What Baseball Sounds Like to the British

Crime? No. Pathetic? Yes.

Wait a minute... people are adding a whole lot more to the behavior than the article indicated... from what I read, he presents himself as someone they should know, they allow him to hug them (and nothing was said about other body parts, just a hug and one attempted kiss)... but they don't object because they are insecure about looking foolish in public? As long as they are allowing it, it is not a crime albeit it is a despicable act on his part. It's not assault if it is allowed, only if it is done without their permission. Not battery if they are allowing the contact. It is manipulative, but no overt sexual actions were mentioned at all. Not a sexual offense either from the description. Just say no...

If it's wrong to give people free hugs, I don't want to be right.

@loweringthebar - The story states he ASKS for a hug. He only gets it if the woman agrees to it. His laywer could argue that by asking (even if under a false pretense), the serial hugger had a reasonable expectation that the other person would not regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

I agree they could try to prosecute him under the law, but I think that a conviction would be dicey at best.

A full frontal hug would be a misdemeanor but a Christian side hug is ok.

I think there's no uncertainty about whether this is a crime - it's "battery," which usually means hitting someone but can mean any "offensive touching." In practice, a "touching" that doesn't actually injure the person touched is virtually never going to be an issue, but this may be one of the rare cases where it does get prosecuted.

Technically, Missouri calls this "assault in the third degree" but it's the same as what is usually called "battery." Missouri's law makes it a misdemeanor to "knowingly cause physical contact with another person knowing the other person will regard the contact as offensive or provocative." ("Provocative" here probably means provoking a fight.) Seems reasonable to expect that a man should "know" that women might find hugs from a strange guy "offensive."

Given that we're only talking about hugs, there may be uncertainty over whether to prosecute him, but if there's reason to think he's a creep and not just a harmless hugger, I think they could prosecute him under this law if necessary.

@Zhoen
Oh please, you wouldn't do anything.

He's engaging in sexually predatory behavior. Deck him.

Nope, not a crime. He's using his arms. He has a right to bear arms. If he used his leg, then it would be a fellow knee.

I call foul. It is manipulative, which is a halmark of a sex offender. The "boner" really is not the issue. The power and control is the point. He may masturbate later remembering how he got to invade pretty girls' personal space. This is not a good guy. At 44 yrs old, he is old enough to know he is in the wrong. I know plenty of women, from Boston, New York, and New Jersey that would respond to his behavior by knocking out his teeth.

Only in St. Louis....lol

It's threatening behaviour, certainly. He's preying on the more vulnerable women, and I can't see how it wouldn't escalate. He's like one of those guys who, when you don't laugh at his crass joke will get angry that you don't get that he's being funny. Ha. Ha. And so many women are so over-socialized that they just can't stand to seem rude, even in the face of a potential threat.

If a guy did that to me (not that I'd let it get to that point these days, but when I was much younger) I'd at least try to get him charged with assault. That is just not normal, nor at all acceptable.

If something isn't outlawed it isn't a crime..

It's creepy as hell, but I wouldn't call it a crime. Maybe if he had a boner jabbing them in the stomach,leg,wherever... THEN it would be a crime? :P