Page 1 of 2
"Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:18 pm
by Fairportfan
Theft by "sudden snatching" sounds ... interesting ... in context...
Gwinnett soccer coach arrested
Christopher Seward/The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote:A Gwinnett County soccer coach who allegedly was caught nude in the bedroom of one of his teenage players was charged with robbery after snatching a cell phone from the girl’s father, who tried to take pictures of the incident for evidence, according to police.
The Buford father wanted the coach, Patrick Ahern of Dacula, charged with rape in the Sept. 27 incident, but police determined that the teenager had not been raped and even if sex had occurred she was 16, the age of consent in Georgia.
Ahern instead was charged with “robbery by sudden snatching” on Oct. 25 after several weeks of investigation.
Ahern turned himself in to police on Oct. 26, according to police spokesman Cpl. Jake Smith, and he was released on bond later in the day. Efforts were made Friday to reach Ahern for comment.
Ahern, 27, most recently coached an Atlanta Fire United girls’ soccer team. According to the Georgia State Cup soccer website, Ahern also has coached a Dacula Soccer Club girls’ team. To protect the identity of the teenager, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is not identifying her or her father.
According to police, the father caught Ahern with his daughter after walking into her bedroom. The father told police Ahern and his daughter were “engaged in physical contact. The suspect was completely nude,” the report said.
The report said the father grabbed his daughter’s cell phone and tried to take a photograph of the incident but couldn’t because Ahern snatched the phone from his hand and took it with him when he fled. The father said the soccer coach then threw the phone into a wooded area. The phone, however, was later recovered.
The father wanted Ahern charged with rape, but Smith, the police spokesman, said the detective in the case determined that it wasn’t a sexual assault case after several weeks of investigation.
“Ultimately, it was determined that he had not committed any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law,” Smith said. “There was no actual sexual intercourse and whatever did occur was consensual – 16 being the age of consent for sexual activity in Georgia.”
Smith added that whatever people think of the relationship socially, “He’s 27. She’s 16. Legally, he hadn’t done anything wrong.”
Police, however, said there was enough probable cause to pursue a charge of robbery by sudden snatching, which is equivalent to a purse-snatching charge. Ahern was arrested Oct. 26 and released later that night after posting $2,400 bond.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:55 pm
by jwhouk
What is this I don't even
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:00 pm
by Mark N
jwhouk wrote:What is this I don't even
To me it is a proof that legal actions an ethical conduct are two VERY different things.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:30 pm
by Fairportfan
To me it's proof that, as Shane McGowan wrote "God help you if ever you're caught on these shores and the coppers need someone and they walk through that door..."
If the cops want to charge you ... they can always find some silly law or other to do it under.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:48 am
by Jabberwonky
Can one snatch slowly?
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:51 am
by Fairportfan
Jabberwonky wrote:Can one snatch slowly?
"Snatch", in case you're not familiar with the USAian rude idiom, can have an anatomical meaning.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:25 am
by Jabberwonky
Fairportfan wrote:Jabberwonky wrote:Can one snatch slowly?
"Snatch", in case you're not familiar with the USAian rude idiom, can have an anatomical meaning.
You can...vagina...suddenly?
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:31 am
by shadowinthelight
Jabberwonky wrote:Fairportfan wrote:Jabberwonky wrote:Can one snatch slowly?
"Snatch", in case you're not familiar with the USAian rude idiom, can have an anatomical meaning.
You can...vagina...suddenly?
Sounds like a circumcision gone horribly, horribly wrong.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:39 am
by MerchManDan
shadowinthelight wrote:Jabberwonky wrote:You can...vagina...suddenly?
Sounds like a circumcision gone horribly, horribly wrong.
Or a date gone wonderfully, wonderfully
right. 
SUDDENLY
OUT OF NOWHERE
VAGINA
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:31 am
by Julie
This is just...Yeah...I got nuthin'.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:12 pm
by ShneekeyTheLost
Mark N wrote:jwhouk wrote:What is this I don't even
To me it is a proof that legal actions an ethical conduct are two VERY different things.
You want ethics? Consult a priest (or other religious authority figure). Laws judge morals, not ethics. Since she was legally considered an Adult for that decision, then this falls under the category of 'what happens between consenting adults is none of anyone else's damn business'. I will say that, all other issues aside (even assuming the lady was 18+), in my opinion that this displays poor ethical judgment to take advantage of those under your chain of command (coach to athlete). A case might be made for coercion, using a position of power to take advantage, but as long as the woman is adamant that it was her decision which had nothing to do with their coach/athlete relationship, there's nothing legally wrong with it.
Fairportfan wrote:To me it's proof that, as Shane McGowan wrote "God help you if ever you're caught on these shores and the coppers need someone and they walk through that door..."
If the cops want to charge you ... they can always find some silly law or other to do it under.
What is even more disturbing... if he had allowed the father to take the pictures, the father could have been charged with child porn if his daughter was in a state of undress to reveal naughty bits (because even though 16 is the age of consent, child porn laws still defines as under 18). Furthermore, the father could have been held liable for invasion of privacy and peeping tom laws by taking pictures of other people in the nude without their consent.
So the coach actually did him a huge favor by snatching the phone.
If I were the dad? I'd have asked my daughter if this was the guy she intended to marry. If she said yes, I'd tell her to pack up and move in with him. Otherwise, I'd ask her why she's sleeping around with someone she doesn't intend to stay with. Cue lecture on all the risks associated with promiscuity.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:06 pm
by Mark N
ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Mark N wrote:jwhouk wrote:What is this I don't even
To me it is a proof that legal actions an ethical conduct are two VERY different things.
You want ethics? Consult a priest (or other religious authority figure). Laws judge morals, not ethics. Since she was legally considered an Adult for that decision, then this falls under the category of 'what happens between consenting adults is none of anyone else's damn business'. I will say that, all other issues aside (even assuming the lady was 18+), in my opinion that this displays poor ethical judgment to take advantage of those under your chain of command (coach to athlete). A case might be made for coercion, using a position of power to take advantage, but as long as the woman is adamant that it was her decision which had nothing to do with their coach/athlete relationship, there's nothing legally wrong with it.
My point was the one you hit on. The ethical point is the Coach to Athlete (or in this case it is more like teacher to student)
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 4:52 pm
by jwhouk
Coach-to-athlete is a power issue, which makes it de facto rape.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 7:10 pm
by ShneekeyTheLost
jwhouk wrote:Coach-to-athlete is a power issue, which makes it de facto rape.
It *CAN* become de facto rape, if he were to abuse his power (i.e. sleep with me or you are off the team). It doesn't necessarily automatically become de facto rape. We simply don't have enough details from the little sound byte to determine this. Since I'm fairly sure the cops would have checked that angle *very* thoroughly (since they were reaching pretty far to hit him with snatching), one can infer that this was not the case in this instance.
A man could own a gun. He could show it to a woman. The fact that he owns a gun and has shown it to a woman does not constitute threat of force, and it would not be rape if she willingly spent a night with him. Heck, some women -really- like firearms (wink wink nudge nudge). It wouldn't be rape unless he said 'if you don't sleep with me, I'll shoot you'. At that point, anything that happened *would* be rape, regardless of her apparent willingness, because of the life threat.
Same concept. He happens to be her coach. He sleeps with her (apparently it hadn't gotten that far, but I'm pretty sure that is the eventual goal of what they were doing). If he isn't using his position as coach to influence or coerce her into bed, then there's no rape. It's unethical as hell, and I'm fairly certain he'll never get another job as coach anywhere again. If he had a shred of ethics he'd have waited until either he was no longer coaching the team or she was no longer on his team before undertaking a serious relationship (irrespective of the age difference). However, the simple fact that he is the coach does not, by itself, constitute rape.
Mind you, she could well be covering for him, insisting that she loves him and all that jazz when she's really sleeping with him to get a spot as a starter on the team (which wouldn't be rape if it was her idea rather than his, although it might qualify as prostitution depending on how you look at it). He could well even be dangling that little bit of bait under her nose and actually abusing his authority (and thus actually committing de facto rape) but doesn't want to admit it to avoid getting herself in trouble. We simply don't have enough facts about the case to make that determination. One of the larger problems with sound-byte newscasting, in my opinion.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:09 pm
by Mark N
Let us face the fact that this event is one that cannot be judged without all the particular information, including that which is in both of the participants minds. Without that the answer will always be open to discussion.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:42 pm
by DinkyInky
MerchManDan wrote:shadowinthelight wrote:Jabberwonky wrote:You can...vagina...suddenly?
Sounds like a circumcision gone horribly, horribly wrong.
Or a date gone wonderfully, wonderfully
right.
SUDDENLY
OUT OF NOWHERE
VAGINA
Vagina Dentata! What a wonderful phrase! Yeah, I know, going to heck...
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:36 am
by Jabberwonky
DinkyInky wrote:Vagina Dentata! What a wonderful phrase! Yeah, I know, going to heck...
First - a good laugh on a morning that needed one
Second - another archive to troll
Third - Kestrel has made a permanant place in my heart for
this. (I would ask the woman
that gave me that as a gift to marry me. On the spot.)
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 12:50 am
by Fairportfan
Well, to explicate where i was coming from - what came to my mind when i read it was "sudden un-snatching" or perhaps "de-snatching"...
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:08 am
by Dave11
ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Mind you, she could well be covering for him, insisting that she loves him and all that jazz when she's really sleeping with him to get a spot as a starter on the team (which wouldn't be rape if it was her idea rather than his, although it might qualify as prostitution depending on how you look at it).
This would technically fall under some Sexual Harassment statutes, IIRC.
Re: "Sudden Snatching"?
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 9:47 am
by Julie
ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Mark N wrote:jwhouk wrote:What is this I don't even
To me it is a proof that legal actions an ethical conduct are two VERY different things.
You want ethics? Consult a priest (or other religious authority figure). Laws judge morals, not ethics.
That seems a little backwards from my understanding of morals vs ethics. Maybe my perspective is a little off because of my job... We are required to have continuing education courses regularly in Ethics (and goodness knows I've seen college courses on Business Ethics), but we're not expected to take courses on Morals. I always thought that morals had to do with your socio-religious stance (personal beliefs and character); whereas, ethics have to do more with acting appropriately within a given social system.
Maybe Mark N should have said "To me it is proof that legal actions and
moral conduct are two very different things"? Or maybe this situation is neither ethical nor moral, but it's still legal (which is creepy as all hell).