Well, it finally happened... - Page 2

Zero · March 31, 2003, 20:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
So good old blackmail from the uni there.

Bad stuff, huh.

Forgive me for not knowing the law very well. But if You could have proven that uni was attempting to blackmail, wouldnt hiring a lawyer be the best option in that case? then publicize the blackmail as well too!

MRT144 · March 31, 2003, 21:11

i find it ironic that he came out of his "methods of reasoning" class.

Worthingtons · March 31, 2003, 21:35

True, but when a shoe shiner makes advances on you one's 'methods of reasoning' go out of the window. The Initial advance was rejected and the lad should have left it at that.

Forgive me if i'm wrong but surely questining one about thier sexuality, regardless of motive is not a strictly PC thing to do?? Sexuality is a private issue which one should not pry , there must be a grey area to fight you're ground on that (For example in the Army this woudnt be allowed as discussed in the other thread).

If there werent nearby witnesses (ie nobody heard him said it) I'd just make out the advance was more direct than you're hand (while hand and **** may have been several inches away you could say the only reason you're hands made contact was becuase you moved his hand away from your long john silver with yours)

Good luck anyway.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 21:42

Quote:

a shoe shiner

Is this some sort of quaint Pom expression for a homosexual?

Sheik · March 31, 2003, 21:42

That was a bad idea. I would say the first thing to do is call a lawyer and see if you should apologize for anything you did. Tell him that he took you by surprise and that you have never had any exposure to "that kinda thing"

Asher · March 31, 2003, 21:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Rothy
True, but when a shoe shiner makes advances on you one's 'methods of reasoning' go out of the window.

You may choose to be a bit more diplomatic before using slang like that in the future.

Boris Godunov · March 31, 2003, 22:47

Ah, the good old gay panic defense. If it has worked for murderers before, I'm sure it could work here.

Really, if a girl made a single unwanted advance on a guy, and he hauled off and hit her, who here would be trying to help the guy beat his rap with suggestions of making false claims? Give me a ****ing break.

Uber, you done wrong, very wrong, and instead of trying to weasel out of your punishment, maybe you should try to actually feel remorse for having violently attacked another person? It's just a crazy idea...

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 22:50

We have already told Uber that he is not the victim, and that it was wrong to hit that other guy. It is not, however, a hate crime. Boris, you're right that his explanation is hardly a good defense against assault, but it should at least explain why he should not be carted off to "tolerance camp" or somesuch.

Boris Godunov · March 31, 2003, 22:54

I was referencing the posts that suggested he lie (claim the guy tried to touch his genitals, claim he is sexually confused, etc.) to make it look like he had a mitigating "gay panic" defense in hitting the guy. His acts are indefensible, and he needs to own up to that.

However repugnant I find unwanted advances, they pale next to physical assault.

Agathon · March 31, 2003, 22:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II

Forgive me for not knowing the law very well. But if You could have proven that uni was attempting to blackmail, wouldnt hiring a lawyer be the best option in that case? then publicize the blackmail as well too!

Well it wasn't as clear cut as that. The university basically said - if you come after us with lawyers we will make sure that every time a prospective employer contacts the university about you, that your SH case will be on top of the file. I don't know if that counts as blackmail or not, but it was enough to scare them off, especially since they were only fined $200 each.

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 22:56

I think most of those suggestions were tongue in cheek. It is indeed indefensible to attack another physically over such a small matter as an unwanted sexual advance.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 22:56

They're both probably going to end up in touchy feely camp next to each other.

Bring your teddy bear, Uber...

Thorn · March 31, 2003, 22:56

I hate people like you... give me your address so I can beat the **** out of you.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 22:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

Well it wasn't as clear cut as that. The university basically said - if you come after us with lawyers we will make sure that every time a prospective employer contacts the university about you, that your SH case will be on top of the file. I don't know if that counts as blackmail or not, but it was enough to scare them off, especially since they were only fined $200 each.

200$ is deserved as a stupidity tax.

I don't regard anything other than my home completely exempt from search without a warrant, no matter what the law says.

Tuberski · March 31, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ah, the good old gay panic defense. If it has worked for murderers before, I'm sure it could work here.

Really, if a girl made a single unwanted advance on a guy, and he hauled off and hit her, who here would be trying to help the guy beat his rap with suggestions of making false claims? Give me a ****ing break.

Uber, you done wrong, very wrong, and instead of trying to weasel out of your punishment, maybe you should try to actually feel remorse for having violently attacked another person? It's just a crazy idea...

On the other hand:

Really, if a guy made a single unwanted advance on a girl, and she hauled off and hit him, who here would be trying to help the girl beat her rap with suggestions of making false claims? Give me a ****ing break.

It seems that, if the above situation occurs, the girl seems to be within every right to hit the guy.

What Uber did was wrong. period.

But, in other circumstances, ie the girl hitting the guy, it would be ignored.

ACK!

Asher · March 31, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
200$ is deserved as a stupidity tax.

I don't regard anything other than my home completely exempt from search without a warrant, no matter what the law says.

Would you be okay with being stripsearched each time you left Walmart?

Odin · March 31, 2003, 23:00

Everybody is equal, but some are treated more equally than others.

Cyclotron · March 31, 2003, 23:01

Well, women tend to be much more victimized by this sort of stuff than men, so it makes sense on a functional level that the laws are biased... they may still be morally objectionable, however.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Would you be okay with being stripsearched each time you left Walmart?

Give me a break "My home and my person"

The Uni shouldn't have peeked at user files without a valid reason, but I think it's pretty stupid to store pornography on your university account.

Agathon · March 31, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I was referencing the posts that suggested he lie (claim the guy tried to touch his genitals, claim he is sexually confused, etc.) to make it look like he had a mitigating "gay panic" defense in hitting the guy. His acts are indefensible, and he needs to own up to that.

The problem is that given my understanding of current university politics he is unlikely to be given a "fair trial", so he has to respond in a slightly more devious fashion.

I actually think that there's a chance this might have been a setup. UberKrux said that the guy concerned is an activist of sorts and he's made no secret of his feelings about homosexuality: perhaps this is a deliberate provocation. I've seen this sort of thing happen before, but most of the time it doesn't get past puerile attempts to rile up the Christians on campus.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 23:05

Don't read it as approval to search anything else...

Just a reminder that even institutions don't always follow the law.

Agathon · March 31, 2003, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

200$ is deserved as a stupidity tax.

I don't regard anything other than my home completely exempt from search without a warrant, no matter what the law says.

I'm not saying they didn't deserve to be disciplined, just that construing it as SH was risible when there were other regulations available and that threatening them was definitely out of order. Remember this was the early 90s when PC fear was at its peak.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 23:09

No prob...and if they'd continued to press a SH charge on me in that situation then I'd have screamed bloody murder too.

But I would be willing to live with a 200$ fine for misusing school property and consider it fair payment for a lesson learnt.

Thorn · March 31, 2003, 23:10

Ah no one ever listens to my threats... too bad too... I'd love to back them up... everyone is always too chicken......

Boris Godunov · March 31, 2003, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski

On the other hand:

Really, if a guy made a single unwanted advance on a girl, and she hauled off and hit him, who here would be trying to help the girl beat her rap with suggestions of making false claims? Give me a ****ing break.

It seems that, if the above situation occurs, the girl seems to be within every right to hit the guy.

What Uber did was wrong. period.

But, in other circumstances, ie the girl hitting the guy, it would be ignored.

ACK!

I categorically disagree that the girl is within her rights to hit the guy. Women are under the same obligation to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence that men are under. Giving a free pass to physical attacks because of the gender/orientation of the attacker is crap.

KrazyHorse · March 31, 2003, 23:12

They'd only get a free pass because they probably wouldn't hurt the guy...

Agathon · March 31, 2003, 23:13

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, women tend to be much more victimized by this sort of stuff than men, so it makes sense on a functional level that the laws are biased... they may still be morally objectionable, however.

I don't think it does. One of the core rules of our legal systems is that people are innocent until proven guilty. The other is that criminal justice is non-comparative: in other words you are to be punished for committing an actual crime and not merely to be jailed to compensate some oppressed class for crimes you didn't do.

The way that SH and rape are sometimes investigated breaks these rules. When I have raised this objection the answer has been roughly that it doesn't matter if innocent people are punished since innocent women are raped. I find this bizarre since it isn't a comparative issue. After all who would say that innocent people should be jailed because other innocent people are burgled?

Tuberski · March 31, 2003, 23:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I categorically disagree that the girl is within her rights to hit the guy. Women are under the same obligation to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence that men are under. Giving a free pass to physical attacks because of the gender/orientation of the attacker is crap.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact is more people would find it acceptable.

ACK!

Agathon · March 31, 2003, 23:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
No prob...and if they'd continued to press a SH charge on me in that situation then I'd have screamed bloody murder too.

But I would be willing to live with a 200$ fine for misusing school property and consider it fair payment for a lesson learnt.

Agreed. That's basically my advice to UB. It's often not worth screaming bloody murder over every misuse of the law.

Agathon · March 31, 2003, 23:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
They'd only get a free pass because they probably wouldn't hurt the guy...

And because our society just has double standards.