I like how we're pretending that Italian men aren't known for being sexually aggressive. Go there and report back but they are SUPER creepy and it's so bad that it's in the culture at this point.

[removed]

Man, Europe is something else. A man gropes a high schooler and *doesn't* expect to be shot or run out of town?

Dummy here, can you ELI5 "civil law" for me plz?

Well, there is no *binding* precedent.

While there is no rule of precedent in the sense that court rulings are not binding to (any) courts ruling later on similar cases, earlier results are absolutely taken into account for future cases, both by lawyers advising clients as well as courts when ruling on cases.

There is precedent because other sexual assault-groping cases have been dismissed as 'non sexual' and therefore not a crime.

> There is no precedent

Sure, still wouldn't bet against Alito using it as precedent at some future date.

If we go by the COD lobby… “your mom” seems to be the prevailing answer, along with a LOT of cocaine and club music

Being angry at this decision apparently. Did you read or just wanted some upvotes?

You know! I just remembered, iirc, reading a magazine article years ago about cafes in Italy that have a premium bevy and blow job for an affordable price. Is this true?

That's because the 10 second thing has very little to do with the judge ruling, it was just mentioned during the hearing, when asked how much time the groping lasted, the answer was like, not much, maybe 5 seconds, less than ten.

The outcry should be how it was not ruled as sexual assoult because the janitor was joking and for the judge there was nothing sexual about it, which for me is even worse than the 10 second thing,

You've just described the Civil Law judicial system which is what Italy practices. Precedents aren't legally binding, but they are used as guidance when interpreting the law.

If you keep it under 10 seconds and say it's a joke you might be ok

Wtf is wrong with that judge.

From what I read I assumed he pulled down her pants, groped her butt. and then hurt her when pulling the pants back up

I could be totally wrong tho

Thank you, finally someone that actually read at least a bit about the case...

Gave a wedgie, should be prosexuted for a wedgie, not have the act reinterpreted by omitting crucial elements in the media...

Not every typo needs to have a nominally clever comment made on it.

It can happen, usually you try to compare what he says with what the others say or the circumstances that you know. But sometimes you don't reach full proof of his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt; in this case the man has been acquitted precisely because there was a doubt about his real intention (of course taking into account also what others had referred)

Just the tip?

No, no fuss about the judge more than pressure on his office to make him disappear for a while(and 17 is above legal age in Italy, and in the USA too, so the guy is not a pedo on THIS interaction, the ruling would have been much worse then), it was a mistake on the job that might get him fired, that is all.
His ruling is also not in line with most previous rulings so it will most certainly get overturned in the appeal hearing.

The judge will probably end up not being given any assault cases to work on anymore. The fact that in Italy there's no common law also means that judges are way less important as officials as they do not give binding interpretations of the law, the next level will give a ruling more in line with the common interpretation of the law.

Unfortunately civil law is very strict on what is what and the Italian law requires (always beyond any reasonable doubt) that there is a "sexual intent" in the touching (the Italian term might be translated to horny/lascivious motives) for it to be sexual assault and sometimes there is some doubt on the definition, but as I wrote commonly this goes in favour of the victims.
Other strange rulings given by the letter of the law have been:
- A group of boys being absolved from a rape charge on a victim, the girl was drunk, but the law requires that you have an alcool level in the blood on 1.1 to be considered not able to give consent and she was below that - they were incriminated for aggravated assault iirc.
- A group of firefighters raped a little girl in France(so actual pedos) ad were absolved from the rape charges because at the time rape required the use of physical violence - they were all jailed for assault to minor plus many aggravating circumstances, and after that they changed the definition of rape in the law.