Weekly WTF: Michigan man acquitted despite confession

Sometimes, I really just want to smack someone. Or, in this case, an entire jury:

“Brown was accused of fondling the woman and forcing her hand onto him.

He testified he exposed himself to her and tried to push her head into his lap, hoping she would perform a sex act, while the two sat in his car June 17 outside the Middle School at Parkside in Jackson. Brown had given the woman a ride home from Ted’s Firehouse Pub in Jackson.

Jurors said they did not believe Brown exerted the force necessary to qualify his actions as sex crimes.”

W.T.F.?!? How in any universe is this not sexual misconduct??? He admitted doing it. And they still let him off!!

Oh, and this is the Jackson County Commissioner, BTW, that was exposing himself. An elected official.
I’m sorry, I’m turning into the sort of person that uses excessive punctuation. I’ll stop now.

EDITED TO ADD: This guy was 34 37 years older than the woman he tried to force into a blow job–he’s 61, she’s 24.

20 thoughts on “Weekly WTF: Michigan man acquitted despite confession

  1. It certainly isn’t on the scale of the women in Saudi Arabia who was found guilty of allowing herself to be raped, but this I think is typical of attitudes in the U.S. However without complete knowledge of the situation we must allow people to decide according to the law as it exists in a society. That is why we have juries. If you remove the human element it would be truly disastrous. I enjoy the blog, keep up the good work. More myrmecology please :). BTW I saw a swarm of flying ants deep in the woods and I would swear that it was a complete colony of scavenging flying ants (and not a mating swarm). They were dismantling the carcass of another insect on a surface they flew to. I thought it very odd and have seen no reference to it as a possible existing organism as of yet.

  2. Damn, they actually found a jury of his peers who didn’t think there was anything wrong with what he did — state laws be hanged. (Not that state laws have ever stopped idjits before.)

    Hopefully the target of all this is going to take the issue up to the next legal level? andrea

  3. Where’s the link to the jury trial? What was the guy charged with? Perhaps the jury, as instructed by the judge, did not feel the state proved their case AS CHARGED. As an example, finding an accused not guilty of first degree murder as opposed to negligent homicide. We need more facts before finding the jury at fault.

  4. I can haz mathburger?

    EDITED TO ADD: This guy was 34 years older than the woman he tried to force into a blow job–he’s 61, she’s 24.

    61-34=27

  5. While what this individual did was reprehensible, and I share the disgust (though not having been in the courtroom, I do have to wonder if the jury felt their hands were tied on this one), I wonder what the ages have to do with it.

    Does it make a legal/moral/rational difference? Or was that just for extra creepiness a la Bill Wyman?

  6. the age was for the extra creepy. And to point out how unlikely his scoring was.

    Oddly enough, I used a calculator to do that math. I guess I was even more tired than I thought!

    The concept that he didn’t use “enough” force was just repellent. That’s what upsets me.

  7. I missed the “an entire jury” link above. Now that I have read the story, it is very obvious why the jury acquitted him. As for the age difference. That is meaningless. There are 24 year old prostitutes out there who don’t care who they do so long as they are paid. If it feels “creepy” to you, that’s fine. But wanting to jail someone because he/she/it is “creepy” is like wanting to put down a disabled person because they make you feel uncomfortable. As for what went on between two adults in a car, both of whom were apparently inebriated to some extent apparently did not amount to any kind of forced rape. She was 24 years old, not 14. Why didn’t she just get out of the car? Call a cab. Call her boyfriend? Why did she not leave the bar with her friends? Inquiring minds want to know why a male is a sexual pervert simply because he is aggressive? She claims she was “terrified”. By a 61 year old fat man? Right.

  8. Well, I’m certainly not inviting you to help at the women’s shelter.

    I read this as a young woman who accepted a ride home from someone who was a recognized personality in the community–and then suddenly found him forcing her face in his lap with his dick hanging out.

    If you haven’t been a woman in a similar situation, I don’t think you can imagine how paralyzing that situation is. It’s so far out of the norm, it is a panic feeling.

  9. As a paralegal who sat through many criminal trials I can say that I find the b.s. about not knowing the details to be just that b.s.

    IMO the most disturbing part of this is that the taxpayers had to pay for a jury trial and legal fees. Pay for what? They financed the cover up the perverse behaviour of a randy old coot, who used his position of authority to attack a woman who trusted him.

    P.S. I wouldn’t be surprised if this sick prick gets elected to office again. We see it happen time after time.

  10. BTW I sincerely do not believe that “inquiring minds want to know why a male is a sexual pervert simply because he is aggressive?” The only minds that I have experienced that think along those lines have all belonged to zeta males. ’nuff said.

  11. Zeta Male? Is that by your definition? A zeta male is an aggressive male. An Alpha male is a correctly submissive female male. But a zeta male, is, by definition, your definition, an aggressive male. What a pompous ass.
    And aggressive females are, what? zeta females? What nonsense.

    Some males are too aggressive and too violent. We call them rapists. And murderers. And wife beaters. And child beaters. We have too many of them.
    Some males are shy and reticent. They miss out on a lot.
    Some males are females. They don’t belong in this discussion.
    But most males initiate contact, start seduction, look for and know signs of interest.
    I would imagine that if I walked into one of today’s single’s bars, the action would not be much different than it was 40 years ago. With the exception that now everyone admits openly why they are there.

    This “randy old coot”, and I agree with that description, was just that. An inebriated randy old coot who had some kind of pipe dream that this girl was actually interested in him. But the gist of this discussion has been not so much what he did but the fact that he was old and creepy. If he had been a handsome young 24 year old, we would not even be having this talk. She would have told him no and walked away from it. Given him a little slack because he was drunk. Went home and told her boyfriend. Not exactly expected that behavior but also not have been surprised by it. He was the Jackson County Commissioner, whatever that is. I have never met a county commissioner in my life and would have no built-in reason to trust one if I met him. Why would she trust him because of his position? She’s not a 14 year old.

    And I very much disagree. The devil is in the details.

  12. actually, if he was 24, she *still* would have a case. He tried to make her do something sexually she didn’t want to do.
    That’s rape, or at least attempted sexual assault.

    BTW, Jackson is not that big a place–too big for a town, but too small to truly be a city.

  13. I would not fret over this, drunk dirty old man wanted bj from young drunk girl, they both probably have silly reputations all their own. Of course what he did was not right. If you don’t like it hunt the old man down and kick him in the nuts, I bet you could get away with that.

  14. I’m coming in on this a bit late, having neglected to open mail from a friend of mine (my fiancee, as a matter of fact) who sent it with an “OMG!” because we had just “met” on the net and I happen to be from Jackson, MI, where the alleged offense took place and where the defendant commissioner was in office at the time. The comments about juries needing proof are accurate. Anybody can be accused, or even confess to, questionable behavior. The jury decides if what happened deserves punishment beyond that endured in the form of bad publicity and loss of reputation, which were, in this case, considerable. Sex between two people is always a case of “he said, she said”. If the two people disagree about intentions and desires (during or after) there are problems. This case does not deserve condemnation, nor the jury, but you have caused outrage by your unresearched mention of it. I don’t like what happened either. The woman should have been chastised by the court judge for her OWN behavior… this man could have been sent to prison and been branded for the rest of his life for getting tipsy and feeling his oats in a moment of temptation… THAT is the real outrage here.

  15. Awesome job of blaming the victim, Michael.

    he wasn’t “feeling his oats.” He committed SEXUAL ASSAULT. He admitted that.

    Cripes. I wonder if you, perhaps, were one of the Aholes on the jury…..

Comments are closed.