Auston Matthews facing disorderly conduct charge in Arizona

[SeaDawg]

it's only Arizona's that matters.... well not really.

He wasn't charged with harassment.. only disorderly conduct. (at this point anyway)

I know that. Just because he wasn't charged with something doesn't mean he didn't commit sexual harassment, by some definitions.

Again, I believe I said this earlier, but I'm not trying to vilify Matthews or say what he did was terribly heinous. I was merely trying to say that behavior like this towards women by a bunch of drunk obnoxious men needs to stop and hopefully Matthews and other young men can learn from this experience.

[SeaDawg]

If this is true, you won't mind sending us a link please ?

I Googled it earlier today...can't recall the exact website I copied and pasted from. I'm on my phone right now, but I found this link, if that helps.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-prev...ual-harassment

Anyway, I know this doesn't apply to Matthews' situation, considering it happened in Arizona. I was merely using this as an example that there are multiple interpretations/definitions of what constitutes sexual harassment.

[Auston'sWilly]

I Googled it earlier today...can't recall the exact website I copied and pasted from. I'm on my phone right now, but I found this link, if that helps.

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-prev...ual-harassment

Anyway, I know this doesn't apply to Matthews' situation, considering it happened in Arizona. I was merely using this as an example that there are multiple interpretations/definitions of what constitutes sexual harassment.

Thanks, but that link (and definition) references the Ontario Human Rights Code / Commission.
Not the Criminal Code of Canada.
I'm confident you'd agree those are two very different things.

[SeaDawg]

Thanks, but that link (and definition) references the Ontario Human Rights Code / Commission.
Not the Criminal Code of Canada.
I'm confident you'd agree those are two very different things.

Ok fine. When I copied it earlier (from a different website) I thought it was the criminal code of Canada. No matter what, it is a definition of sexual harrassment in line with my personal beliefs, which is why I pasted it. And later someone said that was the definition of harassment but not sexual harassment. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because all laws/definitions are open to one's personal interpretation.

[forumname]

Ok fine. When I copied it earlier (from a different website) I thought it was the criminal code of Canada. No matter what, it is a definition of sexual harrassment in line with my personal beliefs, which is why I pasted it. And later someone said that was the definition of harassment but not sexual harassment. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because all laws/definitions are open to one's personal interpretation.

It doesn't seem like you agree, but I think the distinction between harassment and sexual harassment is pretty damn important. Might as well just take it a step further and call it rape. That's another word people seem to love to throw around frivolously.

[Auston'sWilly]

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because all laws/definitions are open to one's personal interpretation.

It does matter though.
Words, and the sources of those words, do matter.

[SeaDawg]

It doesn't seem like you agree, but I think the distinction between harassment and sexual harassment is pretty damn important. Might as well just take it a step further and call it rape. That's another word people seem to love to throw around frivolously.

I absolutely agree that there is an important distinction between harassment and sexual harassment.

Also, btw, that isn't my definition of sexual harassment, but one I found on a website earlier today. I don't know where the definition originates, be it the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, or some other source. I could have sworn the website I copied it from earlier referenced the criminal code of Canada, but I was in a hurry.

Back to the distinction between harassment and sexual harassment, my opinion doesn't really matter, but to me the difference is implied or perceived potential threat of sexual assault. If the female in her vehicle felt threatened or afraid for her well-being and feared a sexual assault by a bunch of men outside her vehicle at 2 am, then they conceivably sexually harassed her. It isn't really up to me so much as the victim. If she felt sexually harassed, then she was. Period. I don't know if for certain if she felt sexually harassed, but according to her statement and the police response, that is entirely conceivable (points in bold below). And again, I'm not trying to vilify Matthews or saying what he did was horrendous. Nor am I saying that he should be or will be charged with sexual harassment. I'm merely saying that what he did "could" have been interpreted as sexual harassment, and is in line with a long-history of male behavior akin to cat calling, butt slapping, whistling, etc. that men often do that make women feel unsafe, and hopefully Matthews and others will learn from this incident.

Allegedly intoxicated after a night of drinking with friends, it is alleged Matthews and his friends attempted to open the car door of a female security officer named Fayola Dozithee at 2 a.m. in the morning, startling the officer and initiating a confrontation. Here are the details from the police report courtesy of the Toronto Star:On May 28, 2019 at approximately 1425 hours, I was working as a patrol officer in full duty uniform when I was dispatched to the Distract II lobby reference a sex crime. Additional comments stated an assault and public sexual indecency occurred on Sunday in the parking lot of the [redacted] Condos located at [redacted].Upon arrival at the District II lobby I met with the RP, Fayola Dozithee. Fayola told me the following. Fayola said she works for [redacted] Agency as a security guard and was working at the [redacted] Condos on May 26, 2019 at about 2am when this incident occurred. She continued to say that her first interaction with the resident and his friends was on May 25, 2019 at about 11pm. She further added she was able to identify the resident as Auston Matthews who resides in the building.Fayola said she noticed the group of guys leaving the complex at about 11pm on the 25 of May. She performed her normal duties at the Condo and then about 2am on May 26, she had sat in her vehicle as she normally does to complete some paperwork. As she was sitting in her vehicle, she heard what sounded like her car door attempting to be opened. She said she always sits in her vehicle with the door locked due to the time and her being a female. As she heard this, she looked back and noticed some movement outside the window. Fayola therefore jumped out of her vehicle to find out who was trying to get in her car.After she exited her vehicle, she noticed it was Auston and his friends. She stated she confronted them and the response from Auston was they wanted to see what she would do and they believed it would be funny to see how she would respond. Fayola found this very disturbing and put her on edge. Fayola said she told Auston and his friends, “I am a female, I am a military vet with severe PTSD.” She also told them it wasn’t funny and how could they think it would be funny to try to get in a female’s vehicle at 2am in the morning. Fayola did add that the group of males appeared to be intoxicated.She continued to say that Auston still would say that he thought it was funny. Fayola said she then began to tell them to just leave. Auston’s friend then stepped in and tried to calm Fayola down and also asked her not to tell management. As the friend was speaking to Fayola, she said Auston began to walk away and after he walked some distance, Auston pulled down his pants, bent over, and grabbed his butt cheeks. I tried to clarify with Fayola if she saw skin or was he wearing underwear. Fayola said she knew he had his boxers on, and she did not see his butt.
Fayola then stated that after they all left she continued with her work and at about 2:30am she was doing her rounds and came upon one of Auston’s friends who was also with a female. The friend again asked Fayola if she was going to notify management at which time she said that there are cameras that captured them and management will be advised.During our conversation, Fayola appeared to be very disturbed over the situation. She also mentioned a few times that she was a female sitting in her car, who knows what they intended to do and the fact that it was more than one guy. I also explained to her that the crime we had was disorderly conduct and she said she wanted to press charges against Auston. I explained to her that I would attempt to contact Auston as well [redacted]. Fayola also made a comment something to the fact of no one should be put through that type of situation.This concluded my contact with Fayola.

Anyway, this has been a much longer discussion than I anticipated when I got involved, and I am quite literally exhausted, so I'm going to bow out now. Not because I'm upset or anything, but I'm just tired and feel I am repeating myself, which happens in very long threads with multiple people enter into the thread late in the discussion and bringing up topics/issues that were addressed earlier.

[rataylor22]

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/map...mpression=true

[lucafen4]

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/map...mpression=true

Seems like Hemel Jharveri (author) read this thread as his reference for the article when referring to online comments.

[tweetdrivr]

Well this is fun.

I’m a retired vet here in the US and I’ve been dealing with the VA and hiring rules quite a bit. So, if she’s been diagnosed with PTSD by the VA - as one would assume she has since she’s stating she has severe PTSD in the press - then she has been given a 100% disability rating by the VA. With that if...

A) She knowingly sought and accepted a job where she is carrying a firearm she has broken the VA rules and the law
B) Her employer was aware of her rating they have also broken the law

When you are receiving full post military pay and benefits (as is the case with a 100% disability rating - particularly for PTSD) there are things it is not safe (nor legal) for you to do and get paid for. That’s why the government compensates you so well. You can not have a job where you carry a firearm. It’s not safe for you or those around you. I’d be very surprised if she was in fact armed.

[The Comish]

Oh man, this is gonna be Matthews best season ever, pants down.

[2014olympicgold]

Arizona law of Sexual Harassment:
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/arizon...ault-laws.html

Having Sexual Intercourse or oral sexual contact with another person without their consent

Arizona law of Sexual Abuse:
https://dmcantor.com/sexual-offenses/sexual-abuse
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01404.htm

A. A person commits sexual abuse by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with any person who is fifteen or more years of age without consent of that person or with any person who is under fifteen years of age if the sexual contact involves only the female breast.

B. It is not a defense to a prosecution for a violation of this section that the other person consented if the other person was fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age and the defendant was in a position of trust.
C. Sexual abuse is a class 5 felony unless the victim is under fifteen years of age in which case sexual abuse is a class 3 felony punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

Arizona Public Sexual Indecency:
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01403.htm
It's kinda long, not posting the points.


I'm siding with the security guard doing the right thing especially after this quote on TheScore's article about this:

A condo board member said the board would support the woman if she decided to press charges "because this resident has been an issue for us anyway," according to the security guard.

I always was siding with her doing the right thing by getting police involved, but this 100% swayed me to that side. However, no sexual abuse/harassment charges can be had on this incident.

[2014olympicgold]

Also, during the body cam video, the security guard did say she walks around with a knife in bad areas in case of something because she doesn't carry a weapon and doesn't feel safe without a weapon. So she wasn't carrying a firearm. So it's not uncommon for security guards to carry, but this one was not carrying a firearm.

[tweetdrivr]

Also, during the body cam video, the security guard did say she walks around with a knife in bad areas in case of something because she doesn't carry a weapon and doesn't feel safe without a weapon. So she wasn't carrying a firearm. So it's not uncommon for security guards to carry, but this one was not carrying a firearm.

Well that’s good. Still not particularly smart for someone with severe PTSD to take a job as a security guard.

[Belexus75]

Problem here is that if it was any of us doing this that security guard would not have said the word unless she was actually assaulted. Fact that it was known Athlete with lots of cash contributed to this. Just watch, civil case for millions for emotional distress is next... we seen this before

Matthews should have known better not to put himself in situation like that...but this is nothing more than taking advantage of situation on the guard part...imo anyhow.