Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
WJLA points to this Georgetown Hoya article reporting the latest in a long string of sexual assaults on female students at the Northwest D.C. university. A woman living in off-campus housing in the 1200 block of 33rd Street NW reported that a break-in occurred at about 6:30 a.m. on Sunday morning.
"The suspect lay down on the couch with the complainant. The complainant was startled awake and told the suspect to leave. The suspect subsequently left the residence, heading north on 33rd Street, then west on Prospect Street," the Georgetown Department of Public Safety said in a public safety announcement.
The suspect is described as a white male, 5'8" - 6' tall, medium build, 25-30 years old, with short brown hair, wearing a dark olive shirt and dark shorts.
There have been more than half a dozen similar attacks at Georgetown in the last year, all of which have earned the suspect the totally inappropriate nickname of the "Georgetown Cuddler." This guy is not at all cuddly: he attempts to rape women. That's why it's all the more disturbing to see that the Georgetown Department of Public Safety appears to have labeled this latest incident as a "burglary." How is this crime any different from this one, which is clearly identified as a sexual assault? Let's make sure we all know what we're talking about here, Georgetown. And everyone should take this as a reminder to lock all your windows and doors at night.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
If that's rape then Cafe Citron might as well be the Eastern Congo on weekends.
It's different from the incident defined as a sexual assault because that was a rape. But your point still stands. Georgetown undoubtedly does need to correct its use of vague, confusing terminology when referring to these crimes.
http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2009/07/16/georgetowns-failure-to-address-fridays-reported-rape-is-unacceptable/
This guy is not at all cuddly: he attempts to rape women.
In which "cuddler" incident was there clearly an attempted rape? These accounts describe a man laying next to/on top of the victim, and immediately leaving upon the victim waking up/screaming/telling him to leave.
Based on the descriptions, it doesn't at all sound like he is attempting (and failing) to rape the victims.
The term “sexual assault” generally means unwanted sexual contact, or in other words sexual contact against your will, and without consent. The legal definition varies by state, but sexual assault and domestic violence organizations consider any unwanted sexual activity to be sexual assault. This includes rape.
Sexual assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces you to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention. Examples of this are voyeurism (when someone watches private sexual acts), exhibitionism (when someone exposes him/herself in public), incest (sexual contact between family members), and sexual harassment.*
Sexual assault or rape may happen to anyone, including women, men, children, elderly, straight or gay.
*National Women’s Health Information Center, US Department of Health and Human Services, http://4women.gov/faq/sexualassault.htm.
District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness
Division IV. Criminal Law and Procedure and Prisoners.
Title 22. Criminal Offenses and Penalties. (Refs & Annos)
Subtitle I. Criminal Offenses.
Chapter 30. Sexual Abuse.
Subchapter II. Sex Offenses.
>>§ 22-3006. Misdemeanor sexual abuse.
Whoever engages in a sexual act or sexual contact with another person and who should have knowledge or reason to know that the act was committed without that other person's permission, shall be imprisoned for not more than 180 days and, in addition, may be fined in an amount not to exceed $1,000.
"Sexual assault can be verbal, visual..."
Wow. So I guess sexual harassment doesn't exist then; it's apparently verbal sexual assault.
Indulge me in some semantics for a moment.
In the term "sexual assault," "sexual" describes a particular type of assault.
Assault, in both legal and common usage definitions, involves a physical attack, amiright?
So you if you can't regular assault somebody with words, how can you sexually assault somebody with words?
I'm not even going to try to wrap my brain around what "visual" sexual assault could possibly entail.
that would be when you're minding your own business on the metro and some dude whips it out and starts playing with himself in front of you. and yes, this happens. and no, you haven't seen it because they don't do it in front of men. but just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Wow, you miss my point entirely. I'm not suggesting that things like that don't happen.
I just don't get how it can be called "assault" rather than harassment + indecent exposure, etc. The concept of "visual sexual assault" hurts my brain.
"Visual Sexual Assault" = bad subliminal advertising.
It's like you want a burrito but YOU'RE NOT EVEN HUNGRY!
Creepy, yes, but I don't think you can call it rape.
it's way more than creepy, actually. seriously stop and imagine for a second what it must be like to wake up with someone having not only broken into your home (as happened to me last month) but GOT IN BED WITH YOU and was touching you. terrifying is more like it, and highly illegal and a form of sexual assault.
Unfortunately, you can't prosecute assailants for "creepiness." Otherwise, they would have given me the death penalty years ago.
Didn't any of these women hear about the Heller decision?
Let's game that one out. I'll start.
Woman waking up, realizing some looser is in inappropriate and unwanted contact with her: "I must not scream, he'll just flee before I can exercise my hard won constitutional rights." (que internal monologue as woman thinks for a moment which, no doubt, seems like an eternity given the situation) "Excuse me Sir, would you mind rolling to one side so I can go get my Smith and Wesson and defend myself as is my constitutional right?"
Your turn.
yeah i knew that when i hit send. But i was speaking more in general
Rorschach's Journal, 31 August 2009,
Snuck into on-campus housing, lay down on a couch with a co-ed. She screams, tells me to get off. I tell her I'm trying to but the screaming's ruining the mood. Good joke. Snare drum. Try the veal.
DC's a busted toilet and the plunger's broken. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder and frottage will foam up around their waists and all the turds and corn and "lazy susans" look up at me and shout, "Flush us!" I'll look back and whisper, "No. I like the smell."
I think it is important to note Sommer typed the line:
"This guy is not at all cuddly: he attempts to rape women."
That is an editorial comment, not a legal decision.
As in the case above, if someone breaks into (or enters without your permission) your home and attempts to make unwanted physical contact with you, it is assault.
I think another important point is Georgetown University is the one calling this case "Burglary". In order to attract students to their school, it is in their best interest to make the area around the school seem safer.
In order to attract students to their school, it is in their best interest to make the area around the school seem safer.
Replace "students" and "school" with "affluent singles" and "vibrant neighborhoods" and you basically have the Washington Post Real Estate section for the past couple decades.
The Cuddler does more than cuddle. He also:
a) gains “entry to [a female victim's] residence by unknown means”
b) takes “a blanket from a bedroom,” lays it “on top of the complainant,” then lays himself “on top of her.”
c) attempts to rape women (with varying success).
Okay. How much you wanna bet this guy one of these sickos who owns a Slanket? That $h!t has got to go.
Tough call on how you characterize this freak. "Cuddler" is totally inappropriate. If he tried this $h!t on my wife or my kids or my parrot, I wouldnt' call it "cuddling." I'd call it "being a dry-humpy sumbitch," but "Georgetown Dry-humpy Sumbitch" really isn't the mot juste I'm looking for. "Georgetown Sexual Assailant" is too generic and pretty much characterizes every LNS douche that loiters around Sequoia. And if it were up to the university, they're more concerned with not scaring their paying customers away, so they'd probably characterize him as something innocuous, like "The Hamburgler of Love" where you have some dwarf in a mask and striped shirt who throws a Slanket over you and mumbles, "Robble, robble."
I don't know what else you call someone who breaks into a home and sexually assaults someone. Calling the cops doesn't seem to help.
I don't mean to minimize what freckleface and other women suffered from this guy, but I must admit that some of the stories sound kind of ridiculous. The cuddler crawls into bed with a woman, and she doesn't notice for several hours that a stranger is in bed cuddling with her? Seriously... what kind of crazy drugs must someone be on or lifestyle accustomed to that they do not notice a stranger in bed, cuddling with them, for several hours? Sounds fishy to me!
Some people are just really sound sleepers. Happens to me all the time. If I had five bucks for every time I woke up in Ekaterinberg naked and covered in blood. Ever heard of narcolepsy? I nod off, I wake up in strange places, I have no idea how I got there. Can't you, please, just give me something? Red-and-blue Tuinals? lipstick-red seconals?
You wanna see pain? Swing by First Methodist Tuesday night. See guys with testicular cancer. That's pain.
I know Mrs. Martell. People who do any sort of drinking or drugs in the privacy of their own home are just asking for anyone to break into their home and rape them. Cleary the cuddler is just doing his civic duty.
Further lifestyle choices that you personally dont like also are just asking for the cuddler to invade their residence and do bad things.
Way to blame the victim Mrs. Martell. I sincerely hope you dont find yourself in a similar situation and then have a Mrs. Murtell talking about how the choices you made in the privacy and security of your own home sound fishy and like you were asking for a cuddle from the cuddler.
Let's not overreact to what I wrote. I didn't mean to blame the victim, only to suggest that the whole thing sounds, well, made up.
Here is something that was posted on a neighborhood listserve. Doesn't the whole thing sound a bit odd to you:
Two weeks ago, on Friday night July 24th, a house on 35th street was intruded in on by a man believed to be the "Georgetown Cuddler." This guy has been at it for the past year, and the incidents have become increasingly more severe. This is a very serious matter, so please read this email closely and pass it along to any and all girls living in the Georgetown/ Burleith/ Glover Park areas.
Before going to the bars that night, the tenants had a group of people over to grill out and pregame. People were coming in and out between about 9 and 11 PM. By 11:30, everyone had scattered. One roommate and her boyfriend stayed at home and the rest went out in Georgetown. People arrived back around 1 AM, including two of of the girls' guy friends who decided to sleep on the downstairs couches. One of the roommates left Smith Point just before 2 AM and walked back home alone. She was on the phone the entire time so was not fully aware of her surroundings. She got home around 2:30 and went straight to bed.
Around 4:15 AM, one of the guy friends downstairs awoke to a knock on the back glass doors leading to the patio. He went to the door to see a normal looking guy standing there, holding a case of beer. The guy said he was there to see one of the roommates, and so the friend let him inside not knowing any better. About 10 minutes later, the stranger walked back downstairs and left through the back door. One of the girls then came downstairs to alert the guys that someone had been trying to pick the lock to her bedroom. That's when they realized that this stranger could have been an intruder, so they made sure all the downstairs doors were locked before going back to bed.
Between 5 and 5:30 AM, another roommates (on the 3rd story) awoke to a guy getting into her bed. She believed that it was her friend who had said he may sleep over, so she said his name, and the guy responded "yeah, hey", so she went back to sleep. Around 6 AM she awoke to the
person on top of her, which is when she realized something was wrong.
She jumped up and the man followed her in to the hallway. She was able to briefly make him out as medium-build (maybe 5'10- 5'11'') with shortly-cut brown hair (potentially a buzz cut). He was wearing a collared shirt. By the time she ran downstairs and awoke the guys, the intruder had escaped. It is believed that he left through the front door, but they still do not know how he got back into the house following his first entry and departure. This is the second time in one year that he has come into this house. He has been known to hit the same houses more than once, and he always hits houses with girls. And as proven by this case, he is extremely bold; he entered and then re-entered the house knowing that there were at least two guys sleeping there.
It sounds like a combination of lazy roommates, friends who sleepover and don't want to cause trouble, and the natural human tendency to welcome anyone into your home if they have a sixpack of beer. Basically, the reason why Troy fell. This whole cuddler nonsense could have been avoided if more people would just read The Iliad instead of this sexy vampire bull$h!t.
Let's not overreact to what I wrote. I didn't mean to blame the victim, only to suggest that the whole thing sounds, well, made up.
So you don't mean to blame the victim, you only mean to imply that they are lying?
To clarify: I don't live in Georgetown and the guy who broke into my house didn't get in bed with me--so probably not this guy. Whoever broke into my house probably did so to attempt to steal something (we hope), although he didn't take anything. Maybe he was looking for silver (which I don't own) or jewelry (which is in my bedroom) or my car keys (which were also in my bedroom). Or he could have just been watching me sleep.
My point was--seriously imagine for a second how terrifying it must be to wake up to (in my case) a shadowy figure in your doorway and a light from a flashlight. You have no idea what he wants and about 100 things run through your head at once: is he going to lunge at you? does he have a gun? should you reach for the phone? pretend to stay asleep? would you be strong enough to fight? is there a way out of this room? could your neighbors hear you scream?). That's bad enough (and I personally haven't slept when it's dark for a month, which is a fun state of affairs when you're trying to keep your job.
But then imagine you wake up and this person is in BED with you, touching you. You still don't know what he wants (but have a pretty good idea)--and your options for action are much more limited.
Terrifying doesn't begin to cover it.
Oh, how I hope this guy tries this with a woman who has a taser in her nightstand and applies it to his genitals!!
If you don't have a taser handy, another useful move is to grab an attacker's ear and pull it as hard as you can. Ears aren't really attached to the head that well.
Also, please note the MPD statement on how there is no confirmed suspect or link between cuddlings. Sommer, please do your readers a favor and perform some of this elementary research yourself before editorializing your posts.
From neighborhood listserve:
*Sent:* Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:10 PM
*To:* Klein, Matthew (MPD); Burkett-Jones, Pamela (MPD)
*Cc:* Harris, Brian (MPD); Reid, Ronald (MPD); Newsham, Peter (MPD)
*Subject:* RE: [gloverpark] Fwd: Fwd: Glover Park Break-In
Commander Klein,
I have taken note of the recent information relating to the on-going investigations of various assaults occurring over the past several months.
Please inform your community that there is no developed suspect or photograph of a possible suspect we have developed in this matter. We are looking into if anyone from the detectives unit may have given that false impression and apologize in advance for any confusion this may have created for your community if that is the case.
We are continuing our investigations in these cases and have no new information developed at this time. We are challenged by limited capability of the complainants to provide detailed descriptions and although similar and appearance and method there is no other link/connection to these
cases.
Thank you,
Commander Rodney T. Parks
Rodney T. Parks
Commander
Criminal Investigations Division
Administrative Office (202) 727-8162
Cell (202) 345-1021
Fax # (202) 727-5783
Um, that message is from almost a month ago. You got anything more recent?
I don't. Sorry! Someone email Commander Parks and ask him for an update. I'm off to spin class, myself.