Man falsely accused of sexual harassment and beaten to death

[Nova Cyberia]

You make it so easy. It's fun.

Excuse me Mr. Barr, she wanted proof you watched the video, not a summary of the video.

I don't really care what they want.

[Vassenor]

Excuse me Mr. Barr, she wanted proof you watched the video, not a summary of the video.

I don't really care what they want.

So basically you haven't seen the video and are just blindly accepting that what you've been told is in it must be true because narratives.

[Old Tyrannia]

He would have raped her anyway. He's a man.

Freeaneet: *** Warned for trolling. ***

It was a pre-emptive measure.

You are on your hands and knees begging to be banned for trolling right now fam, if I were you, I'd stop.

The Xenopolis Confederation: *** Warned for trollnaming. *** If you suspect someone of being a troll, report them. Don't call them out for it in-thread.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

He would have raped her anyway. He's a man.

Freeaneet: *** Warned for trolling. ***

You are on your hands and knees begging to be banned for trolling right now fam, if I were you, I'd stop.

The Xenopolis Confederation: *** Warned for trollnaming. *** If you suspect someone of being a troll, report them. Don't call them out for it in-thread.

Why is trollnaming against the rules?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Freeaneet: *** Warned for trolling. ***

The Xenopolis Confederation: *** Warned for trollnaming. *** If you suspect someone of being a troll, report them. Don't call them out for it in-thread.

Why is trollnaming against the rules?

I think its because people just kept spamming it nonstop and were constantly calling people trolls or something

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Why is trollnaming against the rules?

I think its because people just kept spamming it nonstop and were constantly calling people trolls or something

Maybe calling everything a troll should be discouraged, but throwing a banhammer at everything that brings down the forum doesn't seem like a good solution. Even then, shouldn't we differentiate between accurate trollnaming and inaccurate trollnaming? All I did was tell them they were about to get warned/banned for trolling, which they were.

[True Refuge]

I think its because people just kept spamming it nonstop and were constantly calling people trolls or something

Maybe calling everything a troll should be discouraged, but throwing a banhammer at everything that brings down the forum doesn't seem like a good solution. Even then, shouldn't we differentiate between accurate trollnaming and inaccurate trollnaming? All I did was tell them they were about to get warned/banned for trolling, which they were.

iirc, trollnaming is only against the rules if it’s the only substance of a post, since a post that’s only trollnaming and nothing else adds nothing to the discussion. At least that’s the OSRS as I remember it.

Moderation’s probably the best place to ask those questions.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

But he didn't flash her or piss on her.

And you know this for sure how?

I'm sure if the video showed it, then the news article would read differently.

Absolutely amazing. When it is a female, you ask for guilt to be proved, but when male you demand that innocence be proved. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty", or is that just for women who make fake sexual assault accusations?

[Gravlen]

Go look for what? The thing I've already seen, or the thing that hasn't been made public yet?


Yes. It's pretty important to know what she actually said both when talking about criminally prosecuting her and when making a decision whether to believe her or not.


Ejaculating or pissing on her would probably count as sexual assault, and that would be without him touching her. Flashing her could be considered a form of sexual assault as well.

But he didn't flash her or piss on her.

I wouldn't know; I haven't seen the video nor was I present at the time of the bus ride.

The point remains, however: It is possible to sexually assault someone without touching them.

[Galloism]

It is possible to sexually assault someone without touching them.

I was thinking about this. I guess you could throw a sex toy at someone for sexual gratification or something. That would be technically not touching and still be sexual assault.

[Gravlen]

Go look for what? The thing I've already seen, or the thing that hasn't been made public yet?

The thing you're asking me for with your needless questioning.

Either state your point upfront or leave me be. I don't care to be strung along.

I'm sorry if my posts are long and complicated, but I've done just that before:

No.

So it would be impossible to say that we believe her or not, since we don't know what we're supposed to believe.

To repeat myself: Since we don't know what she actually told her brother, let alone the police after the attack, we cannot really conclude if she's believable or not.

Yes. It's pretty important to know what she actually said both when talking about criminally prosecuting her and when making a decision whether to believe her or not.

She said he sexually assaulted her.

I know that's the summary put forth, but I still don't know if that's an accurate summary. Is that her saying it? Is it her brother? Is that a claim made by a witnesses? Is it the conlusion the police have made based on the later phone call they recieved? The press release lacks necessary details.

Okay, and yet none of those things happened. He didn't do anything. He walked past her. You know how I know this? Because there's fucking video evidence.

Still unreleased.

I really don't get what's so fucking difficult for you lot about this. If someone claims something happened but then video of the alleged incident doesn't show it then it probably didn't happen. I really don't fost what's so difficult about this. It seems pretty basic.

"Doesn't show" is very different from "didn't happen", as you now acknowledge by saying it probably didn't happen.

Not that it matters to me, as I'm still waiting to know more about what she told her brother. That's currently the most important bit in my view.

You seem to be practically searching for reasons to believe her.

If you go back to the top of yhis post, and look back at my previous posts, you'll find that I'm clearly saying that I cannot say that I believe her.

Why are you so adamant that she cannot be believed?

So show us the video then since you've clearly seen it.

You make it so easy. It's fun.

Logan police detectives were able to obtain and review video footage of the alleged assault, and say the video showed Fife walking past the girl, but it did not show that a sexual assault occurred.

"Did not show" doesn't rule out the possibility that something happened but wasn't caught on camera.

[Gravlen]

It is possible to sexually assault someone without touching them.

I was thinking about this. I guess you could throw a sex toy at someone for sexual gratification or something. That would be technically not touching and still be sexual assault.

There is that, but in my mind it's more likely such a case would be about flashing or the use of bodily fluids in some way. I've seen cases concrning the latter, but never the former - though I would of course not rule out the possibility of it happening.

[Galloism]

I was thinking about this. I guess you could throw a sex toy at someone for sexual gratification or something. That would be technically not touching and still be sexual assault.

There is that, but in my mind it's more likely such a case would be about flashing or the use of bodily fluids in some way. I've seen cases concrning the latter, but never the former - though I would of course not rule out the possibility of it happening.

Flashing I don't think would be assault. It would likely be covered under indecent exposure laws.

I guess I'd have to check the state in question though.

Bodily fluids could definitely be sexual assault, but then I would have classified that under "touching", but you could argue it either way.

[Gravlen]

There is that, but in my mind it's more likely such a case would be about flashing or the use of bodily fluids in some way. I've seen cases concrning the latter, but never the former - though I would of course not rule out the possibility of it happening.

Flashing I don't think would be assault. It would likely be covered under indecent exposure laws.

I guess I'd have to check the state in question though.

Bodily fluids could definitely be sexual assault, but then I would have classified that under "touching", but you could argue it either way.

In Utah flashing would be counted as an offense against public order and decency, but this bit is also interesting:

Indecent exposure, or lewdness, generally involves exposing your genitals in public. Although indecent exposure encompasses some seemingly benign acts, such as mooning, it can carry harsh penalties (including jail time) and is classified as a sex crime.

So a sex crime but not sexual assault. It doesn't get us any closer to the truth, but it could plausibly explain a possible discrepancy between her claim (given that she claimed to have been subjected to a sexual assault) and the police saying there were no sexual assault. But yeah, speculation on my part.

[Galloism]

Flashing I don't think would be assault. It would likely be covered under indecent exposure laws.

I guess I'd have to check the state in question though.

Bodily fluids could definitely be sexual assault, but then I would have classified that under "touching", but you could argue it either way.

In Utah flashing would be counted as an offense against public order and decency, but this bit is also interesting:

Indecent exposure, or lewdness, generally involves exposing your genitals in public. Although indecent exposure encompasses some seemingly benign acts, such as mooning, it can carry harsh penalties (including jail time) and is classified as a sex crime.

So a sex crime but not sexual assault. It doesn't get us any closer to the truth, but it could plausibly explain a possible discrepancy between her claim (given that she claimed to have been subjected to a sexual assault) and the police saying there were no sexual assault. But yeah, speculation on my part.

That's possible.

There's also a factor that a lot of people don't even know what a sexual assault or rape is - sad but true, classifying everything as passed out date rape as not rape/sexual assault, to thinking a broken promise is a retroactive sexual assault.

There's a shocking lack of understanding surrounding what is, and is not, sexual assault.

[Gravlen]

In Utah flashing would be counted as an offense against public order and decency, but this bit is also interesting:

Indecent exposure, or lewdness, generally involves exposing your genitals in public. Although indecent exposure encompasses some seemingly benign acts, such as mooning, it can carry harsh penalties (including jail time) and is classified as a sex crime.

So a sex crime but not sexual assault. It doesn't get us any closer to the truth, but it could plausibly explain a possible discrepancy between her claim (given that she claimed to have been subjected to a sexual assault) and the police saying there were no sexual assault. But yeah, speculation on my part.

That's possible.

There's also a factor that a lot of people don't even know what a sexual assault or rape is - sad but true, classifying everything as passed out date rape as not rape/sexual assault, to thinking a broken promise is a retroactive sexual assault.

There's a shocking lack of understanding surrounding what is, and is not, sexual assault.

Indeed, also true. We've seen that clearly - in both directions - in many examples both here on NSG and elsewhere. It also complicates matters when different jurisdictions use different (and sometimes problematic) definitions as well.

[Gormwood]

Flashing I don't think would be assault. It would likely be covered under indecent exposure laws.

I guess I'd have to check the state in question though.

Bodily fluids could definitely be sexual assault, but then I would have classified that under "touching", but you could argue it either way.

In Utah flashing would be counted as an offense against public order and decency, but this bit is also interesting:

Indecent exposure, or lewdness, generally involves exposing your genitals in public. Although indecent exposure encompasses some seemingly benign acts, such as mooning, it can carry harsh penalties (including jail time) and is classified as a sex crime.

So a sex crime but not sexual assault. It doesn't get us any closer to the truth, but it could plausibly explain a possible discrepancy between her claim (given that she claimed to have been subjected to a sexual assault) and the police saying there were no sexual assault. But yeah, speculation on my part.

Ah, the classic "public urination gets you labeled a sex offender" avenue.

[Gravlen]

In Utah flashing would be counted as an offense against public order and decency, but this bit is also interesting:

Indecent exposure, or lewdness, generally involves exposing your genitals in public. Although indecent exposure encompasses some seemingly benign acts, such as mooning, it can carry harsh penalties (including jail time) and is classified as a sex crime.

So a sex crime but not sexual assault. It doesn't get us any closer to the truth, but it could plausibly explain a possible discrepancy between her claim (given that she claimed to have been subjected to a sexual assault) and the police saying there were no sexual assault. But yeah, speculation on my part.

Ah, the classic "public urination gets you labeled a sex offender" avenue.

You would think that (I did at first), but in the case of Utah:

Some states require indecent exposure offenders to register as sex offenders, however Utah does not.

That also applies to public urination. Utah has a relatively reasonable list of criminal acts which will land you on the SOL.

(2) a conviction for any of the following offenses, including attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit any felony of:

(a) Section 76-5-301.1, child kidnapping, except if the offender is a natural parent of the victim;
(b) Section 76-5-402, rape;
(c) Section 76-5-402.1, rape of a child;
(d) Section 76-5-402.2, object rape;
(e) Section 76-5-402.3, object rape of a child;
(f) Section 76-5-403.1, sodomy on a child;
(g) Subsection 76-5-404.1(4), aggravated sexual abuse of a child; or
(h) Section 76-5-405, aggravated sexual assault;

(3) Section 76-4-401, a felony violation of enticing a minor over the Internet;
(4) Section 76-5-302, aggravated kidnapping, except if the offender is a natural parent of the victim;
(5) Section 76-5-403, forcible sodomy;
(6) Section 76-5-404.1, sexual abuse of a child;
(7) Section 76-5b-201, sexual exploitation of a minor;
(8) Subsection 76-5b-204(4), aggravated sexual extortion; or
(9) Section 76-10-1306, aggravated exploitation of prostitution, on or after May 10, 2011.

[Andsed]

So do we know what the guy was actually accused of? Because I have seen some claim sexual assault and others claim sexual harassment. Neither one would make the brother killing the accused in any way of course but I think it is important when determining the accused innocence.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Extra judicial justice rarely works. Women and men both lie. They should both go to prison for life.

[Jebslund]

"Did not show" doesn't rule out the possibility that something happened but wasn't caught on camera.

Ah, yes. Soon it will come out that the man's real name was Barry Allen and he copped a feel too fast for the camera to see as he walked by.

[Scomagia]

"Did not show" doesn't rule out the possibility that something happened but wasn't caught on camera.

Ah, yes. Soon it will come out that the man's real name was Barry Allen and he copped a feel too fast for the camera to see as he walked by.

Man, power really went to The Flash's head.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

"Did not show" doesn't rule out the possibility that something happened but wasn't caught on camera.

Ah, yes. Soon it will come out that the man's real name was Barry Allen and he copped a feel too fast for the camera to see as he walked by.

This ^^

[Nova Cyberia]

I don't really care what they want.

So basically you haven't seen the video and are just blindly accepting that what you've been told is in it must be true because narratives.

You're more than welcome to actually disprove the reporting.

[Ors Might]

I don't really care what they want.

So basically you haven't seen the video and are just blindly accepting that what you've been told is in it must be true because narratives.

The summary of the video is more or less what the police have told us thus far. Unless the police are conspiring against the woman, there’s little reason to not take them at their word. Do you have any reason to assume that the police’s description of the video is inaccurate?