Robert Vietze, 18, of South Warren Vt. caused a commotion on a JetBlue flight from Portland to New York yesterday when he urinated on a sleeping 11-year-old girl. What is interesting about this case is the charge: indecent exposure rather than assault or other more serious charge.
Vietze was clearly drunk and says that he had consumed eight alcoholic drinks. He said later “I was drunk, and I did not realize I was pissing on her leg.”
The girl’s father caught Vietze in the course of his assault and stop him. Vietze was then moved to the back of the plane and later police were called on the flight. (Notably, another passenger later vomited and developed chest pains — making this a nightmare flight for the crew).
Vietze was issued a federal summons for indecent exposure and released. Clearly, intent is mitigated a bit by his inebriation, but I am surprised by the relatively low-level charge. Of course, as a sexually related offense with a minor, this could trigger also problems for Vietze down the road. Perhaps the police agreed that Vietze was not aiming for the girl who was hit on the leg. It will be interesting, however, whether this will be treated as a sex offender charge.
Now a note for JetBlue: please give this crew a paid day off.
Source: NY Post
Good news OS!!
OS,
I’m glad to hear a good prognosis. That’s the best news all day.
Thanks, Blouise. She has been one sick puppy and has been in the hospital five weeks now. They are now talking about sending her home and she looked a lot better this morning.
OS,
Wish her well with complete recovery. That’s a very painful condition.
MetroCowboy. Yes you can catch stuff from it, depending on what else is going on. As I write this, the older of my two daughters is in the hospital in isolation because she has an antibiotic resistant bacterial infection in her bladder. Before anyone gets too alarmed, she is doing better and her last test this morning came back negative, but my point is, there are bladder infections that are taken most seriously.
Interesting side point … it was the sleeping child’s father and sister who were occupying the bathrooms at the time the drunk pissed on the kid.
We only have the word of the fat drunk woman that when she fell on my little boy it was unintentional. And I have no idea what diseases she carries, but she sure smells bad. Talk about apprehension!
Urine is only sterile in the absence of a disease condition. No way of knowing if the drunk pissing on you is free of disease. Since there is no way of knowing that at the time it takes place, we now have apprehension added to the offensive contact and only the word of the drunk that it was unintentional.
“That was exactly what I was wondering. A sleeping child gets pissed on by a drunk. How is that not an “offensive contact” on her body?”
What’s an “offensive contact?” Urine is apparently, mostly, a sterile warm liquid.
If a drunk fat woman fell onto a small boy in that airplane, would you have her charged with “offensive contact?” Or charged with any sort of assault?
“Why is the fact that he was drunk mitigate the intent?”
I am not a lawyer, but, … mens rea? (whatever that means.) Plus, prosecutor discretion (in the best sense) — they guy admits to being drunk in public — why shouldn’t the prosecutor take that into account in determining how to charge him?
“Consuming 8 alcoholic drinks is not an unintentional act, why would his actions following that voluntary consumption be considered unintentional?”
Yeah, I don’t understand what the law and culture says about drinking in comparison to what medicine and science would seem to say.
If 8 alcoholic drinks cannot be an unintentional act, tell me again about the effects of alcohol on the nervous system. If 8 alcoholic drinks is not an unintentional act, why do we wonder who served him 8 drinks?
If 8 alcoholic drinks is not an unintentional act, why would her actions following that voluntary consumption be considered unintentional is what I wonder when I read feminists tell me that there is no such thing as gray rape.
If this were a story of some drunk falling in the airplane or in a restaurant on top of some other person, and even if that person were smaller, or much younger, and had been injured, would you be interested in an assault charge?
So here’s a guy who says he was intolerably drunk and admits it but that otherwise it was unintentional and an accident — why do you demand an assault charge now?
There you go … now we’re back on track.
“What did he get her with? An unintended stream of a warm sterile liquid from an intoxicated individual?
Exactly *what* sort of assault is that?”
That was exactly what I was wondering. A sleeping child gets pissed on by a drunk. How is that not an “offensive contact” on her body? Why is the fact that he was drunk mitigate the intent? Consuming 8 alcoholic drinks is not an unintentional act, why would his actions following that voluntary consumption be considered unintentional?
What you wrote is logically inconsistent and makes no sense, so I did my best to route around your damage.
That’s not spinning, that’s taking you seriously.
“Why is it so acceptable, legally, to mitigate charges when a drunk claims …”Hey, I was drunk.”
I don’t believe sexual overtones should be added but certainly something more than indecent exposure. So what if he wasn’t aiming for her … he got her anyway … right?”
What did he get her with? An unintended stream of a warm sterile liquid from an intoxicated individual?
Exactly *what* sort of assault is that?
“I am curious how you feel about women that drink so much at a party that after a sexual encounter they claim they were too drunk to have been able to meaningfully consented to sex, even though they also claim not to have remembered either consenting or dissenting.”
You’re spinning since I clearly stated “I don’t believe sexual overtones should be added but certainly something more than indecent exposure.”
“On the one hand, you spend time trying to assign responsibility to one or more airlines for serving this dumbass too much, and on the other hand you want to know why a prompt taking of responsibility in “I admit, I drank way too much” shouldn’t go some way to mitigate the most extreme charge.”
With sexual assault being the extreme charge,once again, you’re spinning as I clearly stated “I don’t believe sexual overtones should be added but certainly something more than indecent exposure.”
Every day on this blog we read article after article about the over reaction of officials for people who do stupid things…..I agree the boy should be punished it was stupid and oh so wrong…If I had been the girls father I most probably would have punched him in the head…I was surprised that they didn’t try to make this a sexual thing…it seems that nowadays they like to pile on everything they can…OS….Im not a med doc but it seems to me Ive read that urine is sterile I dont know if you can catch anything from it..
Why is it acceptable, morally, to charge sexual assault when no sexual assault occurred? Why is it acceptable morally to charge any crime that a prosecutor thinks might stick just to get as many chances as possible to convict?
On the one hand, you spend time trying to assign responsibility to one or more airlines for serving this dumbass too much, and on the other hand you want to know why a prompt taking of responsibility in “I admit, I drank way too much” shouldn’t go some way to mitigate the most extreme charge.
I am curious how you feel about women that drink so much at a party that after a sexual encounter they claim they were too drunk to have been able to meaningfully consented to sex, even though they also claim not to have remembered either consenting or dissenting.
Why is it so acceptable, legally, to mitigate charges when a drunk claims …”Hey, I was drunk.”
I don’t believe sexual overtones should be added but certainly something more than indecent exposure. So what if he wasn’t aiming for her … he got her anyway … right?
Exactly how does an 18 year old get access to eight alcoholic drinks anyway? I’ve checked all kinds of sites that claim within the states no one under 21 may be served … EU flights are different. Did Jet Blue serve him or did he get it all in his system before boarding? I’ve searched and can’t find the answer.
I wonder if the jetBlue crew served him any drinks. An aerial dram shop?
Say what….
I hope they tested him for communicable diseases before releasing him. The defendant does have one thing to be thankful for: That it was not my daughter. ’nuff said.
2? LOL
I have two daughters about that age.
But look, if the guy was just completely intoxicated, and there was no intent to sexually assault the girl, then just piling on sexual assault charges, as we seem to love to do, is just wrong.
I find it hard to believe in this day and age that sexual assault charges won’t be filed. But, if as you report, there was no intent, and a clear admission from the guy himself that he was totally drunk, I see nothing to be gained to society or to the girl by filing sexual assault charges.
Regardless it is completely disgusting behavior.