Yee Haw Bob Sexual Harrassment

[cabanafrau]

^this. As posters have stated already there are many parts of her story that just don’t sound logical.



I know how I would react, having your butt groped is really not an unusual thing to happen, at least not to a women during her late teens and early twenties, now sure that isn’t a great reflection on our society and girls shouldn’t just have to take it BUT any reasonable person is not going to loose sleep for years because someone groped their butt.

How do you have the right to state what a reasonable person will or will not do? Unless you have some way of knowing someone's background you can't state how something will or won't affect them.

As far as being so certain what you would do in a circumstance as asserted, I can tell you that people are caught by surprise in situations all the time. For a lot of people the fact that they didn't react to something on the spot haunts and shames them for a very long time. It sickens me to see the judgmental assumptions in the wake of all of these discussions because I've heard too much pain, hurt, shame, etc. from people who have been victimized on a variety of levels -- and wind up blaming themselves because they didn't stop the inappropriate touch promptly or react correctly to that, so maybe they deserve the other things that happened to them as well. People who have been on the receiving end of unwanted contact routinely torment themselves with thoughts about why they didn't react the way we all feel we would in those circumstances. I've seen enough people not be able to explain why they froze when it happened to them and punish themselves afterwards to understand that it's not a slam dunk we're all going to respond with a blistering comeback worthy of a screenwriter or a knockout punch or roundhouse kick worthy of an MMA fighter.

 

[DaisyDuck001]

It's my hope that these allegations will be fully investigated and that appropriate action will be taken if they are found to be true.

It appears that they already were fully investigated when first reported four or six years ago, and were found to be false.

 

[jrmasm]

People aren’t for or against either party.
People are against railroading someone out of a job based on such a flimsy story.



Actually there is a statute of limitations for civil suits as well.
Even with children coming forward it must be done within 7 years of turning 18.

However she wasn’t a child, this trauma wasn’t so significant that she blocked it, she was not scared to come forward because he was in a position of power over her.
And frankly if she was just telling her story it would be one thing. But she is naming names, and rallying people against him. And it is too late for her to decide to do that.

There is no statute of limitations for speaking out nor should there be.

And I already said I wasn’t speaking about this case specifically.

 

[mummabear]

How do you have the right to state what a reasonable person will or will not do? Unless you have some way of knowing someone's background you can't state how something will or won't affect them.

Go find 100 women who have been groped and ask them how many nights sleep they lost over it.

How it affects someone isn’t relevant to deciding if there was a crime. The facts do.

 

[mummabear]

There is no statute of limitations for speaking out nor should there be.

And I already said I wasn’t speaking about this case specifically.

Depends on whether she wants be be sued for libel

 

[jrmasm]

Depends on whether she wants be be sued for libel

Not if she or anyone else that speaks out is telling the truth.

But really are you suggesting that people shouldn’t speak out for fear of libel? Surely I misunderstood.

 

[mummabear]

Not if she or anyone else that speaks out is telling the truth.

But really are you suggesting that people shouldn’t speak out for fear of libel? Surely I misunderstood.

I think when you are naming names and trying to ruin someone’s career you better have some proof.
Particularly when you have chosen to wait until all statutes of limitations of expired and the accused no longer gets their day in court to clear their name.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You're right that what happened isn't an assault -- because technically it's a battery. But I'm really not clear on why people are debating whether the events described are or are not a crime. If true, they clearly are. No one has the legal right to touch another person without their consent whether or not it's over or under the clothing.

And as someone who has experienced this type of thing on more than one occasion, I can tell you that it is upsetting. It's certainly not rape, but it's the type of thing that brings me distress whenever I hear similar stories.

For me, the thing that hurts more than having had some creep grab me is the fact that I reported one of the incidents to the police and they literally laughed about it. So I hope people will try to be a bit more understanding about the hurdles people face in coming forward with this type of story and not jump immediately to assuming a potential victim is lying. The reason we're seeing so many allegations like this now isn't because we have a plague of dishonest women. It's because this is pretty much the first time in history that anyone cares enough about this type of harassment to listen to those of us who have experienced it.

It's my hope that these allegations will be fully investigated and that appropriate action will be taken if they are found to be true.

If it was battery wouldn't he have been arrested on those charges if she had gone to the police?

 

[jrmasm]

I think when you are naming names and trying to ruin someone’s career you better have some proof.
Particularly when you have chosen to wait until all statutes of limitations of expired and the accused no longer gets their day in court to clear their name.

I’ve already said I would have handled things differently in this specific case. But I will never agree that it’s ever too late to speak up.

 

[Jess_S]

If it was battery wouldn't he have been arrested on those charges if she had gone to the police?

It's impossible to speculate on that. If we assume the allegations are true, they are a crime. What the police would do if that crime were reported depends on many factors including whether the police take the victim seriously, whether they believe her claims can be proven (even if they believe her) etc.

 

[mummabear]

But I will never agree that it’s ever too late to speak up.

Never? After the accused has died and can't defend themselves?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It's impossible to speculate on that. If we assume the allegations are true, they are a crime. What the police would do if that crime were reported depends on many factors including whether the police take the victim seriously, whether they believe her claims can be proven (even if they believe her) etc.

Hmm ok maybe it depends on state to state.

The person I had a physical altercation with years ago was charged immediately with battery and was arrested on the spot.

I'm not talking about the other stuff so your comments about whether the police take the victim seriously, whether they believe her claims can be proven, etc doesn't mean anything here in my context. I was commenting on your comment of "You're right that what happened isn't an assault -- because technically it's a battery." You're the one you said with conviction that it was battery so I was going off of that though I hadn't done in research into Florida at that point.
================================================

As far as battery this is what my limited research has found for Florida:

In Florida, the term battery means:

1. Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will (non-consensual), or
2. The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person.

Where there are no aggravating factors or enhancements at play (such as use of a weapon, serious bodily injury, or domestic violence) the offense is known as “simple battery” or “misdemeanor battery.”

"Intent is a required element of a simple battery charge. To constitute a crime, there must be “either a specific voluntary act or something that is substantially certain to result from the act.” A defendant must intend to strike the person, or engage in conduct where he or she knows that a touch or strike “is substantially certain to result from his acts.” Thus, an accidental touching or a touching that is incidental to other conduct not aimed at making contact with another person, is insufficient to establish a battery."

=========================
All I know is it's 'impossible' to use your words for any of us here to actually speculate on what occurred is legally defined as-whether sexual assault, harrassment (though I believe generally speaking that's been used for employment or so my research has advised), battery, etc. Going to the police to file a report and speaking with legal counsel would have helped clear up what occurred is defined as as well as given her what recourse she had should she have found Disney lacking in giving her the desired solution.

ETA: Also "Under Florida law, Simple Battery (Misdemeanor Battery) is a first degree misdemeanor, with penalties of up to one year in jail or 12 months probation, and a $1,000 fine. So if he was charged with simple battery he could have faced jail time or probation time as well as a fine" (though that does require going to the police for these charges to have been filed).

ETA: I realize that multiple posters have discussed what occured and what it would be defined as however, respectfully we lack the full information as well as legal information to actually define what happened. This is also why I understand why the title is offputting.

 

[okeydokey]

It appears that they already were fully investigated when first reported four or six years ago, and were found to be false.

Fully investigated by Disney? Do you think they would ever admit to wrongdoing? Please.

 

[mummabear]

Do you think they would ever admit to wrongdoing? Please.

No I don't, which is why I think the $500 payoff is such a load of....

 

[jrmasm]

Never? After the accused has died and can't defend themselves?

Never

 

[mom2rtk]

Fully investigated by Disney? Do you think they would ever admit to wrongdoing? Please.

No, I don't think they would. But I think they would have quietly gotten rid of him sometime within the next 4-6 years to avoid further liability exposure.

 

[mummabear]

Never

Well we have to disagree then.
I think everyone deserves their day in court and the ability to defend themselves against allegations.

 

[NYCgrrl]

I believe this trend started/grew from Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. At least that's what I've been told.
It bothers me too
It also is part of why The Onion is often believed to be real.
It's all a disturbing trend

Don't forget the Borowitz Report in the satirical corner too. Both columns make me giggle no matter what viewpoint they are skewering.

 

[ashley0139]

Never? After the accused has died and can't defend themselves?

Wait, so you think that someone should never speak out and say they have been abused if their abuser has died? Is that really what you're saying?

If a child was abused by their grandparent but the grandparent has passed away, they should never say anything?
A gymnastics coach was abusing his gymnasts and when it finally came to light, he killed himself. Should none of his victims ever say anything now just because he has died?

 

[robinb]

Fully investigated by Disney? Do you think they would ever admit to wrongdoing? Please.

No, I don't think they would. But I think they would have quietly gotten rid of him sometime within the next 4-6 years to avoid further liability exposure.

I think they would have done something. Paid her off and had her sign a nondisclosure agreement or put pressure on Bob to retire. They wouldn't just ignore something legitimate it because it would be a ticking time bomb.