Nades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Nades wrote:
How is she being groped exactly? The first picture is the most questionable but seeing she's a streaker perhaps they have their hands near her breast because she keeps exposing them?
If you're a streaker running around naked on a pitch infront of thousands of men, women and children you lose the right to not be touched as far as I'm concerned.
Edit: she wasn't actually streaking so I still don't really see the issue.
No I think funeralempire correctly pointed out they were doing their job trying to cover up the advertisement on her shirt. But I guess if they get a feel then that's just a bonus.
I think when it comes to stuff like this, the streaker should be well aware they're going to be physically handled quickly man or woman.
I don't really think intent matters except for in the case where your intention is also an expected duty. If your job includes covering unauthorized advertising and/or covering over-exposed, misbehaving patrons you should get some leeway in performing that so long as you're not clearly exploiting the opportunity to be a creep, which I don't think was the case here.
Just because gaining control over someone led to accidental contact with somewhere they might not be comfortable being touched doesn't mean that touch was intentional groping even though the touch was intentional. Beyond that, they can be assumed to understand that being grabbed and detained it a risk of the behaviour so unless there's actually creepy, unreasonable contact there's no real grounds for whining.
That said, if society doesn't want to worry about that, a blanket and a stand-off human restraint device are still my recommended solution.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う