Originally Posted by PitDAWG
You do know what their definition of sexual assault was in this case, right? Or don't you?

Quote
“unwanted sexual contact with another person.”

How much further than that do you feel it needs to go to be called sexual assault? Are you trying to say that purposefully placing your penis on a woman when it is unwanted isn't enough for you?

All she is doing is referring you to what her rulings are based on. Each of those are spelled out clearly in the decision. This wasn't a state or local court. So what the rules/laws and their definitions had to come from somewhere and as a judge or attorney you have to show where and what you are basing your ruling on. That's exactly what she did here.

Per example, in an actual criminal trial the judge would say something similar to this, "based on Ohio statute 3.145 the court rules...."

WTH?

You can take your tired-ass goalposts and shove 'em. I've said NOTHING on how I think sexual assault should be judged.

All I stated is what Robinson exposed over and over in her brief. She's working within an environment with a bunch of ambiguities, the NFL defines all the language on the fly and expects her to leap of the edge and approve unprecedented punishment.

You want to take that, and accost me with stupid penis questions? GTHOH.

I've never done anything to excuse Watson's behavior. My commentary is on how the case was judged and the lunacy that is NFL protocol and practice. Take your virtue-signaling ass on down the road.

Get your LWL and then pound salt.