PDA

View Full Version : Herman Cain Alleged Cain Sexual Harrassment Story Gets Upgraded To Criminal Sexual Abuse




Agorism
11-07-2011, 10:20 PM
Alleged Herman Cain Sexual Harrassment Story Gets Upgraded To Criminal Sexual Abuse


Link to article (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/07/363135/alleged-herman-cain-sexual-harrassment-story-gets-upgraded-to-criminal-sexual-abuse/)



Instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch. I was very, very surprised and very shocked. I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for. Mr. Cain said, you want a job, right?



These allegations also up the ante considerably for the many, many Republicans who raced to defend Cain last week by denying that sexual harassment is even a real problem. (They are wrong. One in 10 women in the workplace will at some point be “promised promotion or better treatment if they [are] ‘sexually cooperative’” with a co-worker or supervisor.) Yet even the GOP’s most rabid deniers of sexism will have a tough time arguing that there is nothing wrong with grabbing a person’s genitals against their will or trying to physically push them to perform oral sex on you.

notsure
11-07-2011, 10:34 PM
Statute of limitations??

notsure
11-07-2011, 10:38 PM
Cain’s alleged actions occurred in the District of Columbia, where the law provides that “[w]hoever engages in a sexual act or sexual contact with another person and who should have knowledge or reason to know that the act was committed without that other person’s permission, shall be imprisoned for not more than 180 days and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed $1,000.”

That's pretty cheap for rape.
I assume a civil case could also be made. ?

milo10
11-08-2011, 12:08 AM
That's pretty cheap for rape.
I assume a civil case could also be made. ?

Rape?! Total bs. You guys keep blowing this up and you simply make yourselves look bad. Cain's comment about her wanting the job was totally sleazy and manipulative and speaks poorly of him, but that is not rape.

Let this run its course and stick to your principles. If your personal view of male-female relationships is shaped by cultural Marxism, then whatever, but the application of that law to what Cain did is hardly consistent with how libertarians normally view the world. We're looking to elect Ron Paul, not Andrea Dworkin.

rambone
11-08-2011, 12:12 AM
Yes, please tread very lightly when calling these shenanigans criminal behavior.

coffeewithchess
11-08-2011, 12:12 AM
Rape?! Total bs. You guys keep blowing this up and you simply make yourselves look bad. Cain's comment about her wanting the job was totally sleazy and manipulative and speaks poorly of him, but that is not rape.

Let this run its course and stick to your principles. If your personal view of male-female relationships is shaped by cultural Marxism, then whatever, but the application of that law to what Cain did is hardly consistent with how libertarians normally view the world. We're looking to elect Ron Paul, not Andrea Dworkin.

I don't think rape was meant for this case, but just saying that is a light sentence if someone is raped. Maybe we're looking at it differently?

Tod
11-08-2011, 12:22 AM
Yes, please tread very lightly when calling these shenanigans criminal behavior.

The guy on CNN said that her description was of a sexual assault.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gross-sexual-imposition/

It doesn't reach the level of the link's definition because he didn't finish what he started to do; he stopped when she told him to.

moderate libertarian
11-08-2011, 12:32 AM
Upgrade as in he allegedly "upgraded" hotel room of Sharon Bialek on his own.

Could Herman Cain go to prison for this?

milo10
11-08-2011, 12:36 AM
I don't think rape was meant for this case, but just saying that is a light sentence if someone is raped. Maybe we're looking at it differently?

If that is what you're saying, I agree it's different, but I still don't understand what any of this has to do with Herman Cain. What he did was not rape. To my mind, it also should not entail anything like criminal charges. Since he was using his hiring ability in an attempt to manipulate someone into having sexual relations with him, it should entail problems with his job up to and including termination (the biggest problem of which is the he said/she said nature of these allegations) and a loss of reputation, but that is something different. As little as I think of Herman Cain, the only thing he did that was really sleazy was bring up the job. The rest of it is the type of dumb mistake that any bartender will see over and over again, usually where a guy gets too much alcohol in him and thinks he's getting somewhere with some women he's with and makes a move that is totally out of place. I'm not offering that excuse for Cain, I think he's a sleazeball, but apart from his words to her about the job, that is how someone could interpret it.

parocks
11-08-2011, 06:11 AM
Rape?! Total bs. You guys keep blowing this up and you simply make yourselves look bad. Cain's comment about her wanting the job was totally sleazy and manipulative and speaks poorly of him, but that is not rape.

Let this run its course and stick to your principles. If your personal view of male-female relationships is shaped by cultural Marxism, then whatever, but the application of that law to what Cain did is hardly consistent with how libertarians normally view the world. We're looking to elect Ron Paul, not Andrea Dworkin.

I haven't seen the name Andrea Dworkin in years. I have a vague recollection of encountering that name in college. I have a sort of subconscious revulsion to just seeing the name.

parocks
11-08-2011, 06:13 AM
If that is what you're saying, I agree it's different, but I still don't understand what any of this has to do with Herman Cain. What he did was not rape. To my mind, it also should not entail anything like criminal charges. Since he was using his hiring ability in an attempt to manipulate someone into having sexual relations with him, it should entail problems with his job up to and including termination (the biggest problem of which is the he said/she said nature of these allegations) and a loss of reputation, but that is something different. As little as I think of Herman Cain, the only thing he did that was really sleazy was bring up the job. The rest of it is the type of dumb mistake that any bartender will see over and over again, usually where a guy gets too much alcohol in him and thinks he's getting somewhere with some women he's with and makes a move that is totally out of place. I'm not offering that excuse for Cain, I think he's a sleazeball, but apart from his words to her about the job, that is how someone could interpret it.

IF she is to be believed. It was attempted adultery.

Dianne
11-08-2011, 06:28 AM
The guy on CNN said that her description was of a sexual assault.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gross-sexual-imposition/

It doesn't reach the level of the link's definition because he didn't finish what he started to do; he stopped when she told him to.

I agree this is a sexual assault, but the statute of limitations is in play. If someone did that to me, I would have them locked up.

angelatc
11-08-2011, 06:49 AM
Stacy McCain seems to have given up (http://theothermccain.com/2011/11/08/so-how-was-your-monday/), and his column contains another tidbit:
A former employee of the United States Agency for International Development says Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain asked her to help arrange a dinner date for him with a female audience member following a speech he delivered nine years ago. . . .“I couldn’t swear that he had some untoward intentions, but we all thought his tone was suspect and we didn’t feel comfortable putting him in touch with that woman,” Donella recalled.

milo10
11-08-2011, 07:46 AM
I agree this is a sexual assault, but the statute of limitations is in play. If someone did that to me, I would have them locked up.

If this happened exactly as described, then I don't believe Cain has broken any laws at all. And I will note that the strictly physical aspect of this happens thousands of times a day across the United States, usually among teenagers and 20-somethings who are a little buzzed or completely misread the situation or did not know how to escalate.

So you would want there to be a law against this involving a jail sentence, when currently there isn't?

If implemented completely, probably 20% - 30% of all males in the United States would see jail time under those laws.

On a related note, I would like to add that if anyone is wondering why people are standing behind Cain after all of these allegations, you are seeing part of the reason here.

Edit: Dianne, not trying to pick on you. If your comment was off-the-cuff and I'm taking it too literally, then this really isn't aimed at you. I don't want to turn this into a huge debate, but I do want people to understand that this is not the way to approach this.

wgadget
11-08-2011, 07:50 AM
If this happened exactly as described, then I don't believe Cain has broken any laws at all. And I will note that the strictly physical aspect of this happens thousands of times a day across the United States, usually among teenagers and 20-somethings who are a little buzzed or completely misread the situation or did not know how to escalate.

So you would want there to be a law against this involving a jail sentence, when currently there isn't?

If implemented completely, probably 20% - 30% of all males in the United States would see jail time under those laws.


But Hermie was in his 50s...

milo10
11-08-2011, 07:54 AM
But Hermie was in his 50s...

So there should be different laws for people in their 20s and people in their 50s?

Edit: Cleaner44, that video was great. His creepy smile was a perfect fit.

That is the way to knock Cain down. What he did was sleazy and inappropriate, and should be made fun of. But thankfully, to the best of my knowledge, it was not criminal. He stopped when the woman asked him to stop. As far as the law goes, that is what matters.

Original_Intent
11-08-2011, 07:58 AM
I'm waiting for the blue dress with the black walnut stain.

Dianne
11-08-2011, 08:02 AM
If this happened exactly as described, then I don't believe Cain has broken any laws at all. And I will note that the strictly physical aspect of this happens thousands of times a day across the United States, usually among teenagers and 20-somethings who are a little buzzed or completely misread the situation or did not know how to escalate.

So you would want there to be a law against this involving a jail sentence, when currently there isn't?

If implemented completely, probably 20% - 30% of all males in the United States would see jail time under those laws.

On a related note, I would like to add that if anyone is wondering why people are standing behind Cain after all of these allegations, you are seeing part of the reason here.

It is unlawful for a person to touch another person without permission.

Here is the definition of assault and battery:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault+and+Battery

Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault. Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.

Assault and battery are offenses in both criminal and Tort Law; therefore, they can give rise to criminal or civil liability. In Criminal Law, an assault may additionally be defined as any attempt to commit a battery.

At Common Law, both offenses were misdemeanors. As of the early 2000s, under virtually all criminal codes, they are either misdemeanors or felonies. They are characterized as felonious when accompanied by a criminal intent, such as an intent to kill, rob, or rape, or when they are committed with a dangerous weapon.

squarepusher
11-08-2011, 08:04 AM
if this is true, why didn't she file a police report?

specsaregood
11-08-2011, 08:04 AM
//

Dianne
11-08-2011, 08:06 AM
Furthermore, when I was a correctional officer; we could not even shake an inmate's hands; for fear they would file assault charges against us for touching them.

rp08orbust
11-08-2011, 08:07 AM
Touching a person's body without their permission is: assault and battery.

True, but the tricky part is what constitutes tacit permission. Who here has ever given explicit permission to touch them while on a date with someone, or explicitly asked for permission to hold hands or kiss?

milo10
11-08-2011, 08:16 AM
True, but the tricky part is what constitutes tacit permission. Who here has ever given explicit permission to touch them while on a date with someone, or explicitly asked for permission to hold hands or kiss?

Exactly. For example, pretty much 90% of all romance scenes in film or fiction would be against the law by those criteria.

Thankfully, things are not quite that bad just yet.

Bruno
11-08-2011, 08:21 AM
Cain is dusting off the high-tech lynching speech for this afternoon.

Drudge is playing goalie by blaming the victim.

Iowans are not "yawning" at the allegations this morning.

bluesc
11-08-2011, 08:28 AM
Cain is dusting off the high-tech lynching speech for this afternoon.

Drudge is playing goalie by blaming the victim.

I wish Drudge wasn't. His was one of my most visited sites up until he began carrying the water for Cain. Now I only visit to see what Cain headlines he has.

I guess it makes sense to me now why he preemptively had the "high-tech lynching" article up right after Cain won the Florida Straw Poll. I honestly think Drudge knew about it.

Bruno
11-08-2011, 08:39 AM
I wish Drudge wasn't. His was one of my most visited sites up until he began carrying the water for Cain. Now I only visit to see what Cain headlines he has.

I guess it makes sense to me now why he preemptively had the "high-tech lynching" article up right after Cain won the Florida Straw Poll. I honestly think Drudge knew about it.

Agreed!

squarepusher
11-08-2011, 09:08 AM
so could any opponent of Cain make these allegations?
Is this woman telling the truth or lying?

stuntman stoll
11-08-2011, 09:53 AM
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/321562_10101270115944400_13921530_74274205_4290382 38_n.jpg

kylejack
11-08-2011, 10:04 AM
if this is true, why didn't she file a police report?
Maybe because rape culture is intimidating, and because he just did a sexual assault and not a full rape, and maybe because she was an unemployed lady and he was a prestigious high-level businessman.

kylejack
11-08-2011, 10:05 AM
True, but the tricky part is what constitutes tacit permission. Who here has ever given explicit permission to touch them while on a date with someone, or explicitly asked for permission to hold hands or kiss?
You don't start running your hand up someone's skirt without any prior indicators of consent. If he did this, he also attempted to extort her with the "you want a job, don't you?"

low preference guy
11-08-2011, 10:08 AM
You don't start running your hand up someone's skirt without any prior indicators of consent.

That's begging the question. What is a "prior 'indication' of consent"?

kylejack
11-08-2011, 10:10 AM
That's begging the question. What is a "prior 'indication' of consent"?
Certainly not "eating dinner".

low preference guy
11-08-2011, 10:12 AM
Certainly not "eating dinner".

Your inability to give a precise definition shows that you need a better criterion.

hillertexas
11-08-2011, 10:13 AM
if this is true, why didn't she file a police report?

There are a million valid reasons.

specsaregood
11-08-2011, 10:15 AM
That's begging the question. What is a "prior 'indication' of consent"?

Your inability to give a precise definition shows that you need a better criterion.

I like the idea of a legal disclaimer floated around; something that gives ground rules about what is allowed and what won't be allowed. What the other party is willing to do in exchange for dinner and drinks. something like that would have saved me a lot of money back in my bachelor days.

low preference guy
11-08-2011, 10:16 AM
There are a million valid reasons.

One of the possible 'valid reasons' is that she made it all up this week.

Guitarzan
11-08-2011, 10:23 AM
That's begging the question. What is a "prior 'indication' of consent"?


Maybe earlier in the evening she doctored his tea?

kylejack
11-08-2011, 10:24 AM
Your inability to give a precise definition shows that you need a better criterion.
Consent should be aggressively sought. For two people who have not even kissed, I would expect a person to explicitly have to say, "May I run my hand up your leg?" Obviously with a boyfriend and girlfriend with a history of sexual activity, consent for some typical actions might be implied.

specsaregood
11-08-2011, 10:32 AM
For two people who have not even kissed, I would expect a person to explicitly have to say, "May I run my hand up your leg?"
That's not gonna get you any action. You wouldn't want to ask the question that might elicit a "No" in response. You have to take Cain's cue, "You want a job don't you?". That kinda question is gonna usually get you a "Yes". How, about "You really enjoyed that expensive dinner, didn't ya?"

kylejack
11-08-2011, 10:35 AM
Right, Cain wanted to take the shortcut and have her just succumb to it to get the job. He also raised the ante by isolating her in the car where she might feel physically in danger for saying no as well.

low preference guy
11-08-2011, 10:37 AM
Right, Cain wanted to take the shortcut and have her just succumb to it to get the job. He also raised the ante by isolating her in the car where she might feel physically in danger for saying no as well.

You don't even know whether these things happened.

kylejack
11-08-2011, 10:40 AM
Assume all my posts on it are preceded by a conditional if.

Dianne
11-08-2011, 10:42 AM
so could any opponent of Cain make these allegations?
Is this woman telling the truth or lying?

Well they paid off two women who must not have been lying, so a pattern of bad behavior is certainly beginning to develop.

Tod
11-08-2011, 10:48 AM
if this is true, why didn't she file a police report?

Simple: she was afraid of being blacklisted as a troublemaker. Remember, she was looking for a job, so she was not in a position of power.

hillertexas
11-08-2011, 10:51 AM
if this is true, why didn't she file a police report?

There are a million valid reasons.

One of the possible 'valid reasons' is that she made it all up this week.

And I suppose one of those "valid reasons" may be that she was wearing a sexy outfit and knew that she was 'asking for it', right? :rolleyes:

Dianne
11-08-2011, 11:00 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/07/lawyer-herman-cain-committed-sexual-battery/

Attorney Debra S. Katz, who specializes in employment law, said Monday night on Countdown with Keith Olbermann that the fourth sexual harassment accusation against presidential candidate Herman Cain could amount to sexual assault.Sharon Bialek, who is a registered Republican and tea party supporter, told reporters Monday that the then-CEO of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) had put his hand “under my skirt and reached for my genitals” while she was meeting with him about a job in mid-July 1997.

“Here we have a sexual battery,” Katz said. “He has touched her in an offensive manner, and I think it has criminal implications as well.”
But the case is long past the statute of limitations.
“The court where it will apply most now is the court of public opinion,” she said.

Katz praised the bravery of Bialek for coming forward publicly with the allegations.

Three other women have accused Cain of engaging in aggressive and unwanted behavior while he was the head of the National Restaurant Association.

Watch video, courtesy of Current TV, below

Brian4Liberty
11-08-2011, 11:14 AM
Rape?! Total bs. You guys keep blowing this up and you simply make yourselves look bad. Cain's comment about her wanting the job was totally sleazy and manipulative and speaks poorly of him, but that is not rape.

Let this run its course and stick to your principles. If your personal view of male-female relationships is shaped by cultural Marxism, then whatever, but the application of that law to what Cain did is hardly consistent with how libertarians normally view the world. We're looking to elect Ron Paul, not Andrea Dworkin.

+rep

We must step back from the emotion (and cultural Marxism) and look at the principles involved.

Brian4Liberty
11-08-2011, 11:16 AM
It is unlawful for a person to touch another person without permission.

Here is the definition of assault and battery:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault+and+Battery

Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact. While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault. Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.

Assault and battery are offenses in both criminal and Tort Law; therefore, they can give rise to criminal or civil liability. In Criminal Law, an assault may additionally be defined as any attempt to commit a battery.

At Common Law, both offenses were misdemeanors. As of the early 2000s, under virtually all criminal codes, they are either misdemeanors or felonies. They are characterized as felonious when accompanied by a criminal intent, such as an intent to kill, rob, or rape, or when they are committed with a dangerous weapon.

Ok, so when are Mitt Romney and Rick Perry going to get arrested for their multiple counts of assault and battery at previous debates?

kylejack
11-08-2011, 11:18 AM
Ok, so when are Mitt Romney and Rick Perry going to get arrested for their multiple counts of assault and battery at previous debates?
Whenever they decide to press charges against each other (never).

low preference guy
11-08-2011, 11:27 AM
Whenever they decide to press charges against each other (never).

what? are you saying that actually constitutes battery?

Brian4Liberty
11-08-2011, 11:28 AM
Whenever they decide to press charges against each other (never).

Exactly. And neither will Ron Paul over Rick Perry grabbing him. Just goes to show that human interaction is more complex than a paragraph of criminal code.

kylejack
11-08-2011, 11:31 AM
what? are you saying that actually constitutes battery?
It constitutes assault (not battery), if they were in fear of being harmed (they weren't). So no.

Brian4Liberty
11-08-2011, 11:36 AM
It constitutes assault (not battery), if they were in fear of being harmed (they weren't). So no.

Did you read the quote, or are you just making this all up as you go?


Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.

The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact.

Brian4Liberty
11-08-2011, 11:38 AM
what? are you saying that actually constitutes battery?

If Perry had grabbed Bachmann, it would be sexual harassment, assault and battery. But between the boys it's all good.

kylejack
11-08-2011, 11:39 AM
Did you read the quote, or are you just making this all up as you go?
I'm going off actual statutes, not that link. I can speak for Texas, but I haven't bothered to look up where the debate was held, statutes there, etc.

kylejack
11-08-2011, 11:45 AM
If Perry had grabbed Bachmann, it would be sexual harassment, assault and battery. But between the boys it's all good.
Some touches are okay and consensual
http://i.imgur.com/HxAUU.jpg

others are not, like running a hand up a job applicant's skirt unannounced.

sailingaway
11-08-2011, 12:32 PM
So there should be different laws for people in their 20s and people in their 50s?....

That is the way to knock Cain down. What he did was sleazy and inappropriate, and should be made fun of. But thankfully, to the best of my knowledge, it was not criminal. He stopped when the woman asked him to stop. As far as the law goes, that is what matters.

He was the HEAD of a lobbyist group. He knew well, by the 90s that 'sex in the office with underlings' was a no no, and even though he wasn't this woman's boss, if he knew she came to him for job related help, and had a boyfriend etc, physically pushing her head to his crotch as a first intimate gesture was pretty aggressive and sleazy. Criminality is irrelevant, and I think the person who posted about the s/l was only thinking it HAD passed so we shouldn't be discussing it as criminal, then was surprised, as I was reading it, that DC literally limits penalty for rape (which that s/l WOULD apply to, also) to so little.

You could argue was it or wasn't it assault, and the surrounding factors we don't know would be the difference in most people's opinion on that. But an EXECUTIVE, even if not painting himself as a values voter candidate, should have better judgment, at minimum, than to handle this as stated in an employment related setting of any sort. His being married, and her having a boyfriend makes that worse.

Again, on a man/woman side of things, apart from his being married and presenting himself as a SuperChristian, what happened before all this is very relevant. On an 'is he a likable guy and a strictly moral family man and an esteemed executive type', IF true, this statement by this woman is very damaging.

And all Cain ever had going for him was likability, imho.

sailingaway
11-08-2011, 12:38 PM
It constitutes assault (not battery), if they were in fear of being harmed (they weren't). So no.

battery, as a TORT, not criminal offense is 'an offensive and intentional touching when a reasonable person should have known it would be offensive' so depending on what happened before, unless a reasonable person would think it was invited, it would satisfy the elements for the cause of action of the TORT of battery. (Compare this to the famous Supreme Court case where a married woman was propositioned by a store owner from behind the counter, with no physical touching and no objective fear of being touched, and Justice Holmes judicial opinion that 'it never hurts to ask' or words to that effect.)

It doesn't matter. Again, the s/l will likely have passed (something like 4 years, I think, generally) and no one is suing anyone. This is about whether Cain is the Values Voter type of candidate he portrays himself as, and whether he should be President.

kylejack
11-08-2011, 12:39 PM
They were asking hypotheticals about the recent debates, and I was addressing that, not the sexy time allegations.

parocks
11-09-2011, 06:26 PM
If this happened exactly as described, then I don't believe Cain has broken any laws at all. And I will note that the strictly physical aspect of this happens thousands of times a day across the United States, usually among teenagers and 20-somethings who are a little buzzed or completely misread the situation or did not know how to escalate.

So you would want there to be a law against this involving a jail sentence, when currently there isn't?

If implemented completely, probably 20% - 30% of all males in the United States would see jail time under those laws.

On a related note, I would like to add that if anyone is wondering why people are standing behind Cain after all of these allegations, you are seeing part of the reason here.

Edit: Dianne, not trying to pick on you. If your comment was off-the-cuff and I'm taking it too literally, then this really isn't aimed at you. I don't want to turn this into a huge debate, but I do want people to understand that this is not the way to approach this.

A normal person. Hooray!!!