Yeah, sorry. You don't get to just give someone what you call a "fun tap on the ass" anymore. Maybe if it's a teammate? I'm not 100% on how that works. You certainly can't do it to a lady. The law does agree Knightslayer in this regard.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
I don’t know if this is the thread to jump in with a “I’m glad it’s still legal to smack women on the ass and mime touching their breasts (as a joke!!!)”
Read the room, chief.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Polygraph are have never been considered reliable. That's all tv show misinformation of them being the silver bullet. You can be completely innocent and fail one hard. Say if one was nervous or suffering from anxiety (like taking a poly graph) . Polygraph aee useless in court but can be a law enforcement flimsy excuse that one's be quilty as to use it in interrogations like. " why don't you just come clean with us? You failed the poly praph so why don't you just tell us what happened?"
What do you mean? The law does agree with me. Touching someone's ass is considered sexual assault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by combustiblefuel
It's the same thing #### nuts.
First rule of society these days is to keep your hands to yourself. Don't be touching anyone in any shape or form unless they give you expressed written consent, properly notarized and sealed. It's just the way society is going, so don't put yourself in positions where you may offend someone by infringing on their personal space. Keep a safe distance at all times.
The issue of law is an interesting one. The Canadian law is quite ambiguous in its definition of what is assault and what is not, what is misdemeanor and what is felony. It is the extent to which there is intent is what is going to determine the severity of the charge. So no, it is not the same thing and is not always sexual assault. What is important to understand is that sexual assault requires "sexual contact without consent," the emphasis on "sexual" contact, or contact meant to arouse or elicit a sexual response. This usually means kissing, fondling of genitals, vaginal or anal penetration, or oral sexual contact. Most importantly, there must be intent by the individual to generate that response, either for themselves or the person they are in contact with, and then do so without consent or through coercive means.
There are differences in action and behaviors. A "playful smack on the ass" is not the same thing as pinning a woman to a wall and forcing oneself on her, just as manslaughter is different from 1st degree murder. Intent plays a substantial role in determining the degree to which something should be judged, determined to be unlawful, and determine the possible outcome. For example, and to change the focus from this just being an issue for women, actor Brendan Fraser was assaulted by the head of the Hollywood Foreign Press Corps, where the individual cupped his ass during a hug and attempted to insert a digit. There was clear intent here, and it was sexual in nature. Very different from a playful slap on the ass. Should have been judged accordingly as it really contributed to the downfall of a person's career.
To inject a little humor into this discussion and look at the whole butt slap thing, the NFL really has some 'splain to do
At some point a person just loses the benefit of the doubt.
Its time for San Jose to terminate the contract, for the NHL to suspend him from performing there again and to wash their hands of the guy. He had his chances.
At some point a person just loses the benefit of the doubt.
Its time for San Jose to terminate the contract, for the NHL to suspend him from performing there again and to wash their hands of the guy. He had his chances.
“But he’s really good!”
This guy does not deserve the privilege to play in the NHL.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
League looking for something less controversial to stick?
Like when they got Al Capone for tax evasion?
Yeah, this kind of stinks of the Mike Richards' fiasco. I imagine it's easy to find a technical COVID violation even with guys who try to comply, let alone a doofus like Kane.
Yeah, this kind of stinks of the Mike Richards' fiasco. I imagine it's easy to find a technical COVID violation even with guys who try to comply, let alone a doofus like Kane.
Well a slight difference, COVID isn't a felony charge for Class 1 drugs and the Mike Richards one was for trying to transport across an international border. But we all agree Kane is an ass but lets not compare apples and oranges.
Well a slight difference, COVID isn't a felony charge for Class 1 drugs and the Mike Richards one was for trying to transport across an international border. But we all agree Kane is an ass but lets not compare apples and oranges.
Please show when Richards was charged with a "felony". I'm interested, since he was arrested in Canada, which has no such charge, and since he was dealt with in provincial court, meaning it was treated as summary conviction and not an indictable offence.
In fact he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance without a prescription, not for transporting. And was he convicted? No, the charge was stayed by the Crown. He didn't even have to enter a plea.
FWIW, Kane has been charged but not convicted before as well.
