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.
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.
The park would have had some explaining to do if they let this creep run free and he assaulted someone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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?
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?
I was so humiliated, if I could have sued that manager I would have.
Unless there is proof, then don't assume anything.
Granted the Duke Lacrosse case is to the extreme opposite end.
(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.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post