Last Thursday, John Robert Lind of Blaine Minnesota pled guilty to misdemeanor “lewd conduct” charges. Lind’s “lewd conduct?”
He repeatedly, over the course of six months, jacked off into a co-worker’s coffee, and onto her desk, when she wasn’t there.
She eventually caught him standing next to her desk with his hands near his junk and what she called a “deer-in-the-headlights look” on his face, the local CBS affiliate reported. After he hurried away, she noticed “a puddle on the desk” and realized that it hadn’t been spoiled milk that had been making her coffee taste bad. For six months.
Lind, who fessed up to it all, was originally charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct. But a judge threw out both counts because the statute under which he was charged didn’t define his particular acts as a kind of “sexual contact.”
He could have been charged with criminal sexual conduct if he had ejaculated on her directly. But not for ejaculating on her desk — or into the coffee that she later, unknowingly, drank. And so the New Brighton City Attorney had to resort to a lesser charge.
The victim in this case, Pat Maahs, went public in an attempt to get the law changed. State Representative Debra Hilstrom has taken up this crusade, introducing a bill (now in committee) to close this loophole, making “adulteration by bodily fluid” a felony if an unknowing victim actually eats or drinks the food in question. But in the meantime, at least as Minnesota law sees it, Lind’s actions only count as misdemeanor “lewd conduct,” and won’t even put him on the sex offenders’ registry.
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.
EDIT: Fixed wording in one place; corrected the spelling of the victim’s last name.
Ew. Add the workplace to the list of locations never to leave your drink unattended.
Eeeeeeeeeeew.
God damn it. I don’t think all the kitten videos in my collection are going to be enough to scrub this one from my brain. (Not your fault David, thanks so much for posting this because we needed to know – but still, eeeeeew!?
I seem to recall a case where charges of assault were filed against a fast food worker who spat in a police officer’s burger before serving it to him. That still wouldn’t rise to the level of creepy displayed by this dude, but it’s still better than letting him off with a simple misdemeanor which is barely more than a slap on the wrist.
Perfect reading in bed before sleep. Sweet dreams, me! Try not to dream of this.
OK, that’s it. I hereby formally turn in my membership card to the human race. Where do I go to fill out my application to become an honorary cat, dog or bunny?
Is it too much to ask that we can leave our cups of terrible office coffee at our desks for the 5 minute trip to the printer without worrying that we will have to consume somebody’s splooge? This is so upsetting. That poor woman.
I am surprised (or just horrified actually) that there is little in law to be done about this. I am in the UK and have no idea what law would be applicable. Maybe we would have as little recourse.
@ Ellesar
Section 24 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1831.
*1861*
I am sorry. Here’s a kitty? .
… But don’t forget, keeping a constant eye on your drink is Schrödinger’s Rapist and therefore misandry.
Seriously, why the fuck does there need to be a specific law for this? Literally any unwanted physical contact can count as physical assault without needing to rewrite the law from the ground up, from dope-slapping to spitting to poking somebody in the arm, so why doesn’t the same apply to sexual assault?
I keep coming close to vomiting when I think about this. I can’t imagine being the person this happened to.
I’m a Minnesotan. I’ll have to use my evil powers of misandry to contact my reps and ask them to pass this bill. I’m very grateful for the information that menz might be oppressed by not being able to jiz in people’s drinks. If I had a mustache, I’d twirl it.
http://th00.deviantart.net/fs70/200H/f/2014/149/7/a/did_you_just_9a5no4_by_hellomon100-d7k9tu8.jpg
Alan – thanks for that. What sort of sentence might it carry?
Alan – had a quick squiz at that and it says:
“24 Maliciously administering poison, &c. with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy any other person.
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable”
The offender was claiming that he was NOT being malicious – do you suppose that any lawyer would be able to swing it that the court would buy that?
Seriously though. Other people’s bodily fluids are considered hazardous waste for a reason. I just keep coming back to workplace safety guidelines from my bartending days, and I’m astounded. Semen was listed in the same category as blood due to the ability to transmit disease (classed as “other potentially infectious materials” aka OPIM). Ugh.
”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.”
Seriously, that was ”the best way he could think of to express his interest?”. I don’t think I want to know what was the worst way he could think of! I mean what is the reasoning you must have to reach that particular conclusion?
(Sorry if my english is bad it isn’t my native language)
M.:
Yes! I was thinking the same thing, reading this. It’s like, how is what this guy did not sexual assault?
And also ew. Ew ew ew.
The sentence for S.24 is “liable to penal servitude” and is at large i.e. no maximum.
The section covers any administration of a “noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person”. (Section 23 covers intending to kill or seriously injure).
Not sure what the actual sentence would be in the instant case. The section was mainly aimed at poisoning; but it’s clear from later judgements that it would cover this sort of thing:
“It is not necessary that the substance in question should be injurious to health; the word noxious is, in its context, wide enough to embrace things which, though not injurious to health, are objectionable or unwholesome. Furthermore, in considering whether the thing in question is noxious, the jury has to consider the very thing which is on the facts administered or sought to be administered both as to quality and to quantity.” [R -v- Hill]
We don’t appear to have had a semen case over here yet, so it’s still up for grabs as to likely sentence.
The nearest case I can find is a woman who put Temazepam in her husband’s food as a DIY truth drug. No real harm. Just made him drowsy. She was sentenced to 49 weeks; but the judge suspended the sentence after her husband pleaded for mercy on her behalf (Aww).
Oh my…
EMT here, having a mini freakout. Ew ew ew ew ew… do we know what’s in his bodily fluids? There could be all sorts of stuff. Nasty stuff. Bad things.
What the? No.
If this isn’t sexual misconduct, legally, that’s a law I’m all for changing. He potentially exposed her to pathogens, he violated her boundaries, and… eugh.
Look, it’s one thing if she’d agreed with it, but this is just… eugh.
I’m glad that they at least decided it was lewd, but… eugh.
All the pathogens. All over her desk. In her coffee. Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew, ew, ew.
that’s completely revolting. I don’t say this often but I hope she sues him. And sees a doctor immediately.
@ Ellesar – Oops must type faster
Rather bizarrely, in law ‘malicious’ doesn’t have its everyday meaning. It’s actually a synonym for ‘reckless’. It’s why ‘malicious wounding’ is a less serious offence than ‘wounding with intent’ (see Ss 18 & 20 OAP1861)
In S24, the ‘unlawful’ means without a justification (so people doing chemotherapy on a child wouldn’t fall within the section) and the maliciously means that someone needn’t intend to commit the offence, just be reckless. If that doesn’t make sense; don’t worry, there’s a whole load of law students in the same boat.
I would like to add my ewwww to the comments. What would he have done if he had intended to harass her? Spell out a gendered slur with his semen?
Oh, and just to pontificate further, we no longer have felonies and misdemeanours over here so the Act has been amended, it’s now:
Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy such person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude . . .
[Those ellipses are in the Act]