, actually helps the 'vicim' get over the (possible) loss of his pride?

This is not "kids will be kids". Since when the hell do three 15-year olds randomly walked up to a young 11-year old and start stripping him stark naked in public, beat him and knee his throat, while recording the whole ordeal and placing it on YouTube?

And since when does the crap you go through in school actually happen again in the real world of adult politicking and money-making?

In high school I snapped a molar, chipped one more and suffered a concussion when hit in the face with a cricket bat ... 7th week into my enrolment in High. Senior didn't like me, beat the living shit out of me.

That's what school is like ... you get bullied, trampled on, then you get that little bit stronger, and you learn that the world isn't going to give you a free ride. You have to earn your happiness.

Part of the educational process. Irt's not nice, probably better that it was gone. But it will never be gone. It is status quo for the entire world. And honestly ... sure I get the ocassional pain in my jaw and what remains of those damaged teeth when I eat, but I can honestly say I probably needed a good thrashing in my youth.

Your prank involved one teacher being inconvenienced and having a silly story to tell at this office. This "prank" involves the mental scarring of a kid who probably just discovered that girls don't have cooties.

Please ... he's 11, not 4. Unless you have had a remarkably sheltered life you can damn well be certain if he's your average kid around the block that he's fixates on girls in his classes 99.99% of the time ... you know ... in between the time spent pretending to listen in class and when he's jerking off to other girls after discovering (6 years ago) internet porn.

And mental scarring? Please. I mean if the kid is hurt so easily then he had major issues to begin with.

 

[Averant]

.....kinky...

I jest, I jest. Didn't watch the video, don't care to. Charges should probably be pressed, but eh. I've seen 8th grade girls. Seems like they were getting a jump start on puberty.

 

[Shio]

snip

Do you at least agree with the child pornography charges a few people are calling for? That isn't really subjective. They recorded and released nude footage of a 11 year old boy.

No. I don't see it as pornographic. No more than a picture of a young child at the beach or running around naked in the home. Of course in this case the images are more disturbing and sickening even, but no more pornographic.

Pornography as defined my Merriam Webster: "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement."

I don't think the images are intended to sexual arouse people.

EDIT: to add to this, nude images of children are perfectly legal. So long as they aren't erotic. See: nudist images and art, etc., etc.

 

[Vibhor]

Anybody defending the girls in this argument so far? No? Good.
Anyone defending the girls is a complete idiot. Charges should be pressed no matter what.
If you think otherwise then replace girls with boys and the boy with a girl then think of the outcome.