Lawyer says he's 'kissed off' by political correctness
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
I don't use washroom. I call it a "head". I am aware of "going to the loo", though. What other word is there for sidewalk?
In red, all of the information in this article that pertains to the lawyer's spin on things.... in green, all of the article information based on unbiased third party info....
A criminal defence lawyer has been arrested for kissing a female judicial marshal - "a peck" he said was intended as a Christmas greeting.
Ralph Crozier, 55, was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge Thursday for kissing the marshal at Waterbury Superior Court on Dec. 22.
"This is the biggest baloney I've ever seen in my life," Crozier was quoted as saying Friday by the Republican-American newspaper. "How many tens of thousands of people in Connecticut wished their co-workers and friends Merry Christmas the day before Christmas?"
Crozier said state police investigators told him the marshal did not invite him to kiss her, which was why criminal charges were filed.
He said a security video that investigators say captured the incident will prove he meant nothing sexual by the kiss and that the incident is an example of political correctness run amok.
"It was a Christmas greeting. I had no intention to annoy or harass anybody," Crozier said. "This was a peck on the cheek. That was the extent. There was nothing here that was weird or sexual."
Crozier is free on bond.
If you pull out all of what the lawyer has said in his defense, and to explain his view of things, all you are left with is three sentences saying he was arrested, was charged, and is free on bail. there is no impartial party telling what he had done on tape, and there is no impartial party telling what was said before during or after the incident. really, there's no information here to form an opinion one way or the other. but that could just be me.
A criminal defence lawyer has been arrested for kissing a female judicial marshal - "a peck" he said was intended as a Christmas greeting.
Ralph Crozier, 55, was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge Thursday for kissing the marshal at Waterbury Superior Court on Dec. 22.
"This is the biggest baloney I've ever seen in my life," Crozier was quoted as saying Friday by the Republican-American newspaper. "How many tens of thousands of people in Connecticut wished their co-workers and friends Merry Christmas the day before Christmas?"
Crozier said state police investigators told him the marshal did not invite him to kiss her, which was why criminal charges were filed.
He said a security video that investigators say captured the incident will prove he meant nothing sexual by the kiss and that the incident is an example of political correctness run amok.
"It was a Christmas greeting. I had no intention to annoy or harass anybody," Crozier said. "This was a peck on the cheek. That was the extent. There was nothing here that was weird or sexual."
Crozier is free on bond.
If you pull out all of what the lawyer has said in his defense, and to explain his view of things, all you are left with is three sentences saying he was arrested, was charged, and is free on bail. there is no impartial party telling what he had done on tape, and there is no impartial party telling what was said before during or after the incident. really, there's no information here to form an opinion one way or the other. but that could just be me.
You NEVER kiss someone who doesn't want to be kissed; you would never force someone to shake your hand, would you? In my experience, even as a greeting, it's quite obvious if a woman does not want you to kiss her. Probably true of a man, too, but I haven't kissed too many men, even on the cheek. This guy is obviously not very bright.
I've seen a couple cases of outright sexual harassment, and never did the men think there was anything wrong with what they were doing. They never viewed it as unwelcome, or pushing too far. They apparently felt that they were just being cute and funny. And when it came down to the last occurence that pushed it over the edge, they never viewed the ten warnings they'd gotten before that last incident, as having anything to do with it. To them it was always one incident that had been blown out of proportion. They never seemed to hear, for some weird reason, the 'no', or the outright 'your attentions are not welcome, and from here out will be considered harassment', that the women had to tell them.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying their cases are what's happened in this one, but they are why I immediately dismiss anything this man has to say regarding it.
PC started out having a positive intent. In our attempt to curtail the 'isms' and potential for abuse and lawsuits around these issues, PC has just gone over the top, imo. No one wants to be sexually harrassed at work or elsewhere, but we should be able to rely on the fact that most of us don't behave in such ways nor have to assume that innocent gestures of affection and goodwill must automatically have a sordid, lurid or abusive intention behind them.
We're taking ourselves into a less interactive, compassionate and humane place with some of this PC stuff and common sense is being lost in the fray.
I can't comment on what that article reported, because as Karrie said, it's unclear if this man had a habit of abusing the gesture to the point that this woman decided enough's enough. If that's the case, then the PC laws are working in her favour, and I'm glad to see the laws accomplishing what they intended to. Just checked the story again, and I noticed "Disorderly Conduct" was the charge tho, not sexual harrassment... there's gotta be more to the story.
My comments are more a generalization on the fact that our attempts to protect the vulnerable are creating a problem of a whole new kind in the opposite direction.
It would be nice to know the whole story behind the OP.
We're taking ourselves into a less interactive, compassionate and humane place with some of this PC stuff and common sense is being lost in the fray.
I can't comment on what that article reported, because as Karrie said, it's unclear if this man had a habit of abusing the gesture to the point that this woman decided enough's enough. If that's the case, then the PC laws are working in her favour, and I'm glad to see the laws accomplishing what they intended to. Just checked the story again, and I noticed "Disorderly Conduct" was the charge tho, not sexual harrassment... there's gotta be more to the story.
My comments are more a generalization on the fact that our attempts to protect the vulnerable are creating a problem of a whole new kind in the opposite direction.
It would be nice to know the whole story behind the OP.
OMG!!! Does that mean I can't hug my co-worker at work. He's such a sweetie and, sometimes, things get a little hectic. We'll give each other a quick hug and then continue doing what we need to do. My hubby doesn't seem to mind....
It's rather silly really, but I do admit that the newpapers don't always give the whole story. Mmmm, I hugged my boss at our Christmas Party...who else did I hug??? Hmmm.
Gez, I guess I'd better be careful :|
It's rather silly really, but I do admit that the newpapers don't always give the whole story. Mmmm, I hugged my boss at our Christmas Party...who else did I hug??? Hmmm.
Gez, I guess I'd better be careful :|
Well, first of all, as pointed out, the charges against this man are for disorderly conduct. They happened in a court room. harassment seems the case, but it's apparently not.
secondly, there are set guidelines for harassment in the workplace. as taught to my husband (he's in management), in order for something to qualify as harassment, there must be repeated occurences of it despite a person's statement that it's unwelcome. So, if you hug your boss, and he says 'don't do that again', it's harassment the next time you hug him.
only for things you might not have been aware to have been a problem. its not like everyone gets a freebie. the onus is NOT on the victim, but once something is said there's no more "questionables".
a kiss is NOT a questionable.
its not like they work for the same company. disorderly is probably the least misdemeanor on the books for this sort of thing.
a kiss is NOT a questionable.
its not like they work for the same company. disorderly is probably the least misdemeanor on the books for this sort of thing.
