He Had It Coming

A judge in Portland has been criticized by civil rights groups and the local community for handing down a light sentence to a woman who attacked and robbed a local businessman.

Judge Judy Pattibone only sentenced Belinda Shoemaker to time served in her case of assaulting John Finemann last March. Shoemaker claimed that Finemann had shown interest in her and consented to the assault. They had met at a local nightclub where both consumed several “adult beverages.”

Shoemaker claimed that Finemann then willingly invited her to his apartment where the alleged assault occurred.  She also claimed that once there, Finemann commenced to entice her by displaying his fine furniture and $10,000 stereo system. He also showed off a top of the line television and home movie theater. The assault happened shortly after this according to court documents.

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the gentleman and was open to meeting someone and taking his equipment by force?” Shoemaker's defense lawyer said in court.

“You have to look at the way he was dressed and his exquisite possessions. He was wearing a tailored suit with silk tie," she said, according to the Portland Examiner.

Civil rights protestors gathered outside the court and waved ties and carried signs declaring that fashionable clothing did not mean consent to be beaten and robbed.

Using a tie as evidence of implied consent was considered victim-blaming by many angry wealthy men on social media, who started publishing pictures of their ties using the #ThisIsNotConsent hashtag.

This case parallels one last year in which several wealthy men were beaten and had their cars stolen.  In both cases jurors found the defendants not guilty, much to the dismay of car dealers and expensive car owners.

“He had it coming to him,” stated one juror, who wished not to be identified. “Did you see the leather seats and computerized dashboard?  How could people resist not taking the car by any means available with such overwhelming enticements?  You go out in public looking hot in a car like that and you should expect to be beaten and vandalized.”

In all the cases the ACLU has declared they would assist the victims in appealing the decisions.  “Just dressing in fine clothes or driving overly expensive automobiles does not mean that the people involved have granted consent to be robbed and beaten,” Rodney Weatherall of the ACLU stated.

Public opinion on this issue is fairly divided and the issue will unlikely be resolved any time soon.  Organizations representing the wealthy have advised people to use more discretion in public until they can successfully lobby Congress using massive amounts of money to pass laws that explicitly deal with this subject. Fact finding trips to Paris and Rome to investigate at length have already been scheduled for next year.

Yes.  The Thurber Brigade does think that this is obviously wrong.  How a person looks, dresses, what he/she owns, etc. is never a reason to assault someone.  However, for some reason, when the case involves a female dressed provocatively, the courts and public opinion have a different mind.  We at The Brigade often talk about sex and sexuality as well as post pictures of scantily clad females (sometimes men). It doesn't mean we believe any of those grants a person consent to assault or take advantage of another person. Ever.