Man arrested at Kings Island sues park for $10 million, claiming mistreatment

Posted Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:49 AM | Contributed by Outlane

An Illinois man has filed a $10 million federal lawsuit against Paramount's Kings Island and several park police stemming from his arrest last summer on sexual-imposition charges. Keith Bays, 44, says he was wrongfully arrested and "manhandled" by park police May 28 after two women complained about his behavior toward them.

Read more from The Enquirer.

Related parks

Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:52 AM
I don't doubt that the guy was probably being creepy, but the park sure has some explaining to do if they want to come out of this a winner. First they have to explain why they touched him, unless of course he was resisting. Tossing him in jail without evidence was a bad idea too. This isn't like some kind of petty theft either, because even being charged with this kind of crime can harm your reputation.

Sounds like a scum bag, but it doesn't sound like it was handled very well either by the police. I'm sure we'll hear more about the case.

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:29 AM
I personally don't think the park has anything to explain. They had a complain that he had been grabbing a 14 and 18 year olds breast, making sexual references and passes at them, then obviously he deserved to be kicked out of the park.

The park would have had some explaining to do if they let this creep run free and he assaulted someone.

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:51 AM
So lets say that you were at the park, waiting in line for one of the rides and a couple of girls in front of you didn't like you for whatever reason. You said nothing to them, you did nothing to them but when they got off the ride they complained to the park that you were touching their breasts. Seeing that you are now a creep, do you deserve to stay in the park?

I am not saying that this guy is right or wrong; that he did or didn't do what he is being accused of. I am just pointing out that there are 2 sides to every story.

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:23 AM
Do you have any idea how many sexual assualts, rapes, incidents of improper behavior and molestation go unreported for years while the victims fear for their own safety, blame themselves, or even worry that they'll ruin the perpetrator's life by revealing the truth?

Or better yet--ever seen one of those Nightline exposes where they capture dozens of wanna-be molesters?

These incidents are far more likely to go unreported than otherwise.

I wasn't there, I didn't see it for myself. Sometimes women lie, too. But the odds are the odds. A lack of evidence in a courtroom doesn't mean something didn't happen.

-CO

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:40 AM
I'm totally on board with what you're saying. Far too many women close to me have been raped, and it's a serious problem. But I think what Mike is getting at is that we're so disgusted by even the possibility that this kind of thing goes on, and completely release ourselves from the possibility that nothing actually happened.

Like I said, I don't doubt the guy was a pervert, but like anything else, you need to be really careful about the way you treat people in instances like this.

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 11:29 AM
An off the wall question: Was Cedar Fair the owner of PKI at the time this alleged event occurred (I don't remember the exact closing date of the purchase)? If so, this is the second batch of Kings Island related legal trouble that CF is going to have to deal with, and they haven't even owned the park a full year yet. (The Son of Beast injury suits being the first).

Of course, if it was still under Paramount ownership, I assume its their problem.

Either way, it seems that this situation could've been handled better by Kings Island and the police. Unfortunate for everyone involved.

Jerry

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 12:57 PM

But I think what Mike is getting at is that we're so disgusted by even the possibility that this kind of thing goes on, and completely release ourselves from the possibility that nothing actually happened.

Exactly. See the Duke lacrosse rape thingy.

I'm another one who usually jumps to the "guilty until proven innocent" conclusion in cases like this, but I'd sure hate to be on the wrong side of a misunderstanding or misjudgement.

A simple mis-movement while not paying attention and suddenly I'm feeling up a high school girl. A misunderstanding of a poorly worded comment and I'm propositioning someone.

In this case two girls claimed a guy with kids in tow (for some reason that strikes me as odd as well) is being "creepy" and suddenly the PKI police are getting all on him. That's not good.

With that said, if it were my daughter making the same claim, I'd probably find the guy myself. :)

Tough situation.

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:14 PM
"Stay here at the pool while I get some...funnel cakes. Yeah."

Kids in tow? Creepy guys generally don't stop being creepy when their WIFE'S around, much less their kids.

Nor is there any reference of this guy being arrested in front of his children, much less being dragged away while they're screaming and reaching for him. And I can't think of an attorney worth his weight in nickels who wouldn't bring THAT up in a press release. Much too powerful imagery to pass up.

Again, I don't claim to have any answers. I don't. None of us know what happened and there's probably only three people on earth that do.

If it's any comfort, the lack of circumstantial evidence that precluded successful prosecution should keep this new lawsuit from getting far off the ground, too.

-CO

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:01 PM
^ I would think that the lack of evidence that kept this guy from being prosecuted only helps his case.

Gonch is right that it all could have been a misunderstanding, we just don't know the facts. It's sad how the world has been whipped into a media driven pedifile mass hysteria sometimes. I know that there are some weird people out there, and sick stories in the news of late, but as Gonch said, it can be a fine line between intentional unwanted contact and simply moving the wrong way when not paying attention. Remember last years Tigger incident?

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:24 PM
On the other hand, you need evidence that he was 'manhandled' and 'abused' as opposed to being bruised in the course resisting his arrest. Several guards and police officers' word against his own testimony? Hmmm. Can he prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he suffered physical injury at their hands as opposed to some unrelated incident or even at his own hands?

Furthermore, if the officers acted in a fashion contrary to PKI's published instructions and training as individuals, PKI isn't responsible for that. Those folks are on their own.

See how the lack of hard evidence works both ways?

-CO

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:22 PM
You're right Playa, but we all know that there are plenty of lawyers out there who thrive on these types of cases. What are the chances that PKI offers the guy a nice cash settlement to just go away? I bet the odds are pretty good. Which is all he proabably wants anyway.
+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:57 PM
Being falsely accused is one of the worst things that can happen to you. I'm sure many of us have experienced it in one shape or form. I was kicked out of a Hollister for "harassing an employee on a previous visit." The store had been open for a week and I had never been there before. Of course that doesn't matter, all it takes is an acusation and most people will assume that you did something wrong. I called mall security to report it, but it didn't matter.

I was so humiliated, if I could have sued that manager I would have.

Unless there is proof, then don't assume anything.

+0
Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:07 PM
Me: "Hey, how much were you mistreated?"
Guy: "Oh, about ten million dollars worth, I'd say"
+0
Friday, January 19, 2007 6:48 AM
So I guess the better option would be allow young girls to get sexually assaulted at a park because your afraid to "Offend" a guest?

Granted the Duke Lacrosse case is to the extreme opposite end.

+0
Friday, January 19, 2007 8:00 AM
You can't blame the odds on a guy you don't know or make judgments on a case you have not seen directly just because of crimes committed by others. It's very possible the guy was moving his arm and accidentally nudged the girl. If she felt someone stroking the side of her breast, I'm sure she'd feel a bit violated even if he didn't intend any of that. If they continued to look at him from across the room and he looked back, it could also be built up that he was giving them the eye. Put yourself in this guy's shoes. His name is in the papers as an accused molester and the whole situation could have been a misunderstanding. Now many people who don't know him well will assume the worst. His children are also humiliated. It would be dumb to write off all cases, but there is far too much room for doubt. I remember being accused of stuff I didn't do either and I know how convinced people on the other side could get whenever they think about something too much. Not everything is a conspiracy, people. In cases like this you take down someone's information and question him. You don't arrest him until you have a justified cause.
+0
Friday, January 19, 2007 11:34 AM
ยง 2907.06. Sexual imposition.

(A) No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more other persons to have sexual contact when any of the following applies:

(1) The offender knows that the sexual contact is offensive to the other person, or one of the other persons, or is reckless in that regard.

...

(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of such person, and the offender is at least eighteen years of age and four or more years older than such other person.

...

(B) No person shall be convicted of a violation of this section solely upon the victim's testimony unsupported by other evidence.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of sexual imposition, a misdemeanor of the third degree. ...

1974 Committee Comment to H 511
This section defines an offense analogous to certain types of sexual battery and corruption of a minor, except that it involves sexual contact rather than sexual conduct.

The offense includes a sexual touching when the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe the touching is offensive. In this regard, if the person engaging in sexual contact has no reasonable grounds to believe his conduct is offensive to the object of his attentions, or if the person touched is not in fact offended, there is no offense. The section also prohibits sexual contact when the victim's judgment is obviously impaired, or when the victim is unaware of the touching. Further, the section forbids sexual contact when the victim is in early adolescence and the offender is age 18 or over and 4 or more years older than the victim.

Since the offense is of a type which may be particularly susceptible to abuse in prosecution, the section specifically provides that there can be no conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the victim.

==

In other words, Bays probably did have sexual contact with the girl when he touched her breast, but he cannot be convicted under this law without evidence beyond the girls' testimony.

+0
Friday, January 19, 2007 7:40 PM
Exactly what would lead any of you to arrest this person at the time of the incident? Now lacking any video evidence at the time it would be a him vs their word about what had happened. There are a lot of unknowns about this incident and after reading the article I would say there are more questions's then answers. I think everyone is in agreement that two girls made a complaint that he had touched them. First off, why is he not suing the girls for 10 million dollars? Are they not the ones who started this if in fact it was a lie??

To make an arrest there just needs to be probable cause that the person did in fact commit the crime. Now, it does say the charges were later dismissed for lack of probable cause. Before anyone starts screaming, that could have been one or both of the victims refusing to go forth with the case we just don't know. The majority of rape or sexual assault cases lack any type of physicall evidence and are usually a his word vs her word. So let me ask any of you here. If your daugher had told you this had happened to her at a park and the police responded and did not arrest him, how would you feel? It becomes a public safety issue. I nearly assure you the Officers knew at the time their would be much debate over their decision to arrest him. But if they release him and he does something else, why wasn't he arrested the first time? Is anyone here going to tell me their wouldn't be a lawsuit on behalf of all the victims against the police?? I bet you 10 million dollars there would be.

It's easy to sit back and Monday morning quaterback everything someone does. As for the abuse alligation, I sure would love to hear the evidence on this. When one is arrested, hands are placed on them, no matter what the arrest is for. It is just the nature of the beast. To put handcuffs on someone, you must touch them. I just can't see these Officers, in this day and age, knowing everything they do is under a microscope and knowing the decision to arrest him would be an unpopular one would flat out assault him. I just see someone with dollar signs in their eyes. This is far different from any Rodney King incident so let's not start comparing it to that.

Who knows, for all we know this could be a sceam cooked up by all 3. When you think about it, it's pretty easy to get money from a lawsuit in America.

+0
Friday, January 19, 2007 9:35 PM

If your daugher had told you this had happened to her at a park and the police responded and did not arrest him, how would you feel? It becomes a public safety issue.

I answered the first part of that above. :)

So let's flip it. What if you were that guy and you did nothing and were treated the same way? It becomes a human rights issue.

What's stopping someone from making false claims just to get someone roughed up by the PKI police?

Like I said earlier - It's a tough situation to deal with.

+0
Saturday, January 20, 2007 9:42 PM
Why isn't he suing the girls? Because they don't have $10M to give him and they certainly won't settle to avoid a PR nightmare...
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...