Patient-abusing doctor reacts to growing awareness of own career's imminent end

In this hidden-camera investigation by Striscia, a doctor or therapist is filmed sexually molesting a patient. When later confronted by a journalist, he is at first accommodating. Then it begins to dawn on him that his career, and life as a free man, is about to end. Then, all fail breaks loose. [Liveleak via Reddit -- Redditor rhymez0r made a full translation]

Update: Here's the original story (in Italian) with the full (but nonemebeddable) segment.



  1. Why don’t reporters ever defend themselves? I’m not a badass or anything but I think I’d at least swing back after taking a few shots like that.

    Also is there a translation/transcript?

    Also-also: I’m distracted by how adorable Italian gesticulating is.

      1. They might also believe that turning the other cheek is the right thing  to do.

        (Haha, right?)

        1. Turning the other cheek means you can get all the doctor’s money and put him in jail, which feels a whole lot sweeter than bouncing his stupid head off the pavement. 

      2. and they know the significance of that. The average video journalism subject doesn’t understand of the power of the medium as well as the video journalist does.

        1. Steven Colbert was once asked how he gets people to say stupid things on TV.  His answer , in paraphrase, was that he doesn’t have to do anything: the camera “lobotomizes” anyone it’s pointed at.  Most people who don’t go on TV for a living (and some who do) just freeze up in the face of direct questions on camera and rapidly lose coherence.

          1. Many of them are coherent but just simply don’t realize how stupid, absurd and contradictory to proven fact the things they say are.

      3. That’s the genius of the whole thing. By failing to respond, they really  bring out il dottore’s violent side, and let him dig his own hole. Some of those blows at the end must sting like hell – what the voiceover says in Italian is “the blows from the cord are very bad, because there are still pieces of steel at the end” (presumably from the camcorder mounting apparatus).

    1. Passive resistance – works every time. 

      Had the reporter fought back, it would only be ammunition for the doctor’s lawyers I bet. 

      1.  I guess it works really well for the person who wants to kick your ass or mace you in the face, and if you’re in to having your ass kicked or getting maced I suppose it can work for you too.

        But SRSLY, that’s one of those bits of wisdom that is pretty dubious.

        I think a roll of nickels, in a situation like this one, works for my needs/wants a lot better than passive resistance.

        Even Gandhi wasn’t that much of a pacifist. He was just aware that when facing arms while you, yourself, are unarmed that you had to think outside the box. Fists Vs. Guns favors guns, so you make it a publicity war. Change the battlefield.

        1. It’s terrible advice, if all you’re interested in is winning the fight. If you’re interested in winning the aftermath, I think passive resistance is a more sensible strategy than you give it credit for. There is still a sense in most places in the developed world that there is a social contract, and resorting to violence violates it. If you can deal with a couple minutes of letting your opponent turn into a knuckle-dragger, if they’re not really a threat, you can ruin someone’s reputation for life.

          1.  This tactic only works if the attacker is aware of being answerable to some other authority and isn’t emotionally invested in attacking you. If it is interpersonal violence you’re in a real crapshoot depending on passive resistance because rationality is right out the window. If it wasn’t they wouldn’t be using violence in the first place.

            Take, for example, someplace like Syria right now. Any resistance is prompting violence. The ultimate authority is sponsoring the violence. On a smaller scale take a robbery, resisting is antithetical to the nature of the encounter and violence is the only threat that the initiator has to get compliance.

            So you have several examples where the only means of resistance if you wish to survive are through effective violence. Even if the Syrians themselves abstain from violence it is still the menace of violence from external actors that they are going to depend on.

            Finally and returning to the argument for impassioned interpersonal violence: There is a reason why the death penalty does not work as a deterrent as much as some would like to believe. Upset people are not acting reasonably.

            ffabian Ha ha! Good one. You’re probably from somewhere where the education system fails to teach history and critical observation, or maybe you’re just a schmuck.

    2. I don’t think they were in serious, life threatening danger, and every swing that he made, when they can show an unbroken timeline on multiple cameras and show that he was never physically threatened in any way, is just another strike against him.

      1.  The guy is on camera sexually assaulting someone. I don’t think having a slap-fight be one or two-sided is going to make any difference when it comes to the rest of his life.

        1. You don’t think assault and battery might be prosecuted successfully more often than sexual assault? That doesn’t reflect what I’ve heard, not at all.

        2. No – but if it were me it would make the court case a shedload more enjoyable. I’d watch his face as every second of it was played out, showing the cameramen keeping their composure and him losing it again and again.

        3. Anyone know what the rules of evidence are in Italy with respect to civilians secretly filming on private premises without a warrant?

          Depending on the answer, it might be that the footage is completely inadmissible, and there won’t even be enough evidence to charge him with sexual assault.

          But the assault and battery evidence seems unquestionable – they were filming openly, he consented to be filmed, let them into his office knowingly, and after he withdrew consent for them to film him in private, continued assaulting them in the public street.

          This way, even if the sexual assault charges evaporate on a lack of admissible evidence, they at least get him for assault.  The fact that the evidence in the assault case can’t be admitted without also introducing the court to the fact that he’s also a sexual abuser is not going to help him at sentencing time either.

    3. Seems to me that the footage of him violently attacking them is worth far more money than footage of them beating him up. Plus, I don’t know how the law is in Italy, but in the US, there would be liability concerns, and they would probably be prohibited from physically interacting by their employer.

    4. “I’m distracted by how adorable Italian gesticulating is.”

      It’s so awesome.  Let me raise and lower my hand with the fingertips touching to show how sincere I am.  Here, let me spread my arms to the side with upturned palms to show my impartiality.  Come, let us walk through this doorway that I have just gestured to.

      The best is when you see those Serie A players, with their carefully groomed bad boy haircuts and tattoos fold their hands in pious appeal to the ref.  It works best with shrugged shoulders and a plaintive look on the face.

      1. The best is when you see those Serie A players, with their carefully groomed bad boy haircuts and tattoos fold their hands in pious appeal to the ref.

        Soccer: a game where players constantly pretended that they’ve been injured.
        Rugby: a game where players constantly pretend that they haven’t been injured.

  2. At least in the US, reporters are told / trained / indoctrinated not to respond or fight back or get engaged with angry subjects like that.  But I’ve seen (non-aired) segments where a cameraman or rarely on-air reporter took a swing at someone who attacked them, in self defense.  And a couple of outright tag-and-knocked-em-down.  Never without significant provocation, where it was anything but clear self-defense.

    These guys, I don’t know.  Seriously.  There has to be a limit.  If he’s going to do that, run away or fight back, don’t stand there and let him literally whip you with your own camera gear’s cables.

    1. Right. They were intentionally allowing him to continue attacking them because that was the outcome that they desired: to collect footage of him continually violently attacking them. They’re not cowards. They’re professionals. Of a sort.

      1.  Yup. And in this case I approve. The guy deserves everything that’s coming to him, and if multiple charges of aggravated assault make that a bit worse, it’s a win.

  3. I don’t speak Italian, but I bet he’s saying something like “….and I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids!”

  4. I think because they did not want later to be any evidence that he (the “dr”) was defending himself. Not sure what the laws are in Italy or anywhere else, but that looks like pretty cut and dry assault, battery, etc… not to mention the sexual assault. And generally when someone is so cavalier they’ve been doing this for a while. So I’m guessing a lot of ladies will be coming out to put a little more fuel on the bonfire. 

  5. You know, I can’t work up schadenfreude over clips like that. Yeah, he’s done something beyond awful but at the same time, I kind of object to this revenge fantasy stuff. No matter what «personal demons» or just terrible moral integrity the person might have had, broadcasting moments like that where they realize their life as they know it is going to end is really uncomfortable for me.

    It might be just the nagging way that these videos kind of make me feel sorry for people I really don’t want to feel sorry for. Or maybe it’s just that I’m unsettled by the irony of using what are essentially public pillories to let viewers reassure themselves of moral upper ground.

    1. While I tend to agree I can recall a number of cases where an individual or a group of individuals had been taken advantage or or otherwise abused by someone in authority or of strong economic standing and it was only because some exploitative shock-news reporter got involved that there was any real traction from a prosecutor.

      1. I agree,I’m not exactly proud of the rush of shadenfreude this produced, but often the only way to get to an abusive bully is to catch them in the act, which  more often than not involves public humiliation.
        However, let us not overlook the fact that much of this humiliation he brought upon himself. (he could have been WAY more graceful about it)

          1. C’mon cow… are you serious? How can you be unfamiliar with an emotion I’ve seen exhibited in your comments on many occasions :)

      2. Yeah, but that’s probably not what’s going on here, and in other things in the genre (archetypally «To Catch a Predator»). I know this is Italy and everything, but I’m pretty sure somebody would have taken affair if a patient turned the doctor in for rape.

        1. Dude, as a white male, people probably take most of what you say seriously most of the time. 

          However, women, particularly “sick” women, who are sexually assaulted by their physician, therapist, etc. face an incredible uphill battle when they attempt to have these predators charged with a crime. Even upstanding white, professional women with degrees have a hard time making themselves heard and believed when a sexual assault happens, and the victim’s credibility is scrutinized. If for example, the woman who has been assaulted has a previous medical history of depression(on record), then she is labelled “mentally ill” and her account is immediately suspect. If she is poor, she is making these allegations as a form of blackmail, to get money. The standard position is that the predator is an upstanding citizen, a very well educated professional, and the victim — why she is some kind of conniving, lying, psycho slut who wants to drag his reputation through the mud — as though this would be fun or satisfying for her.

          1. Yep… we had a case here in my country recently, where a young woman was having an ultrasound breast exam for a suspected breast cancer. The doctor (or actually he was working as a technician… he wasn’t her doctor) had told the woman that a more effective way to examine would be for him to suck on the nipple to check for discharge. The woman had first agreed to it (well… he was a doctor after all), but afterwards went WTF!

            A doctor sucking on a young woman’s breast… should be pretty obvious… but apparently not.  The lower court decided that it was a “normal procedure” and dismissed the charge. It went up to the highest court before he was ruled guilty.


            You guys should perhaps try going to this “doctor” and complain that you have a hard time getting it up and that perhaps he should check your penis for discharge.

      3. Yeah I’m with Gordon here. Makes me feel uncomfortable, but I think this sort of technology-fueled enforced public humiliation is both the best weapon we’ve got (currently) against nasty people who abuse positions of power in secret, and also one of the most effective deterents to others who might be considering similar abuses.

    2.  Totally agree. And I feel the same way about “To catch a predator”. One the one hand, they are locking up people who could have committed a serious crime, but it’s a thought crime in the context of the show. And the show is profiting from it.

      I’m fine with it if they want to cooperate with the cops and get some people incarcerated. In private. I’m not OK with making a public spectacle out of it.

    3. Sorry but that moral problem exists only between your ears. Without journalism like this to remind people that ANYONE is capable of being secretly filmed, douches would feel freedom to execute their douchery without fear of consequence. Shows like this exist to say “don’t abuse your position in inappropriate ways or you’ll pay”. Hell, if there wasn’t a massive jail term as consequence I’d hit every bank on my way home for a “payday advance”.

      1.  The problem is that this doesn’t work.  (If it did, these shows would have more trouble finding victims.)  It’s for the same reason that longer jail sentences don’t deter crime: people who commit the crime have already decided that 1) they won’t get caught or 2) they don’t care if they are.  That’s an emotional decision, not a probabilistic one – airing an extra risk doesn’t help much.

      2. «Without journalism like this to remind people that ANYONE is capable of being secretly filmed, douches would feel freedom to execute their douchery without fear of consequence.»

        Yeah, unless of course there was such a thing as a legal system in the country in question.

    4.  I agree. I actually didn’t click on the clip, and won’t. I find seeing people’s lives unravel disturbing, even if it is through their own malice or misdeed.

      1. Well, I’ve never been sexually abused by a doctor, so for whatever difference that would make you’re right, but I was – unlike several of my friends – a narrow survivor of the massacre at the Labour Youth camp in Norway 11-odd months ago and I was still saying the same things about the perpetrator of that crime – so it’s not as if I’m criticising without having been placed in a situation of having a serious hurdle in your life by a fuckwit.

  6.  I know it’s mentioned in the text of the post, but you may want to post a more obvious trigger warning on this, because even the freeze frame with the post is pretty triggery. 

      1.  No. I absolutely oppose that opinion. People should not have to be afraid to go out on the internet.

        The internet is for everybody, it is a core part of most of our lives nowadays, and it is no more acceptable to imply that people ask to be triggered by connecting to the net, than it is to say the woman asked to be abused by being alone in the same room as a man.

        1. No one gets triggered simply by connecting to the internet, we do get to choose the sites we visit. Sometimes, those sites can upset us unexpectedly, but then so can newspapers, books and movies.  Would you ask for a trigger warning for those, too? And under what conditions? Which kinds of trauma deserve a trigger warning, which don’t? 

          The internet is a trigger warning, and so is the rest of the world.

          I think a trigger warning is a courtesy but shouldn’t be required or even expected. Not out of a lack of sympathy for people who were traumatised, but because it’s just impossible to accommodate everyone in this way.

          1. I think a trigger warning is a courtesy but shouldn’t be required or even expected.

            Yeah, and people are asking for courtesy.  So what’s the fucking problem?

    1. Sadly I think the whole point of this post is to laugh at the terrible doctor and how awful he is and not actually at the fact a woman was sexually assaulted. As such, clearly a trigger warning for women who might be harmed mentally by seeing that is by the by.
      TBH the whole film has been done in the manner of those bad trader documentaries; I’ve seen similar things sending up bad plumbers! Maybe there is more of a stylistic difference in the UK between ‘serious’ investigative journalism and those ‘this guy cut all my trees down and I only wanted him to mow the grass’ documentaries so that’s why I find it so weird.

    2. Pfft, you’re so undesensitized.

      Sorry, couldn’t resist using that line.  More seriously though – I do wish this site would stick to its remit of being a “directory of wonderful things”.  I am a bit fragile and shouldn’t have watched this – it is more horrible than the casual “all fail breaks loose” remark suggests.

      1. I do wish this site would stick to its remit of being a “directory of wonderful things”.

        Ancient history. We are A Compendium of Greasy Peccadilloes.

    3. I’ll admit, I had to look up “trigger warning”.  I don’t think most people know what it means yet.  It does seem like a courteous thing to do.

      And yet, the video still itself is a clothed doctor touching a mostly undressed woman, and the caption says he’s caught on film sexually assaulting a woman.  How much more of a trigger warning could you need?

  7. I found the molestation part of this video very uncomfortable to watch. Personally, I wanted to see the patient bolt upright and give that asshole an full-tilt, make-his-ears-bleed kick to the head. But that could be just me.

    1. No, that was not only you.

      I do wonder if she was drugged or something. I wasn’t able to watch the whole video, and I didn’t watch it with sound… but it seemed like he had done that before, he was just way too sure of himself when doing that… so it left me wondering, how he was able to do that.

      Edit: I used Google translate on the Italian article, and in one place they use the word “girl”… and… oh… no… seriously no… Is that a teenager? I won’t watch that video again (well, I wasn’t able to watch it to the end of the abuse to begin with), but I re-watched the first few seconds and it looks like she could be. I seriously hope she isn’t, but that would explain how he does all that so boldly.

      1. The boldness comes from an experienced predator(with professional authority) who has obviously done this many times before. He is a doctor. No one goes to their doctor and anticipates being sexually assaulted during their exam. It is not uncommon that as an assault begins that the person is shocked and frozen in disbelief and fear, and second guesses themself (ie “He is my doctor so this must be part of my exam even though no other doctor has ever done this before — what should I do ? I want this to stop but there is no one to help me and I don’t want to get hurt” = deer in the headlights response).

        I don’t think the woman was drugged. Obviously she went in there with a hidden camera set up to record how this doctor deals with some of his patients. Was she a previous patient who had been assaulted before, whose complaints had not been taken seriously, who felt she needed evidence to prove what was happening ? Was she a plant by the t.v. show — who had certainly been tipped off by at least one previously assaulted patient ? Even if she was an actor, who had been warned that this would probably happen, the actual assault is an indisputable violation that is very unsettling to watch.

  8. It’s kind of disturbing how outraged Dr. Sleazy seems at having his inalienable right to freedom of sexual assault threatened by meddling journalists…

    People using violence to conceal crime is, while problematic, not really very surprising. He, though, seems outraged rather than simply violently evidence-destroying(not that he has any hope of coping with the meta-cameraman setup).

    1.  I used to own a retail store and people getting caught shoplifting get very angry about it. Probably the same sort of thing here.

      1.  That’s really fascinating!

        Kind of a “How dare you catch me!” sort of thing?

        Or maybe just the shattering of illusions about themselves “not really doing anything wrong” – and reacting to the person catching them as the cause of this sudden ego damage?

        1. There’s a speech from some TV show about how you can tell the innocent from the guilty because the innocent just get more and more furious when arrested and the guilty act resigned. I haven’t observed that in real life.

          1.  I think that speech was written by someone who gathered all the data from procedural cop shows where there is ALWAYS a confession.

            I mean Seeley Booth is sexy, but I’m not confessing to shit.

          2. You’re not maybe thinking of Scott Adam’s pronouncement of how the innocent get really, really mad, and the guilty attack your evidence, are you?

            I’m paraphrasing, but the gist was “The innocent say ‘how dare you accuse me of that,’ and the guilty say ‘there is no evidence I did that'”.

          3.  I’ve heard that as well.  If you’re innocent you’re supposed to be enraged.  That’s hardly true.  Personal temperament varies from person to person and often people who are guilty or lying will put on the enraged/righteous indignation act for a show.

          4. @BBNinja:disqus I think for many it is not even an act. They feel like they shouldn’t have been caught, that getting caught is unfair to them, that’s why they get enraged.   

          5. From personal experience, I think what actually happens when you’re innocent is that you’re so completely shocked that anyone would accuse you, you don’t even know how to react. Which, stupidly enough, can make you incapable of effectively defending your innocence. It’s like ‘Why the hell am I being asked to prove that I didn’t do anything wrong? How do I even start? I was just minding my own business!’

        2.  I think it’s embarrassment untempered by shame.

          That experience is probably a lot of why I pathologically avoid workplace responsibility these days. I don’t like how confrontation makes me feel and I’m really really bad at de-escalating stuff (or at least I was when I was in my 20’s). I get upset and my process moves pretty directly toward violence. This is also why I no longer own a firearm.

  9. I found the initial rapey section of the film really disturbing. I also found the part where the evil doc guy advances on the reporters continuously, when he could have just shut the door, and stayed in his office really reprehensible. 

  10. The sound you hear is James O’keefe’s head exploding with envy.  Of course this journalist actually caught someone actually doing something very bad.

  11. I would like to ask ( someone who lives in Italy) if anything will actually happen to this doctor?

    1. I’ve lived about 30% of my life in Italy.
      He’ll go down. He’ll serve a good chunk of time in a jail that is worse in many ways than a low-security jail in the anglosphere. Compensation payments would be relatively small, compared to the US – but he’ll still be ruined financially.
      Then he’ll get out, and Italy’s big interlocking extended families will probably mean he basically can’t go near his hometown again, or if he does, will mostly stay out of sight.

    2. It will. Let me walk you through what will happen, as it is as absurd as what you just saw.

      First of all, the segment comes from a daily show based on “showing the real world and denouncing wrongdoers”, which sounds awesome until you realize that it means that ever other show and newscast just does not. For Italians, “going to Striscia la Notizia” is a sort of last and only resort to have your plead taken seriously and in a reasonable time.

      Now, the trial.
      Since this is going to be a “quick” and high profile case, the people involved will be called to court in about one year. Normally, in Italy this would require around 3 years.

      The trial will officially open, then court will be adjourned for the actual presentation of the case. The next call will be in an average 3 to 9 months.

      When the time comes, the doctor will repeatedly have his lawyer produce fake medical papers stating that he isn’t able to attend for health reasons, and since his testimony is required, the judge will adjourn the session for up to three times (with 3-9 months delay each time) until the doctor will be notified to show up or be forcibly escorted in by armed guards.

      Then expect the trial to be split in two or three chunks (usual delays apply) until the judge has enough elements to give a sentence.

      Which will be expressed in another session, albeit with a shorter delay of a few weeks at most.

      Now the doctor, who will probably but not surely found guilty, will appeal to an higher court, and the show will restart from the beginning.

      Done yet? Of course not! Let us all go to the third and last level of trial.

      Now, assuming that the sentence will be confirmed (thus without any counter-appeal by the offended parties), it is well possible that enough time has passed from the start of all this process to get the events proscribed.

      Oh yes. Did I forget to tell that in Italy proscription times are not halted once a trial has begun? This is the very reason for which dear mr. Berlusconi escaped scott free from several trials, and many other politicians and mafiosi before him.

      Welcome to sunny Italy.

  12. I, for one, am satisfied with the episode’s outcomes. The doctor is publically humiliated and, presumably, will now suffer a massive blow to his finances, career and wider social standing. The tabloid journalist and camera man  took some solid blows to the head. The woman should get a hefty pay-out. Everyone gets what they deserve!

    1. Did the woman assaulted on camera (and no doubt the other female patients who have also been assaulted prior to this — prompting the undercover camera work) “get what they deserve”?

      How often do the women in sexual assault cases get a “hefty pay-out” ? Yes, women who have been sexually assaulted, especially by a person like a doctor, with whom there is an implied level of professional intimacy and trust, SHOULD receive damages, and the doctor should be barred from practicing medicine, like, forever ! Predators should be exposed and shamed. Usually there is not just one victim — there is a pattern of their abuse that goes back decades !

      What will actually happen ? Well I bet the doctor will lawyer up, and huff and bluster about how he knew this was a set up, he was only defending himself, etc.etc. — and besides, that female patient was so provocative, what with her femaleness and all — then a bunch of other women(perhaps even women who were part of his staff) will come forward to state that they had been making formal complaints about this physician’s conduct for YEARS and nothing ever happened. There will be a bunch of muck-raking to discredit the victims with evidence like drunk photos from Facebook, and/or prior STD results to prove how promiscuous and provocative these women are, or statements from their divorce proceedings from 20 years ago,  and perhaps with a little encouragement from his lawyer, the doctor will decide to retire. Of course the lawyer will have wisely suggested that his client transfer his assets — so that if damages are awarded, the doctor will appear to have very little in the way of assets and never pay a cent to anyone of his victims. Perhaps he will move somewhere else, and people will still respect him because he seems like a nice man, and is a retired doctor after all…

      And the victims — well I bet that they have all suffered different degrees of trauma and distress, and will have a very uncomfortable time with medical professionals doing physical exams of any sort for the rest of their lives. Maybe, if  they had a fortune to spend on a kickass lawyer, they would be awarded damages — but could spend years chasing the scumbag predator to pay up, as he was legally obligated to.

      Tell me, how many “hefty pay-outs” can you specifically name that have been awarded to and actually paid out to female victims of sexual assault ?

    2. The doctor is publically humiliated and, presumably, will now suffer a massive blow to his finances, career and wider social standing.

      You haven’t been paying attention to Italy lately, have you? Being a woman in Italy is not the most desirable position in the world.

      That being said, I hope you’re right, because this doctor is just plain out of control.

  13. I don’t understand, did the woman film herself after being sexually assaulted before or did they send in a journo after reports? Also would it be that hard to put a proper trigger warning for sexual assault? I mean that’s what they exist for. (I’m not a fan of warning people about everything but things like this are basic good manners) I watched it and had no idea it would be such a graphic depiction.

      1. Are you being dense? You know what I mean!

        In the UK you would never show something like that without quite a lot of blurring etc so I was not expecting that. FFS is it really that hard for people do be polite? I mean I am not making up that it upset me and from the tone of the writing I had not expected it to be like that at all.

        1. The title says “patient-abusing”, the thumbnail shows a man reaching for the breasts of a partly undressed woman … how many warnings do you need? I’m the one who’s dense?

          BB is doing a good job when posting NSFW/L pictures or films. I don’t like watching gore or animal abuse so I heeded the warning when they linked to such videos in the Luka Magnotta articles. Problem solved.

          1. The tone of the article gave the impression this was mainly the reaction of the doctor. In general most websites and media outlets are considerate enough to state if something that might be difficult for people to watch (for example those who have been sexually assaulted, which I have, and whilst in general I can see abuse in films and cope with it real life stuff screws me up, sorry for that!!! Though I imagine you’ll tell me why I deserved to have made the mistake to have clicked on there, stupid thick me! (nb i watched it on my phone so I the image wasn’t actually that clear being a tiny little icon but you know, definitely my fault!!)

            I am not asking for the moon on a stick here, I wouldn’t call the above video SFW and there is NOTHING stating that it isn’t so I am not sure about your second point.

    1. Yeah… that was not “safe for work”, quite a lot of much… um… milder… videos have gotten a NSFW label here. And that was not just “abusing” either. When I decided it was quite enough video for me, it looked pretty much like rape. So, if one just reads the header and then clicks on the video it will be… not quite what one expected to see.

  14. See, I am of the opinion that someone (even a doctor who is guilty of sexual assaults) should be able to ask someone else (*especially* pesky journalists) to leave their private home or office whenever they feel like it, and furthermore that someone should be able to resort to force to achieve this.  In the US it’s known as the Castle Doctrine.  What’s the Italian for “This interview is over, I’ve asked you twice to leave; if you don’t get out of my home, I will shoot you all dead and keep your cameras” ?

    However, once this perv had fought these guys back as far as the street, he should have turned back, locked his door, and either called his lawyer or  (preferably) put his head in the oven with the gas on high.

    1. I’m all for self-defense (and German law is quite explicit about this and DA’s will sometimes not even press charges when an attacker gets  stabbed in the throat), but as long as it’s clear that there’s no danger to person and property, killing should be outside the question.  Calling the police and pressing charges should suffice.

    2. “What’s the Italian for “This interview is over, I’ve asked you twice to leave; if you don’t get out of my home, I will shoot you all dead and keep your cameras” ?”
      Sorry Bob, but you need to be in the good ol’ US to be able to do that without ending up in jail. And I would guess quite a lot of countries prefer that kind of thinking to stay there as well.

  15. (Perceived)Men’s responses : Haha, look at the doctor go apeshit,  why didn’t the camera people and interviewer fight back, discussion about the laws pertaining to people on the doctor’s property, speculation about the assault victims getting monetary settlements, concern about the ethics of ruining this doctor’s reputation (as though the doctor himself is not personally responsible for ruining his own reputation), anger reactions from guilty people who are caught, a joke about women being as highly regarded as manufactured goods in Italy, and “Remember, a real person’s reputation is on the line…you dumb slut” 

    (Perceived)Women’s responses: There should be a trigger warning, the assault is traumatizing to watch, speculation about how the victims will not be heard or believed, attempts to speak up about male privilege and rape culture.

    I am saddened by the chasm in comprehension and empathy here. It seems like a bunch of people cannot even SEE the victim — that the sexual assault was an assault — no crossed signals or blurry gestures that could be misinterpreted. Was the assault not violating enough ? Was the victim not a good enough victim because she did not yell or scream or hit or kick the doctor ? She was a patient seeing a doctor in his office — and the doctor lifts up her top, feels her breasts, kisses her breasts, apparently sucks on one nipple, sticks his hand down her pants, while she protests, says no, struggles to get up from the table, puts her hands out to stop him. The doctor is also documented making kissy faces at his patient — which is wildly inappropriate and disgusting whether this happened before or after the assault.

    But hey — what about doctor when he lashes out at the camera (inanimate expensive technological object) and starts to hit the camera person and journalist ? They could really press charges, huh ? I am appalled by the responses I see here.

    1. Well, you guessed wrong on the last example under “Men’s responses”. And it was sarcasm.

      But your point is still valid.

    2. “Remember, a real person’s reputation is on the line…you dumb slut”

      Yeah, just piping up here to say. A) what makes you sure I’m a man? and B) what makes you sure that wasn’t bitter cynical experience expressing itself in a sarcastic way?

      In general though, I agree with you. We put notices on scenes of violence, but think sex abuse victims are “being sensitive” and I think this is because most people can relate to the idea of typical violent encounters.

      However, as some one who has experienced both I’ll go ahead and say that violence is easier for me to deal with because I don’t have to try to keep track of “safe” violence and “unsafe” violence every day in real lived experience. All violence is unsafe, so it’s easier to compartmentalize for me. Like a car accident or the sudden death of a friend, it’s just bad. Everyone knows it’s bad. It’s traumatizing, but at least you don’t have to sort of be like “Ok but now you will act like you’re going to hit me with a bat like that one time but you won’t really do it and I can trust you.” 

      Not so much with the other stuff. Which is why it can be weird to find yourself thinking about these things at times when it’s not best. Which is why some times it’s nice when people say “hey, just in case anyone has experienced this incredibly common form of trauma, we have a video of it up.”

      Oh, and who knew there was a misogynistic Poe’s law corollary!

Comments are closed.