Female accused of sexual violence after world hails iconic photo of her kissing Italian riot officer - Polidicks

[URL="http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/13/protester-accused-of-sexual-violence-after-world-hails-iconic-photo-of-her-kissing-italian-riot-officer/"]http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12...-riot-officer/[/URL] [quote]A photograph of a female protester kissing an Italian riot policeman, hailed as an emblematic image of peace in Italy, has failed to impress a police union – it wants the protester prosecuted for sexual violence. [B]Nina De Chiffre, 20, a student who was protesting last month against the construction of a new train link in northern Italy,[/B] was photographed as she kissed the lowered helmet visor of a riot policeman. [B]The photograph went around the world and was quickly held up as an example of non-violent protest[/B], until COISP, a union representing Italian police officers, announced that it had lodged a complaint with Turin prosecutors. "If the policeman had kissed her, world war three would have broken out" “We have accused the protester of sexual violence and insulting a public official,” said Franco Maccari, the union’s general secretary. “We fully expect an investigation to start.” Mr Maccari said he was not prepared to brush off the incident as a peaceful gesture.[B] “If the policeman had kissed her, world war three would have broken out,” he said. “Or what if I had patted her on the behind? She would have been outraged. So if she does that to a man on duty, should it be tolerated?”[/B] Miss De Chiffre has also done her bit to spoil the photograph’s apparent message of non-violence, claiming that she was trying to provoke the officer into reacting. [B]“No peace message,” she wrote on Facebook. “I would hang all these disgusting pigs upside down.”[/B] [/quote]

[quote]"If the policeman had kissed her, world war three would have broken out"[/quote] This is the way the world ends.

He's right, he would have been hit with such a sexual assault charge the other way around.

It's also dangerous. She could transmit disease. Spitting on someone is illegal in USA and some other countries for the same reason.

What a dramatic faggot you'd have to be to sue a girl for kissing you. I hope he wasn't personally involved in this decision.

[QUOTE=kurva;43256963]It's also dangerous. She could transmit disease. Spitting on someone is illegal in USA and some other countries for the same reason.[/QUOTE] she kissed his helmet

[QUOTE=kurva;43256963]It's also dangerous. She could transmit disease. Spitting on someone is illegal in USA and some other countries for the same reason.[/QUOTE] She was kissing the visor. I'm pretty sure that counts as a sneeze shield?

This is the part people may have trouble reading Miss De Chiffre has also done her bit to spoil the photograph’s apparent message of non-violence, claiming that she was trying to [U]provoke the officer into reacting[/U]. “No peace message,” she wrote on Facebook. “I would hang all these disgusting pigs upside down.”

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;43256973]she kissed his helmet[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Krinkels;43256978]She was kissing the visor. I'm pretty sure that counts as a sneeze shield?[/QUOTE] [quote]It later emerged that Nina De Chiffre had not only kissed the officer but had also licked her fingers and touched his mouth.[/quote]

This is the best kind of argument to use to support weird social complexes: the unfalsifiable kind of argument. [editline]20th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DeathBacon;43256961]He's right, he would have been hit with such a sexual assault charge the other way around.[/QUOTE] If it was a female riot cop then she probably would have just clubbed the guy with a baton. Or maybe she would have broken out into song. It's impossible to know; which is why this sort of "debate" is meritless.

[QUOTE]It later emerged that Nina De Chiffre had not only kissed the officer but had also licked her fingers and touched his mouth.[/QUOTE] No guy would get away doing this.

this makes me conflicted its hard to see it as something bad, but then you think about how people would see it way differently if it was the other way around, it's odd

Where's that picture of Judge Dredd in a similar situation?

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;43257068]No guy would get away doing this.[/QUOTE] Unless he would have. Again, there's no way to actually prove what would happen in your hypothetical situation where Italy has female riot cops. That means you can basically say whatever you want to prove your point and nobody can prove you wrong.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;43256973]she kissed his helmet[/QUOTE] Not only that, but the girl said herself [u] it was not an act of peace [/u]. She had done it to provoke the officer. She also licked his helmet and touched his lips with her fingers. I guess she was pissed over seeing some other guy beaten. THAT is why they are suing. Not because of the kiss. pretty mixed bag. [b]Day Late Edit:[/b] Man, ever since Android updated their phones, I CANNOT type correctly to save my life on my Tab2.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43257089]Unless he would have. Again, there's no way to actually prove what would happen in your hypothetical situation where Italy has female riot cops. That means you can basically say whatever you want to prove your point and nobody can prove you wrong.[/QUOTE] uh its common sense dude with your logic you could also say "theres no way to prove that people would react badly to a 200 pound man brutally beating a girl up! its all hypotetical!"

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43257144]uh its common sense dude [/QUOTE] [quote]This is the best kind of argument to use to support weird social complexes: the unfalsifiable kind of argument.[/quote]

[QUOTE=thisispain;43257154]This is the best kind of argument to use to support weird social complexes: the unfalsifiable kind of argument.[/QUOTE] not gonna lie i'm a little lost here, mind explaining what exactly he means because it doesnt seem to make his point any less unrealistic

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;43256967]What a dramatic faggot you'd have to be to sue a girl for kissing you. I hope he wasn't personally involved in this decision.[/QUOTE] Why would you not prosecute someone for breaking the law, just because they are female?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;43257172]not gonna lie i'm a little lost here, mind explaining what exactly he means because it doesnt seem to make his point any less unrealistic[/QUOTE] you're creating a hypothetical situation than sigma cannot disprove in any way so theres literally nothing he can say. he cant step into your hypothetical and pull out a different result from the one you created in your head, all he can say is like "nah i dont think so". and saying "common sense" is non-sense because its not common, thats why you disagree. unless you think sigma is crazy so he lacks common sense which in case why even discuss anything

Hope she gets prosecuted.

[quote]Miss De Chiffre has also done her bit to spoil the photograph’s apparent message of non-violence, claiming that she was trying to provoke the officer into reacting. “No peace message,” she wrote on Facebook. “I would hang all these disgusting pigs upside down.”[/quote] That just kind of seals it, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;43257175]Why would you not prosecute someone for breaking the law, just because they are female?[/QUOTE] I think like this: you should prosecute someone if you really feel they've done harm to you worth the penalty to be done unto them. For the love of Christ, though, I don't think that is called for here.

seals what? shes guilty of sexual violence because she hates the police? this is silly and i would think its just as silly if the genders were flipped in some kind of hypothetical bizzarro world that i just made up

He'll probably arrive to court in a neckbrace

I mean, typically, when someone lays their hand on an officer they get just get something like "resisting arrest" added to the rest of their charges. Coming into close, unwanted contact with people is sort of in your job description if you're an officer, let alone a riot cop. I mean there's a lot of factors and variables to take in; which is why I think extrapolating a bunch of hypotheticals off of this to use as the launching point for (i assume) some sort of tirade about "reverse-sexism" is [i]meritless[/i].

[QUOTE=thisispain;43257208]and saying "common sense" is non-sense because its not common[/QUOTE] well if you're gonna go by what's common, then yes my common sense seems to be spot on considering you and sigma are p much the only ones disagreeing

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43257089]Unless he would have. Again, there's no way to actually prove what would happen in your hypothetical situation where Italy has female riot cops. That means you can basically say whatever you want to prove your point and nobody can prove you wrong.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=thisispain;43257208]you're creating a hypothetical situation than sigma cannot disprove in any way so theres literally nothing he can say. he cant step into your hypothetical and pull out a different result from the one you created in your head, all he can say is like "nah i dont think so". and saying "common sense" is non-sense because its not common, thats why you disagree. unless you think sigma is crazy so he lacks common sense which in case why even discuss anything[/QUOTE] I think the point DeathBeacon was trying to make was that had it been a dude molesting a chick, the same photo of that molestation wouldn't be hailed as iconic photo, globally. Obviously you [I]cannot prove[/I] that a photo of a dude molesting another chick wouldn't suddenly become an iconic global photo like this one, but it's pretty fucking reasonable to assume that a dude molesting a chick wouldn't be hailed as an iconic photo like this one. Saying otherwise is just plain mendacity. I personally believe that political message-crimes are morally exempt from 90% of today's crimes when executed correctly, arguably this photo too for example. But when she unnecessarily went out of her way to point out that there was no peaceful or political message behind it, she can just go fuck herself instead.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43257271]I mean, typically, when someone lays their hand on an officer they get just get something like "resisting arrest" added to the rest of their charges. Coming into close, unwanted contact with people is sort of in your job description if you're an officer, let alone a riot cop.[/QUOTE] Isn't it "assault on a police officer" that they get you for if you touch a cop?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;43257297]To everyone saying "You can't prove that the same wouldn't have happened, had a dude molested a chick like that" I think the point DeathBeacon was trying to make was that had it been a dude molesting a chick, the same photo of that molestation wouldn't be hailed as iconic photo, globally. Obviously you [I]cannot prove[/I] that a photo of a dude molesting another chick wouldn't suddenly become an iconic global photo like this one, but it's pretty fucking reasonable to assume that a dude molesting a chick wouldn't be hailed as an iconic photo like this one. Saying otherwise is just plain mendacity. I personally believe that political message-crimes are morally exempt from 90% of today's crimes when executed correctly, maybe this photo for example. But when she unnecessarily went out of her way to point out that there was no peaceful or political message behind it, she can just go fuck herself instead.[/QUOTE] sorry but considering youve talked about punching protesters under the guise of equal rights before its pretty easy for me to believe that the only reason youre calling this "molestation" is to make some easy and cheap argument