In his report on the investigation released Tuesday, Sigler said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt “that Hill’s intent in the touching was rude, insolent or angry,” as required for a battery conviction.
I can believe that Hill was not angry, but as for rude and insolent …
Anyway:
In a case of this nature, the problem with the appointment is obvious.
She said Hill leaned toward her, put his hand on her back, slid it down and grabbed her buttocks. The Munster lawmaker says she told Hill to “back off,” but he approached again later in the night, put his hand on her back and said: “That skin. That back.”
In his report on the investigation released Tuesday, Sigler said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt “that Hill’s intent in the touching was rude, insolent or angry,” as required for a battery conviction.
Say what?? If this isn’t rude and insolvent, what the hell is? Sure seems like open season in Indiana.
That’s one weird battery statute.
Some of these statutes seem to be written in a manner in which to allow prosecutors to manifest their inner biases.
It’s a hell of a standard. It sounds like it’s almost impossible to meet. Usually the unwanted touching is enough and the mens rea goes simply to the unwanted contact.
I vote for rude.
“It was in a bar. It was in the early morning hours. Free alcohol was being served and flowing.”
IOW - what the hell else were these women expecting in that place, at that time, under those circumstances? Sigler’s rendition was more nuanced than mine, but it pretty much boils down to the same thing. Same old, same old - boys will be boys (especially with some booze in their veins), and girls should know better than to put themselves in those situations.
Excuse me while I puke my guts out.
She said Hill leaned toward her, put his hand on her back, slid it down and grabbed her buttocks.
Sigler said he found the allegations from the four women credible
Sigler said there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt “that Hill’s intent in the touching was rude, insolent or angry,” as required for a battery conviction.
Let a jury decide, Sigler. You have you have evidence beyond reasonable doubt that a drunk man was roaming a bar and groping women. The jury might disagree with you that being drunk gave Hill immunity from a battery charge.
Exactly.
Right?! “Insolent” sounds like what you charge the slave or servant with.
It means “lacking in respect,” which is essential to the behavior that Hill is accused of here.
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill will not be criminally charged in the alleged drunken groping of a state lawmaker and three legislative staffers at a party this year.
I don’t know why that would be so difficult to prove.
Thanks for the mansplain.
It is also a synonym for “insubordinate”. And it is a dog-whistle, similar to ‘uppity’.
That it is used in this way in the statute suggests the legislators were more concerned with protecting their chattel than women’s body autonomy.
Well, thanks for the sandisplain, I guess.
No kidding. It really does. I’ve never seen another battery statute with requirements like that for the intent.
Witness: That man just ran a red light and hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk.
Sigler: Was the driver drunk?
Witness: Yes.
Sigler: Well, then ¯_(ツ)_/¯
That raises the question: How many battery statutes have you seen?
Here’s one from Wyoming:
(g) A person is guilty of unlawful contact if he: (i) Touches another person in a rude, insolent or angry manner without intentionally using sufficient physical force to cause bodily injury to another; or (ii) Recklessly causes bodily injury to another person.
And here’s one from New Mexico (a state whose laws you may or may not be familiar with):
Battery is the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of another, when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner.
The Commonwealth of Virginia also uses the same language, both for assault and battery (Va. Code 18.2-57) and specifically for domestic assault and battery (Va. Code 18.2-57.2).
That’s three states not including Indiana.
And here, not from statutes directly but from Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, Volume 1, are some classic examples gathered a long time ago:
and:
and:
In short, in this context, the word “insolent” has a long history.
Wondered why they’d let a black guy off.
The woman assaulted is Latina.
When some touches someone else and is told to back off and then does so again while making suggestive comments, that’s insolent regardless of the gender or ethnicity of the people involved.
