You are walking through a Target store, minding your own business, when suddenly, some guy randomly ejaculates on you (yes, you read that correctly). He later turns himself in, but is released right away because "no sex crime charges apply." Wow. OK. How baffled and irate would you be?
I'm baffled, and I would be irate (and grossed out beyond words), and partly because of this side rant tangent about lack of any common sense: Most of us have heard of cases like that of of Genarlow Wilson where consensual sex between a 17 year old and his 15 year old girlfriend was initially handled as child molestation with a 10 year sentence (2 years served before finally getting some justice), yet the Target ejaculator (spell-check didn't like that word...) isn't considered to have committed a sex crime. Or the story of Frank and Nikki Rodriquez that I happened to watch recently on 20/20 - two teens (a high school senior and a freshman) having consensual sex, now a bunch of years later married to each other with four kids of their own, yet he's considered a sex offender even requiring special permission to pick his daughter up from school. Yet, again, the Target ejaculator isn't considered to have committed a sex crime.
He eee-jack-you-late-ed on a stranger. Ew. Just ew.
Sure glad he's out walking around here shopping in my neck of the woods instead of those crazy teens, gasp, having consensual sex with each other (don't get me wrong - I'm not saying jack about the morality or lack thereof related to teen sex because I think it would be much more excellent if they didn't for a bucket load of reasons - entirely different topic, entirely different day - but criminalizing things that don't need to be and needlessly ruining young lives while trying to legislate morality gets my goat every time). Sheesh. Common sense is dead. Buried. Gone.
Also, not that I'm keeping up on news stories out of Oklahoma for any reason in particular, but if you ever wanted to take a picture up someone's skirt, it's OK in OK (really, and even down the shirt, too, if you'd prefer). Yah, that pretty much fits in with the rest of the current logic. (Odd that it was also at a Target...)
Anyway, from this kgw.com news story (in case the link goes away someday, which annoys me):
Man who turned himself in after lewd act at Target cited, released
08:35 AM PDT on Wednesday, March 12, 2008
By kgw.com Staff
A man accused of what Clackamas County sheriffs called a “repulsive” act at a local Target store was cited and released, authorities said.
Deputies said 25-year-old Ricardo Jose Faulk turned himself in and was booked and cited for harassment Tuesday afternoon.
Because he was only charged with one misdemeanor count of harassment, he was released.
Deputies say no sex crime charges apply. The outraged victim told KGW she believes what he did should count as a sex crime.
Faulk allegedly committed a lewd act in the aisle at the store on SE Sunnyside Road. Surveillance photos showed he somehow ejaculated on the 31-year-old victim, then left the store, according to investigators.
"I'm going to start looking into that and lobbying for different laws, because that is not the same thing as spitting on someone or any other type of bodily fluid. It's a sex crime and it's gotta be changed," the victim said.
Deputies could add more serious charges if Faulk is found to have a sexually transmitted disease.