Sexual Assault: Discussion

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aaron Neely:
Who determines "intent" how do you knwo what someone is thinking? you cant possibly prove" "intent"

If you have a murder where the perpetrator had purchased supplies (weapons, rope, shovel, fire fuel), scopes out the victim's surroundings for a time where the murderer can catch the victim alone and off-guard, and commences murdering the victim with the supplies the murderer brought for the job, any competent prosecuter will argue that the murderer showed clear intent to murder the victim, versus, say, a police officer coming home from work, finding his wife in bed with his best friend, and shooting one or both of them. Intent is often a huge factor in determining punishment for crimes.

That being said, you can have differences in perception. There is a type of rapist (I think called the Casanova rapist or something) that thoroughly convinces himself that the assault is wanted and/or provoked by the woman, so that IN HIS MIND, he is not committing rape. Is it your feeling that due to differences in perception, this type of rapist should not be prosecuted or that the woman victimized should be called into question for 'perceiving' the situation differently?
 
Aaron Neely:
Everybody keeps referring to how he unzipped the wetsuit and grabbed her privates...is that what happened? i dont remember reading that.

I have no idea of what happened. I do not know the details. The example I used was purely an example I made up to illustrate a point.

Michael
 
H2Andy:
why are you so suspicious of women? do you know women who would do this?
hang out with different women, dude.

this has never worried me, personally.
Im sure it happens every day! I had a friend who himself and his wife owned a daycare,they had a pool. ONe day my buddy was in the pool. throwing the kids 1 by 1 in the water. just like people do with their kids all the time. One of the parents found out and told the police he was molesting the kids by youching them on their buttocks. By no means was he molesting them. but now he is on the sex offender registry in my state.
 
Aaron Neely:
mrobinson:
Absolutly. did anyone even say that all accusers are liars??? I certainly havent.
You seem to be splitting hairs and missing the bigger picture... again I wish I could live in that world.
 
michaelp68:
I cannot quite understand exactly what you are saying from how you wrote it, but if you are trying to say that the name of an accused may not be released to the public until or unless the accused is found guilty in a court, then

I'm not aware of any law that says the the name of an adult accused may not be publicly revealed unless and until proven guilty in a court.

Michael[/QUOTE no you are missunderstanding the LETTER OF LAW, compaired to the statuet of law, basicaly what i am saying is that SB, covered thier a_ _
 
Aaron Neely:
ONe day my buddy was in the pool. throwing the kids 1 by 1 in the water. just like people do with their kids all the time. One of the parents found out and told the police he was molesting the kids by youching them on their buttocks. By no means was he molesting them. but now he is on the sex offender registry in my state.


was he convicted? did he plead guilty?

if he is in the sex offender registry, that means a jury had to find him guilty or he
himself pled guilty...

no offense, but i don't think your story is accurate
 
I have little doubt the removed post was authentic, which is why I responded to it shortly after it was posted around midnight. I have retained those postings.

However, the SB staff is just doing the right and prudent thing, which is to authenticate it.
 
BigJetDriver69:
One more time.
H2Andy:
i'm confused. we did all we could to verify the story. we confirmed with PADI
that he was terminated as an instructor. we also confirmed the reason.

OK, I missed that. I retract my last paragraph.

H2Andy:
additionally, would you like this expelled instructor to possibly hurt someone else who might learn better here?
Of course not, silly question and a condecending remark. That's why I said release the charter name for the weary traveler. Then there is also the PADI website, to reference as well.

H2Andy:
in this case, we had the information and we went with it. unlike some people,
who think ScubaBoard is a court of law, we're just an internet publisher, more
like a tv newscast or an editorial.

there's a big difference.
I don't think I inferred that ScubaBoard was a court of law, if you were referring to me. On the other hand TV newscasts and editorials (more appropriately), do base there segments/opinions on the facts at hand, and do not make wild assumptions based on a 1 sentence accusations. I need facts, or should I say at least one side of the story, before I contribute to the destruction of someone's life and livelyhood.

I'm getting way off base, and it may sound like I'm defending the alleged attacker, and I'm not. I just don't agree with how people so quickly rush to judgement before even the basics facts are know, in general, not just this case. In this case, we at ScubaBoard KNOW NOTHING of what happened from either side really, it's useless to argue. We could find out the basic facts, all agree, hold hands and sing Kumbayah, until then, what's the point?
 
H2Andy:
was he convicted?

if he is in the sex offender registry, that means a jury had to find him guilty or he
himself pled guilty...

no offense, but i don't think this story is accurate
He was convicted because he would sit the kids on his hands and throw them up in the air into the water, thats all. just because it "seemed" inappropriate. noons was there to witness it. the girl was 5.. you tell me how he was convicted
 
Aaron Neely:
He was convicted because he would sit the kids on his hands and throw them up in the air into the water, thats all. just because it "seemed" inappropriate. noons was there to witness it. the girl was 5.. you tell me how he was convicted

Of course we can never believe 5 year old witnesses...what would they know?

I can see this thread getting locked soon...this is going nowhere.

Nauticalbutnice :fruit:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom