9
   

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

 
 
Ionus
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 08:30 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Does machismo cause rape?
I have done an awful lot of macho things and I have never raped...but I dont walk around strutting trying to convince others I am more important than I am . Macho bullshit is for clowns and wannabe's . Quiet confidence is more impressive to those who have done something with their lives .

Why dont they just come out and say it....machismo is rife in southern Europe...the French and Italians ..... but these are the clowns with a very poor military record . It seems they can be men around women, but not if called to fight .

Look how quickly Spain sucked up to the terrorists after their train bombing.... look at how the French tricolour can be folded so only the white shows..... and the only thing you can be sure of the Italians is they will finish the war on the winning side, even if it means changing sides halfway .

Lets be honest...machismo is for cowards and bullies .
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 10:56 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You build in the assumption that the government is helping, that their help is wanted, and that the government has the right to take care of all those whom they deem victims by making criminals out of all those whom they deem to be trangressors...I also think that you trash the Constitution and that the inevitable result of your way is an enslaved people.

If you think that anything in the U.S. Constitution gives you the right to forcibly sexually assault another person--an unwilling person--with impunity, you clearly are out of touch with reality.

And the government is not "helping", by passing and enforcing laws prohibiting forcible sexual assaults, it is performing a function necessary to promoting the general welfare, a power granted to it under the Constitution, by outlawing sexually abusive/assaultive behavior which violates the rights of others to refuse such contact. People have a right not to have their bodies forcibly, and unwillingly, assaulted by others--that is a basic human right, and a basic civil right. And it is certainly the obligation of the government to guarantee those rights, and they do so by passing laws prohibiting forcible sexual acts with unwilling individuals. The fact that the legislatures of all 50 states have passed laws prohibiting the forcible sexual assault of an unwilling individual, with no ongoing public protests about such laws, speaks for itself in terms of whether such government intervention is wanted.
Quote:
Right, because anyone who disagrees with your values and your hierarchy of victims is warped, is insane. We often see this habit of yours to pathologize away any disagreement so that you dont need to deal with it.

You're not just disagreeing with my values, you're disagreeing with the prevailing values of the specific society you live in, as well as the values of most of the civilized world, since forcible sexual assaults of unwilling individuals are pretty much universally regarded as criminal everywhere on the globe.
Quote:
Have we a better word for an erotic freedom fighter?

Given your significant deviation from the norm on this particular issue, if your actual behaviors included the forcible sexual assaults of unwilling, non consenting, individuals, I'd suggest this word:

Noun: pervert 'pur,vurt
1.A person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior


Do you prefer the word "pervert"?
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 11:10 am
@Ionus,
Ionus this is just a way of attacking all men.

In the rape thread Firefly started with being all for posting at taxpayer’s expense posters around the country campuses implying that men as a group need to be threaten with prison not to turn into rapists.

A very insulting campaign to say the least.
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 11:13 am
@firefly,
Howabout the term legal "pervert" that is none of the damn government business or anyone else put the parties involved.

Or we can go back to declaring acts of gay sex as being both illegally and perverted acts.

Such acts are not in the main stream (5 to 10 percents by most studies) and would likely cause most people to throw up if they was force to watch them.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 11:30 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Lets be honest...machismo is for cowards and bullies .


What about American football Io and John Wayne.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 11:37 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Ionus this is just a way of attacking all men.

The laws prohibiting forcible sexual assaults of unwilling individuals aren't attacks on men at all. These laws regarding forcible sexual assaults without consent are gender neutral and/or gender inclusive--they can be violated by either men or women, and the victims can be men or women, and adults or children.

Interpreting the laws which prohibit forcible sexual acts with unwilling individuals as some sort of gender battle is absurd.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 11:57 am
@firefly,
Quote:
And the government is not "helping", by passing and enforcing laws prohibiting forcible sexual assaults, it is performing a function necessary to promoting the general welfare, a power granted to it under the Constitution, by outlawing sexually abusive/assaultive behavior which violates the rights of others to refuse such contact. People have a right not to have their bodies forcibly, and unwillingly, assaulted by others--that is a basic human right, and a basic civil right. And it is certainly the obligation of the government to guarantee those rights, and they do so by passing laws prohibiting forcible sexual acts with unwilling individuals. The fact that the legislatures of all 50 states have passed laws prohibiting the forcible sexual assault of an unwilling individual, with no ongoing public protests about such laws, speaks for itself in terms of whether such government intervention is wanted.


Another headmistressy rant ff. And nothing to do with this topic. Which is that all those rights you talk about, assuming the obsession is not sex, were taken away from DSK on the word of an immigrant cleaning woman. And DSK's sexual rights were taken away from him by stopping him going to Paris and flinging him a cell. Why do you feel the need to continually lecture us all in that high and mighty tone on something none of us will dispute.

We know the government is right to prohibit sexual assaults. We need to be sure one has taken place in this case and we are not. We might be at some point in the future but we are not now. The proper reason for the prohibition is to prevent revenge attacks and feuds. The government doesn't give a damn about the assaults but it does about the feuding. The punishments meted out in feuds are far worse than that of the courts and on that argument the prohibition is causing more rapes and sexual assaults than there would be if revenge attacks took place. The government isn't right on any moral grounds. It is right on practical grounds.

The "norm" you talk about is your norm. The norm in your milieux. It is nowhere near humanity's norm. And if you took the trouble to read better literature you would easily see that. The softly, softly approach of the courts should be compared with a violator of feminine dignity being necklaced by the lady's male relatives. The threat of the latter really does cut down sexual assaults on women. And you know how many of those there are in the US I presume.

hawk is correct on humanity's norm but out of date if I understand him correctly. You are up a gum tree and don't know what you are talking about. It's personal with you.

The topic is--"is DSK a criminal?" Not what criminality consists of which we all, more or less, know. And whether he is a criminal or not depends upon what took place in that room and not on the endless reams of boring legalisms you continually trot out.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 12:58 pm
@spendius,
Quote:

We know the government is right to prohibit sexual assaults. We need to be sure one has taken place in this case and we are not.

I think you've missed Hawkeye's posts--he's been saying the government has no right to prohibit forcible sexual assaults.

And, whether a criminal sexual assault took place in the DSK case is what is determined by a jury at trial. And I have not said otherwise.
Quote:
Which is that all those rights you talk about...were taken away from DSK on the word of an immigrant cleaning woman. And DSK's sexual rights were taken away from him by stopping him going to Paris and flinging him a cell.

What does her occupation or native citizenship have to do with anything? Is she to be believed less because she is "a cleaning woman" or "an immigrant"? The police and D.A. acted on what they believed to be credible evidence that DSK committed a crime--and that evidence included what they felt was a credible complaint and credible forensic support for the complaint. That is all the police need to justifiably arrest someone--the full burden of proof is established after the arrest and indictment, and it is formally presented at trial. That is the procedure in sexual assault crimes, and in all other crimes as well.

No "sexual rights" were taken away from DSK, except he was unable to engage in sexual contact with another person for the brief period he was held in custody, and that is true for all people held in detention prior to issues of bail being resolved, and there are valid reasons for preventing sexual contacts between people held in detention. He was free to engage in masturbation, while in custody, if he wanted to do so. Right now, he might have to confine his sexual activities to his wife, but he is under house arrest, after all. He might he able to have other sexual partners, the state hasn't stopped him from that.
Quote:
. And whether he is a criminal or not depends upon what took place in that room and not on the endless reams of boring legalisms you continually trot out.

Whether he is a criminal depends on what a jury decides took place in that suite that night, and on whether what they believe took place violated NYS law. Those "boring legalisms"--including the specific wording of the NYS laws he is charged with violating--are precisely what the jury will use in determining whether he engaged in criminal acts.
Quote:
The "norm" you talk about is your norm. The norm in your milieux. It is nowhere near humanity's norm. And if you took the trouble to read better literature you would easily see that.

The norm regarding criminal sexual conduct in the DSK case is not my personal norm, it is the norm established by NYS and the norm which is defined and described in the laws DSK is accused of violating. And those laws, and norms, were written and adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people of NYS. It's all about those "boring legalisms", Spendi. It has nothing to do with " humanity's norm" or what can be found in "better literature". It has everything to do with the norms of NYS law--where the alleged crime took place. And I'm sure that, by now, DSK is well aware of that too.


hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 01:08 pm
@firefly,
My position is that the government over protects citizens from each other as part of a power grab which is not in the best interest of citzens or civilization, and that most of the sexual disputes should be in the public health system not the criminal "justice" system. I have never made the claim that government does not have a role in sexual regulation.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 01:20 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
Ionus this is just a way of attacking all men.

The laws prohibiting forcible sexual assaults of unwilling individuals aren't attacks on men at all. These laws regarding forcible sexual assaults without consent are gender neutral and/or gender inclusive--they can be violated by either men or women, and the victims can be men or women, and adults or children.

Interpreting the laws which prohibit forcible sexual acts with unwilling individuals as some sort of gender battle is absurd.
as long as we ignore that sex is more important to men, that men tend to want more sex, and that men tend to be more agressive both in the act and getting to the act.

Your position is absurd.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 02:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
as long as we ignore that sex is more important to men, that men tend to want more sex, and that men tend to be more agressive both in the act and getting to the act.

None of those assumptions justify a forcible sexual assault against an unwilling individual. Men are free to choose as many consenting sexual partners as they can find, for as many different types of consenting sexual contact as they wish. And the same thing is true for women.

Men may be more aggressive, they may need to express their aggressivity more often, and they may tend to express their aggressivity in more violent ways than women. But that doesn't justify acts of injurious physical assault, homicide, or murder toward others, or preclude the state from defining such behaviors as criminal. And the fact that more serial killers are men does not mean all men should be regarded as potential serial killers or that all men are capable of being serial killers.

As I said before...
Interpreting the laws which prohibit forcible sexual acts with unwilling individuals as some sort of gender battle is absurd. These laws punish either gender that violates them, irregardless of the gender of the individual who is violated.

Men violate more laws, of all types, than women do, but the laws punish criminal behavior regardless of which gender commits the criminal act--men are not being punished for "just being men", their behavior is punished when they violate criminal laws, and traffic laws, and tax laws, and all other laws. To argue that all laws unfairly target only men, because more men than women violate all laws, is really the height of paranoia--particularly since our laws, all of them, are written and voted into effect by overwhelmingly male legislative bodies. On that basis, you'd have to conclude that it's men, and not, women, who are "out to get men" and label them as criminals.








spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 02:19 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
I think you've missed Hawkeye's posts--he's been saying the government has no right to prohibit forcible sexual assaults.


Which is valid if he defines government right in a certain way and is in favour of protecting women by the more powerful and effective method of revenge and feud. As I tried to explain. Your position, it is argued, is one in which the economic benefits of preventing revenge and feud have priority over the risks to women which, as you often remind us, are great. It is the materialistic position pretending to be a moral position because it doesn't care for the results of its materialism. That you buy your economic benefits at the cost of women's risk but won't admit it.

In book 3 of Rabelais Pantagruel wrestles all the way through with the problem of getting married and being cuckolded set against the problem of staying single and getting beaten up by irate male members of the female's family if he does the cuckolding.

Quote:
And, whether a criminal sexual assault took place in the DSK case is what is determined by a jury at trial. And I have not said otherwise.


You could knock me down with a feather ff. I'm so flabbergasted.

Quote:
What does her occupation or native citizenship have to do with anything?


Nothing. Except that everybody suspects it has.

Quote:
Is she to be believed less because she is "a cleaning woman" or "an immigrant"?


Definitely not. Except that many suspect she should.

Quote:
The police and D.A. acted on what they believed to be credible evidence that DSK committed a crime....


Of course. Except that riot squads are restless and need somewhere to go.

Quote:
-and that evidence included what they felt was a credible complaint and credible forensic support for the complaint. That is all the police need to justifiably arrest someone--the full burden of proof is established after the arrest and indictment, and it is formally presented at trial. That is the procedure in sexual assault crimes, and in all other crimes as well.


And the "felt" being conditioned to a greater or lesser extent by the need just referred to. And would you mind not keep repeating such obvious things to us all? We all know, and if we didn't we know from this thread now, that "That is all the police need to justifiably arrest someone--the full burden of proof is established after the arrest and indictment, and it is formally presented at trial. That is the procedure in sexual assault crimes, and in all other crimes as well. " Assuming the evidence is strong enough of course which you have done on the evidence that it must have been for the police to take the actions they have done and refusing to accept that they might have been a bit impulsive with such a man as DSK. A puissant scalp indeed.

You're going around in circles. The rest of your post just continues the process. Nobody on the prosecution side has the slightest interest in anything you say. It's trite, it's amateurish and more than once it is very, very boring.

Suppose we said that DSK set it up himself. I can think of reasons. A bit far-fetched I'll admit. It would explain his ringing up the hotel to tell them where he was if the cops had not been quick enough off the mark for his plan and the plane was about to leave. What time lapse was there between the maid telling the hotel staff and the arrest on the plane and what was DSK doing in that time. Can forensic be done in that time? If not your forensic claims are fanciful.

You continually lose focus ff.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 02:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
The question hawk is why is a sexual assault singled out from all other forms of assault? Have fun with that.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 02:29 pm
Given DSK's current life situation, there is some irony to the fact that the next IMF chief might be a female, and that she believes a woman's, "No" to sexual advances should be respected as the dividing line between seduction and aggression.
Quote:
Maureen Dowd: For office civility, cherchez la femme
May 31, 2011

PARIS — On the way up to Christine Lagarde's office high above the Seine, you pass through a lobby filled with wall after wall of black-and-white photos of her predecessors as French finance minister: all men.

They include a former president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing; a current president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and a former favorite to be president, Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

DSK, as he's known here, is holding a pen, beaming with confidence.

His photo on the front page of Le Figaro on Lagarde's coffee table looks far different: the humbled former International Monetary Fund chief flanked by two New York detectives at his house-arrest pad in TriBeCa, a $50,000-a-month apartment so "luxueuse," as the paper says, that it is giving the Socialist Party "malaise."

Another black-and-white expanse greets you when you enter Lagarde's office: the zebra-patterned carpet she put in so she wouldn't always be facing "men in gray suits on a gray rug."

The attractive, 55-year-old Lagarde — 5-foot-10 and lithe with short silver hair and blue-green eyes — is gliding around on the zebra rug in her nude patent Christian Louboutin high heels. The woman has panache.

What else would you expect from someone who became a synchronized swimmer on the French national team after watching Esther Williams movies as a girl?

"She was a little bit plumpy, which was lovely," Madame Minister says of the '50s movie star, adding that she does a bit of her old practice, in addition to working on her rose garden and cooking, when she's at her home in Normandy. "I love the sea. I think I must have been a dolphin in a previous life."

Synchronized swimming taught her teamwork and how to hold her breath when world economies dived underwater.

She was, she says, "born independent." When she was 4, she confides in her melodic low voice, her "totally irresponsible" parents would put her and her infant brother to bed and sneak out to the theater and concerts. One night they came back and found all the lights on. Christine was ensconced in a big chair in the living room, reading her book. "Next time," she nonchalantly told her parents, "just let me know when you go."

France's first female finance minister got a boost in her bid to become the first female head of the IMF at the G-8 meeting in Deauville when Sarkozy lobbied President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton offered a girl-power endorsement, and Dmitry Medvedev proclaimed a near-consensus. Lagarde asserts that apres le DSK deluge, leadership skills count more for the world's banker than "super-duper training and degrees in economics."

She says she's ready to personally go woo China, India and other countries angry over the prospect of yet another European getting a job they feel should be the prize of a developing country. She heads to Brazil on Monday.

She feels deeply that "with an institution with so many different people with different backgrounds, there's a need for respect and tolerance. I know what it's like to walk into a room where you are just by yourself, and everybody else is wearing dark suits, and you feel for a few seconds slightly intimidated and not always welcome."

She dismisses the charge that she overstepped to get a $408 million legal settlement for a Sarkozy pal, the controversial businessman Bernard Tapie, calling it "a politically driven initiative by the Socialist Party."

France is soul-searching in the wake of DSK's DNA stains, debating whether the press is too protective of predatory politicians, whether there are too many liaisons dangereuses between journalists and officials, and whether sexism is taken seriously enough.

Lagarde agrees with The Times' veteran Paris correspondent Elaine Sciolino that this is an Anita Hill moment for France.

"I think there will be a pre-DSK and a post-DSK," she says. "And things that may have been tolerated or generally accepted as OK will no longer be. I think women will take some confidence and pride out of whatever happens."

Because the story came out "so brutally and without notice," she says, the French had a hard time understanding "adversarial" American justice and went into "a huge denial."

"Rightly or wrongly, a lot of people in the media and the establishment had assumed that he was not only persona grata, but that he was going to be the next president of France," Lagarde says. "So they had taken him to the pinnacle and then suddenly he was down in the cellar, the gutter. In the denial phase, they had to go through that victimization of the man, while ignoring the real victim, and it led to unacceptable and disgusting comments by some of his friends. Male friends, of course."

The journalist Jean-Francois Kahn said he was "practically certain" that DSK was not trying to rape the Sofitel maid, but was merely engaging in "troussage de domestique," lifting the skirt of the servant. Jack Lang, a former government minister, cracked, "It's not like anybody died."

Lagarde has never been the darling of the French elite. When she became minister of finance, she says, "people were not particularly nice to me and the media was very keen to point at mistakes or being too blunt or not using the politically correct phrases. I did what I always do. I just gritted my teeth and smiled and got on with it."

In 2007, she made a speech suggesting that her countrymen abandon their "old national habit" of over-intellectualizing. "Enough thinking, already!" she urged. "Roll up your sleeves."

As she told me Friday, "I said they'd done enough thinking to fill in shelves of libraries of the entire world. I said it was time they got on with action."

Sciolino writes about the howling that followed in her new book, "La Seduction": "For the men, here was a French woman brainwashed by too many years in America who was trying to castrate the intellectuals of France!"

The male elite hit back. Bernard-Henri Levy (who has been vociferously defending his pal DSK) disdainfully noted: "This is the sort of thing you can hear in cafe conversations from morons who drink too much."

Lagarde shrugs. "I have no regret," she says. "I was bashed. But the messages got through, I would hope. I don't mind too much a little Parisian circle that says: 'Hmmph, she's not part of us. She's spent too much time on the other side.'"

Like her dynamic boss, Sarkozy, Lagarde is known as "L'Americaine" — not a compliment here. The divorced mother of two grown sons, who now dates a hunky Marseilles real estate developer, attended Holton-Arms high school in the Washington area in an exchange program and spent two decades as a lawyer at Baker & McKenzie in Chicago.

During the financial crisis, her much-criticized tendency to dispense with French protocol allowed her to soar. Her public response to the Lehman collapse was "Holy cow!" She was fast, blunt and able to speak English without a translator.

Even before DSK's vertiginous fall, Lagarde, who has three younger brothers and who elbowed her way to the top male tier of the City of Broad Shoulders, had warned about the dangers of too much "hairy-chested" testosterone. In Chicago, she says, she had "boys on my team. And I could see them, especially when they were a little bit amongst themselves and I was just in the background, and it was about, 'Oh, I can do better than you. I've got more of this and more of that. And I've got more billable hours.' It's complete nonsense."

She noticed, when she worked on big termination packages after mergers, that men would feel their worlds were collapsing while women's egos were "more diversely invested."

She believes that women in the mix — "if they accept to just be themselves and not play boys' games" — can "make it a bit more civilized, bring it back to normality."

Lagarde's role models were her mother, a professor of French, Latin and ancient Greek who was widowed when Christine was 16, and an older female partner at Baker & McKenzie, a "solid professional" who put on a little lipstick before seeing clients.

"Neither overplayed their femininity," she says. "They did not try to charm or lift their skirt to show their knees. But they were women."

Perhaps a woman who dominates without being domineering is just what is needed at the IMF, a macho island outside U.S. law with the sexual norms of a libidinous pirate ship.

The French are reconsidering the line between seduction and aggression. I asked Lagarde how she would delineate it.

"You know when you receive a big slap in the face," she says, "or when someone says 'No.'"

Has she ever felt sexually harassed?

"No, I'm too tall. I've been in sports for too long," she says, smiling and flexing the muscle under her black Ann Taylor jacket.

"They know that I could just punch them."
http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/05/30/article/maureen_dowd_for_office_civility_cherchez_la_femme
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 02:44 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
What time lapse was there between the maid telling the hotel staff and the arrest on the plane and what was DSK doing in that time. Can forensic be done in that time?

There was a several hour time lapse between the report and the arrest. Signs of injury on the woman's body, consistent with being grabbed or held, or consistent with a struggle, as well as damage to her clothing, consistent with the actions of DSK she described, would all be forensic evidence.

How much evidence the police and D.A. need to have before they make a judgment call to arrest also depends on their experience with sex crimes and victims of sex crimes--these were very experienced police and D.A. sex crimes units.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 02:51 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

The question hawk is why is a sexual assault singled out from all other forms of assault? Have fun with that.
I would also move domestic violence off of the criminal system, so that knife cut does not work for me. I seperate intimate relationship aggression form all others, because in motivation and dynamic it is very different from someone walking up and taking a slug at you.

I would have stranger sexual assault stay criminal, but relationship aggression should be rarely a criminal matter. Consent disputes almost never...
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 03:11 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
justify a forcible sexual assault against an unwilling individual


How are you defining the term forcible as in physical force or does that included other pressures to have sex?

We all know with you Firefly that the devil is in how you define your terms.

We will have sex or I am going to take the car back I loan you.

We will have sex or you are going to need to find someplace else to live.

Lot of ways that may not be gentlemanly to “force” sex but is hardly rape.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 03:28 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
How are you defining the term forcible as in physical force or does that included other pressures to have sex?

We all know with you Firefly that the devil is in how you define your terms
The beauty of the statutes is that most of them are written so vaguely that we dont know. We need to look at how the law is currently being applied.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 03:32 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Given DSK's current life situation, there is some irony to the fact that the next IMF chief might be a female, and that she believes a woman's, "No" to sexual advances should be respected as the dividing line between seduction and aggression.


Goodness gracious ff. How many times do you need it explaining to you? That has nothing to do with this matter. I agree with it. It's obvious to any civilised gentleman. What do you take me for. I would blow you away if I told you what I need for a "Yes". Or needed should I say. I'm an old shagged-out has-been now.

What sexual advances took place in the hotel room? That's the point at issue. Is DSK a criminal? Can you really not understand that? If sexual advances did take place was seduction turned to aggression after the event?

Do you not know that feminists say seduction is rape as also the two scenarios Bill mentions. Undue duress. Or any duress.

0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jun, 2011 04:03 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

How are you defining the term forcible as in physical force or does that included other pressures to have sex?

We all know with you Firefly that the devil is in how you define your terms.

When we are talking about criminal behavior, and criminal laws, as we are with the DSK case, my definitions of these terms, and your definitions of these terms do not matter. The only definition that matters is the one in the NYS sexual assault laws because that is the one being used in the DSK case.

This is one of the charges against DSK
Quote:
S 130.50 Criminal sexual act in the first degree.
A person is guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree when he
or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with
another person:
1. By forcible compulsion
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#130.50

And this is the relevant definition of force.
Quote:
8. "Forcible compulsion" means to compel by either:
a. use of physical force; or
b. a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of
immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another
person, or in fear that he, she or another person will immediately be
kidnapped.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#130.50

In the case of DSK, the force, as described in the police criminal complaint against him, which was presented in court, was physical.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 03:05:57