My 12 yr old son was arrested for beating up a kid who sexually assaulted him..

[CdwJava]

If the story is true, it may well have been sexual assault:
Legal Definitions of Sexual Assault, Counseling Services Website - University at Buffalo
" all that is required is "sexual contact" - touching of intimate or sexual parts, either directly or through clothing."

Ya gotta go to the actual statutes and not just a counseling office summary:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3THA130+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=16033577+&TARGET=VIEW

Even "forcible touching" requires a sexual gratification element which is not apparent in the post.

What seems to be a good summary of "a sexual offense" can be found mid way through this summary:

http://www.svfreenyc.org/survivors_legal.html

But, even that summary is lacking in some of the elements present in the actual code.

I am not discounting the action of the first child, but one has to be careful to distinguish between battery and sexual misconduct as they are two very different things. If two kids are going rough and tumble, and one decides the best way to inflict pain on his foe is a crotch shot, it is not necessarily a sexual act, but a crime of assault and/or battery.

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

new york new york


2 weeks ago my 12 year old son got into a physical altercation with another student his age who grabbed his private area.

Just for clarification, could you detail the assaults? IE...When the sexual assault happened and when your son defended himself?

"Thanks
Blue

 

[mistoffolees]

Ya gotta go to the actual statutes and not just a counseling office summary:

http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@SLPEN0P3THA130+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=16033577+&TARGET=VIEW

Even "forcible touching" requires a sexual gratification element which is not apparent in the post.

You're reading it wrong.

Look at 130.52:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&[email protected]+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=16033577+&TARGET=VIEW
"A person is guilty of forcible touching when such person
intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touches the
sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of
degrading or abusing such person; or for the purpose of gratifying the
actor's sexual desire."

It doesn't HAVE to be for sexual gratification. It can also be for the purpose of degrading or abusing the other person.

 

[CdwJava]

You're reading it wrong.

Look at 130.52:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&[email protected]+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=16033577+&TARGET=VIEW
"A person is guilty of forcible touching when such person
intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touches the
sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of
degrading or abusing such person; or for the purpose of gratifying the
actor's sexual desire."

It doesn't HAVE to be for sexual gratification. It can also be for the purpose of degrading or abusing the other person.

No element of which is even present here. All we know is that there is an allegation that his groin or other private parts were stuck. That, by itself, does not imply any sexual misconduct. If that were the case, we would be making sex offenders of kids all the time when they fight - adults, too, for that matter.

Unless the kid walked up and said, "Let's see yer package, pal," and grabbed the other's groin, I doubt this will be considered a sexual matter at all.

Can it be? Sure. Will it be simply because the kid may have been popped in the groin? probably not.

Absent any further details from mom it is pointless to speculate any further.

Not to mention that at the age of 12 the state would likely have the added burden of proving the knowledge and intent of the child such that he had the capability to form the requisite intent for sexual misconduct.

 

[mistoffolees]

No element of which is even present here. All we know is that there is an allegation that his groin or other private parts were stuck. That, by itself, does not imply any sexual misconduct. If that were the case, we would be making sex offenders of kids all the time when they fight - adults, too, for that matter.

Unless the kid walked up and said, "Let's see yer package, pal," and grabbed the other's groin, I doubt this will be considered a sexual matter at all.

Can it be? Sure. Will it be simply because the kid may have been popped in the groin? probably not.

Absent any further details from mom it is pointless to speculate any further.

Not to mention that at the age of 12 the state would likely have the added burden of proving the knowledge and intent of the child such that he had the capability to form the requisite intent for sexual misconduct.

You're missing the point.

I never claimed to know what happened or what the motive was. I was simply responding to the statement that it could only be sexual assault if it was for the perp's gratification.

The law (which you provided) is very clear. Someone can be charged with sexual assault if they touch the other person's private parts for their own sexual gratification OR for purposes of degrading or abusing the person. Therefore, the statement that it required the perp's gratification to be considered sexual assault was an incorrect statement.

Sexual assault is charged all the time when the perp doesn't get his rocks off. For example, IIRC, we had a case her not too long ago where someone briefly lifted a girl's skirt and was charged with sexual assault. Clearly, that action was meant to degrade the girl, not for sexual gratification.

Again, I am not saying that assault occurred. I am just pointing out that your statement that it could only be sexual assault if it was for the perp's gratification is just plain wrong.