Perhaps the memory of this story will fade. Or perhaps our esteemed state legislature will get around to making ejaculating in other people’s coffee without their knowledge illegal. Maybe. The state actually has a case like this, with a man secretly ejaculating into a co-worker’s coffee, but the initial charges were dismissed because, apparently, that’s not illegal in Minnesota.
The original charges against Lind were dismissed in November by Ramsey County District Judge Patrick Diamond, who said the crime required nonconsensual touching of the victim’s intimate parts.
The city of New Brighton then charged Lind with a misdemeanor charge of engaging in lewd or indecent behavior in her workspace at the Beisswengers hardware store in New Brighton.
It does make one wonder about Judge Diamond, who thought it was important to restrict the meaning of sexual misconduct to exclude this particular unpleasant behavior.
But have no fear, tourists! The law might get fixed.
The incident was a factor in the introduction of a bill in the Minnesota House that would make it a crime to add blood, semen, saliva or other substances to something a person is going to eat or drink.
Under the bill — debated in late March but sent back to committee — placing bodily fluids in a substance intended for human consumption would be a misdemeanor.
Uh, it was debated? It was sent back? This sounds like the kind of bill you’d pull out your rubber stamp and pound on it a few times, and then demand it get fast-tracked and zoom through. But then, maybe all our representatives are feeling lethargic because they are leery about getting their morning fix at Caribou Coffee anymore.
So until then, if you’re visiting the state, you might not want to let your food or drink wander out of sight at any time.
You might also watch out for cow-eyed men gazing affectionately at you.
In some ways the creepiest part of the whole story is that Lind, the awkward ejaculator, says he did it not to harass Maahs, but because he was attracted to her, and evidently this was the best way he could think of to express his interest.
Gah. The thing that keeps me from being proud of my gender is always…other men.
Put that up next to “shooting President Reagan” on the list of dumbest ways to impress a girl.
So all those waiters who spit in your soup cuz you were rude to them, can soon be tried for misdemeanor? Bout time!!!
aaarrrgh! Sounds too much like that old, dirty double entendre, where the man asks the woman, when offering coffee, “Want cream with your coffee?” (with a smirk and a wink)
He was trying to make sure the coffee was organic.
Also, looks like legislators are incompetent at every level of government.
Well, that might put a slight dent in Starbucks’s dosing their coffees with gay semen…
Richard Smith:
Ummm….could you clarify?
Shades of Jack D. Ripper and our precious bodily fluids.
Headline writer, you’ve officially failed at sensitive euphemisms.
anteprepro
Richard Smith is referring to this, I assume.
Lind, the awkward ejaculator, didn’t intend to harass his victim, the same way 20 yo Kevin Jonas Rojano, the peaceful, considerate, and caring for (the victim’s) well-being child rapist, didn’t intend to sodomize the 3yo girl that he sodomized.
Also, if it’s not currently a crime to add […] substances to something a person is going to eat or drink, how do they plan to prosecute terror attacks targeting the food chain/water supply?
@anteprepro (#8):
That assumption is correct. Thanks for the link (some things are a bit iffy to search for at the office…).
Here’s the statute in question: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.3451
And here’s the proposed amendment to the statute: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=HF0889&y=2015&ssn=0&b=house#actions
The language is unambiguous. The judge didn’t have any room to interpret it differently. Allowing prosecutors and judges to twist laws to fit the crime isn’t the solution. If you want to wonder about someone, wonder about the prosecutor who failed to do their homework on the charges they filed against Lind. It’s not the judge’s fault that the prosecutor fucked up.
I’ve been pretty squicked out since reading this last night on WHTM, so I’ve had time to regroup just sufficiently enough to focus on the quotation above about the proposed law. Presumably there’s a “without their knowledge or consent” rider on there–wouldn’t want to drag various kinds of kinkster (the consent is king kind, not the pervy jacking off into strangers’ beverages kind) into the net. Also I imagine the committee has to make sure they’re not going to send double-dippers or communion partakers etc. to jail unintentionally. As well, surely, they ought to add other bodily fluids to the list. Wouldn’t want to be drinking creeper’s sweat or snot in my coffee either. Eww. Eww. Eww.
Anyway, I think touching the inside of someone’s mouth, throat, and stomach with sexual fluids without them knowing about it and agreeing to it counts as “nonconsensual touching of the victim’s intimate parts”.
“placing bodily fluids in a substance intended for human consumption”
Hopefully they were careful not to ban breast-feeding with the bathwater?
Actually I think I read too hasty there, after looking at the legal definition of “sexual contact” in relation to the statute Lind was original charged with violating, I think the judge may have got it wrong, specifically section (a)(v): “the intentional touching with seminal fluid or sperm by the actor of the complainant’s body or the clothing covering the complainant’s body” seems like it fits the crime, though IANL. Seems like the judge decided that depositing it in someone’s coffee is not “intentional”? Which seems like a very large stretch.
Sexual contact definition here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.341#stat.609.341.11
This. After all, a judge is supposed to judge according to the law. If he gave a judgment that went beyond the law, that would be extremely problematic, no matter how reasonable the verdict itself was. It would be a violation of the division of powers, just as surely as if the executive branch denied someone the right to a trial.
If there’s a legitimate legal argument why these acts fall under this law, fine. Otherwise, the only legal recourse is to amend the law. There are still some extra-legal options, of course, such as shunning.
You’d think that, seeing as most jurisdictions *already* consider all human bodily fluids to be low level biohazards, in the domains of transport and healthcare, deliberately putting the same into foodstuffs for sale would *already* be prohibited by some statute, somewhere.
OMG! You mean Rev. Manning was right about Starbucks?
…and just ewww
The reasoning behind Judge Diamonds decision is detailed in the link. The law as currently written is clear that in order to qualify as fifth degree sexual assault ( a felony) there must be physical contact. As cited above by unnullifier at 14
He is still being charged with a crime, though lewd behavior is a misdemeanor. I haven’t been able to take time to locate any information for why the proposal to amend the law did not pass, though if I had to guess it is most likely due to problematic wording in the amendment.
Not quite. The US is a common-law country, which means PRECEDENT plays a role in how a judge will rule.
That’s why Internet Law Licenses™ are basically useless. (Note: I have an Internet Law License™)
Also vaguely wonder if communion wine will get a shout-out in the final version.
What’s the problem? It’s organic. It’s natural. It’s green…. errrr, Well, two out of three ain’t bad.
The summary from the article:
makes it sound like it could criminalize even consensual behavior. Perhaps this is why the bill was sent back to committee.
For the record, I have no legal training.
Right, but presumably at some point down the line of precedent, there will have been a judgment in accordance with the wording of the law, rather than according to whatever the judge personally thought the law should have said. Otherwise, what’s the point in having laws at all?
I would consider precedents to be, effectively, part of the law text. I.e. if there’s a precedent for interpreting “X” as meaning “Y”, then a law saying “X”, says “Y”. So, if there is such a precedent, great. However, the judge appears to be of the opinion that there isn’t.
The legal issue reminds me of Enumclaw where everything seemed very wrong, and yet there were no crimes to be found. Then the legislature tried to rush an anti-bestiality bill through but had a bit of trouble defining bestiality without banning a variety of animal husbandry practices.
No, lawyers are involved (in their disguise as politicians). Therefore, until it can be worked out how to maximize their payments (politicians: bribes, lawyers: fees) such “trivial” antics are perfectly Ok, unless a politician/lawyer is involved.
The USArseholianthanthouistan “justice” system is completely corrupt. There is no such thing as an honest
policegoon officer,lawyerpolitician, orjudgeshrill.Shouldn’t this be classed as an assault. I know you can be charged with assault if you spit on someone. What if this poor woman got hep B? Would it still be a misdemeanor?
@Al Dente #6:
Gen. Ripper may have started a nuclear war, but he sure wasn’t one to give out bodily fluids. “I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I do deny them my essence.”
blf
Objection! It’s unfair to tar all of these professions with such a broad brush. There are in fact many very good, honest, hard-working people in those fields. I’m not seeing any evidence of corruption or politicians out to make a buck in this instance. The judge has to follow the law as written in order to legally convict the creeper without violating his rights. Since the law explicitly states bodily contact is necessary he had no choice but to agree with the creepers lawyer and dismiss the felony sex crime charge. The creeper plead guilty to the lesser lewd behavior charge. Hopefully it came with a court order to get some appropriate sex offender therapy. As far as the politics as concerned: the proposed change as written is equally problematic and overly broad. ( Why would one quibble about felony or misdemeanor depending on if anyone ingested it? Doesn’t putting it in food clearly signal the intent to have someone ingest it? That act alone is enough of a violation of social norms to qualify as a sex crime in itself IMO. ) Sending it back to committee before voting it into law seems like a prudent, logical course of action. Hopefully they will simply broaden the current clause about semen to include contaminating any foodstuffs or personal belongings as stalking/ fifth degree sexual misconduct.
The company I work for (which shall remain nameless) had just interviewed Mr. Lind for a position and actually gave him a job offer. Needless to say the offer was withdrawn.
This incident does give a new meaning to that old song lyric “You’re the cream in my coffee…”
And ditto on all the ewwwww comments.
Tethys: Bullshite, at every level. Lawyers/politicians (there’s no significant difference) and goons are completely corrupt. In a society with a concept of justice, it wouldn’t matter what, how, or when the containment was put into the coffee, only that the coffee was contaminated. The fact that the USArseholes are unable to understand this obvious point illustrates how dysfunctional. dishonest, and utterly fecking devoid of anything approaching humanity USArseholes are.
My legal experience is decades back, but it seems to me that putting semen in food consumed by a person IS putting it in contact with their body, or at least intending to (if they do not end up eating it). I’d also have pursued poisoning, as the guy could have had a disease. I dimly recall precedent for each of those. I cannot see what the legal people were doing, letting this go.
As for making consensual activity illegal, well, that is already the case for a lot of fun stuff. As long as neither partner calls the cops, it is nobody’s business. Prosecution only happens if needed. (I used to do an illegal sex act with a consenting partner, in one state where oral was illegal. My personal sex-crime record is masturbating in Indonesia, which is punishable by beheading (which I did not know at the time).)
Okay, actual lawyer here (don’t hate me), though not licensed in Minnesota. I came in prepared to talk about how, yes, the U.S. is a common law jurisdiction, but we’ve been trending more statute-oriented for the last century, especially with regard to the Uniform Criminal Code, etc. Then I had a look at the statute. This conduct should be covered, but is expressly not. Judge Diamond had no real choice. Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Fifth Degree is defined as:
609.3451 CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT IN THE FIFTH DEGREE.
Subdivision 1.Crime defined. A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree:
(1) if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact; or
(2) the person engages in masturbation or lewd exhibition of the genitals in the presence of a minor under the age of 16, knowing or having reason to know the minor is present.
For purposes of this section, “sexual contact” has the meaning given in section 609.341, subdivision 11, paragraph (a), clauses (i) and (iv)….
So, off to 609.341 we go. Clause (i) defines it as: “(i) the intentional touching by the actor of the complainant’s intimate parts.” Clause (iv) defines it as “the touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts.” Clause (v) of 609.341, which is EXPLICITLY not included in the definition of the crime at hand, is “the intentional touching with seminal fluid or sperm by the actor of the complainant’s body or the clothing covering the complainant’s body.” Why that’s exempted from the definition of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree I have no clue, but it seems ludicrous to me. Judge Diamond likely hated doing it, but had no real choice in dismissing the complaint. Given my brief review of Minnesota criminal statutes, I can’t even find one that covers this set of facts.
(Also, a bit of law geekery–in a pure common law jurisdiction [which exists only in law school classrooms], this would be battery, not assault. Classically, battery is an unwanted touching, and assault is ‘causing the apprehension of an immediate battery.’)
So isn’t there a food health and safety law that applies?
blf @30:
You’ve done this before in the Lounge, and have been corrected on it before, by one of the regulars who is a lawyer. Please stop generalizing. Yes, the criminal justice system in USAmerica is corrupt. Systemic racism and sexism pervade the entire system. Saying the system is corrupt is not the same as what you’re doing, which is tarring *everyone*.
Or to put it another way, you’re making an assertion-that lawyers, politicians, and goons (I presume you’re talking about cops here) are all completely corrupt-so where’s your evidence? Note that I’m not asking for evidence that the criminal justice system is rife with corruption. That is unquestionably true. I’m asking for evidence that all the people you’ve tarred are corrupt.
*gagging*
Nnnnnope.
Please tell me they caught the guy, and please, please tell me he’s been charged with a crime for this!
I was under the impression that there was a federal law called “assault by exposure” or something similar which made it illegal to expose another person to your bodily fluids against their will? Or is this just something a lot of states have that I’ve just assumed was federal law?
I am one of the people surprised existing tampering-with-food laws didn’t cover this. Maybe they were so determined to prosecute it as a sex crime that they weren’t willing to look at other laws he might have broken?
Nemo @ 22
I think “without knowledge of the adulteration” covers that.
But yeah, along with when someone mentioned breastfeeding upthread, this is why the legislative process is so complicated: even well-intentioned legislators have to consider all the ways the law could be applied (e.g., by people who don’t understand it, by people a century or even a decade hence who forget why it exists, by people opposed to it, by people wielding it as a weapon against something they dislike, by grouches making a point).
As in Washington, as laid out by numerobis @ 24
Hmmm…
I’d say that semen is a part of a person’s body.
And I’d say that the lips, mouth, tongue, throat, stomach, intestines, and bladder are a part of the other person’s body.
And I’d say it’s clear the intent from the sicko was to put a particular part of his body on those body parts without her knowledge or prior consent.
This is like kids swinging their arms violently and walking towards a person saying “I’m just going to swing my arms and if you run in to them it’s your fault!” Only this is “I’m just going to ejaculate in this fresh cup of coffee sitting at your cube and if you drink it it’s your fault!” Only without actually saying it first…
Are we sure this isn’t that same Idaho lawmaker and he was just trying to secretly knock her up??
For reference: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/23/1366371/-Idaho-Republican-to-doctor-Can-a-woman-swallow-a-camera-for-a-pregnancy-exam-w-audio#
Amphiox@ 16 and dandare@33: IANAL, or a licensed food server, but I would presume that the “contaminated foodstuffs” laws only apply to people who are selling food, and not everyone else. That’s why you don’t have to wear a hairnet to make your own cereal.
So if your barista did this, then probably yes they could be prosecuted under some kind of ‘contaminated foodstuff’ law, but if your coworker did it (ewww!), then that law wouldn’t apply.
Here is an article from a local paper with links to other pertinent articles, including a quote and the name of the evil and corrupt (sarc obviously) legislator who is working to close this technical loophole. coffee masturbater pleads guilty to indecent exposure
The court is Judge Diamond, and he was in no way pleased to be legally bound to dismiss the sexual assault charge.
It will be interesting to see what sentence Judge Diamond will hand down. The major difference between a felony and misdemeanor charge is that a felony charge requires the creep to register as a sex offender. Stealth semen assault is a truly disturbing, creepy illegal behavior that should be considered a sexually motivated crime, but I don’t know that it should carry the same legal penalties as a violent sex offence. I truly hope there is some very effective therapy in Mr Lind’s immediate future, and reparation to his victim.
In further evidence that Minnesota state government is not irredeemably corrupt the entire legislative process is freely available online. The bill is HF 889, and it has been referred back to the Public Safety and Crime Prevention Policy Committee for further revision. My only complaint is that they are so inefficient. It seems ridiculous that the proposed amendment is currently over 1000 pages long , when the issue could in fact be rectified by adding a one or two sentence clause that includes food and personal belongings in the current statute.
So Minnesota thought about outlawing black pudding sausage.
Hmmm me thinks she led him on – who leaves fresh cups of coffee on their desk on a regular basis, then conveniently leaves them unattended… just begging to be jacked off into by the first love-sick individual who happens to wander by? Must be one of those militant lesbian anti-Gamegater man hater types. And if she thought the milk had gone bad, why didn’t she change the carton, huh? Just speculating…
Okay, my previous joke post was in very bad taste (…), the guy is very sick. In the list of bodily fluids being put in consumables, nobody seems to have mentioned urine, and I remember a rather similar case of a guy who pissed into the coffee pot before serving his boss, it was his way of getting back at him. Until he was captured on the CCTV…
@Hershele Ostropoler #37:
Read it again. “[W]ithout knowledge of the adulteration” makes it a felony. With knowledge, it’s still a misdemeanor.