I already said all that - what's your point?
I'm just reiterating. It all seems pretty basic.
Why don't you ladies put on some light, clingy fabric and go for a jog around A2K?
happycat wrote:despite all our proclamations to the contrary, we're still a bit puritan in this country.
With all the reports in the media lately about pedophiles, we are extra extra cautious.
Apart from all the rest, you seem to be saying here that it's okay if somebody gets labelled a sex offender due to archaic laws and public paranoia...
Sounds a bit Taliban to me....
happycat wrote:If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then chances are it's a duck.
So there have been many cases of nightly naked joggers who later turned out to be paedophiles?
Exactly, oe. As I said earlier, the most he could honestly be charged with is indecent exposure. But from what I read, in that state, that charge is tied to paedophilia, which is certainly unfair and rather bizarre.
happycat wrote:C'mon, a cop sees a naked guy running around the HIGH SCHOOL track in the middle of the night (4:30am is still almost the middle of the night,
cjhsa wrote:Colo. priest charged for jogging naked
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 08/08/2007 02:54:57 PM MDT
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6572728
FREDERICK, Colo.?-.
An officer said he saw a naked man walking down the street at 4:35 a.m. The U.S. Naval Observatory Web site said sunrise that day in Frederick was 5:31 a.m.
not sure why people need to make stuff up when cjhsa posted the information at the beginning of the thread
~~~
Did Europeans or Canajuns ever think that Americans were other than puritanical?
It is occasionally something to wonder at.
~~~
Mame - we're a little more open-minded up here than you thought
Quote:In 1996, the Ontario court of appeals ruled that women going topless did not imply indecent or sexual behaviour as defined by the Canadian criminal code (R. v. Jacobs, 1996). Similar rulings were made in Saskatchewan in 1998 and in British Columbia in 2000.
link
Well, that still doesn't make him a paedophile! It just makes his indiscretion or judgement even stupider.
This is the original (local) report:
Quote:Publish Date: 8/9/2007
Witness' ?'alarm' led to exposure charge
By Douglas Crowl
The Daily Times-Call
An off-duty police officer who reported feeling "alarmed" after seeing a priest walking naked through Frederick gave another officer cause to cite the priest on suspicion of indecent exposure, according to state statutes.
The Rev. Robert Whipkey ?- the priest at St. Theresa Catholic Church in Frederick who also officiates at parishes in Mead and Erie ?- was cited early June 22 after the officer witnessed him "completely nude" while walking down Fifth Street in Frederick.
In a report taken by on-duty officer Donald Loveless, the off-duty officer specifically said he felt "alarmed" when he observed Whipkey's genitalia.
The word "alarm" is a key element of state statutes on indecent exposure.
A person who commits indecent exposure knowingly displays their genitals but also causes the public affront or alarm, said David Moorhead, a Boulder defense attorney who has represented people in similar situations.
While indecent exposure is a misdemeanor, a person convicted of the crime can be forced to register as a sex offender.
"These kinds of cases are very, very difficult," Moorhead said.
It's particularly difficult because a conviction on indecent exposure puts the person in the same sex-offending status regarding public reporting as, for example, a person who commits rape or makes a sexual advance on a child.
In this case, indecent exposure may have nothing to do with sex, Moorhead said.
Whipkey, known by parishioners as Father Bob, told officers June 22 that he was jogging nude because wearing clothing makes him sweat profusely.
He's due in a Weld County court on Sept. 14 for an arraignment hearing.
Whipkey's attorney, Doug Tisdale, declined to comment on the case Wednesday.
Source
Though I especially like this sentence ...
In a report taken by on-duty officer Donald Loveless, the off-duty officer specifically said he felt "alarmed" when he observed Whipkey's genitalia.
.... I really wonder why something from June 22 is published just now.
What's the problem with seeing a naked man?
It might be unexpected, but it's not a life-threatening thing, and certainly shouldn't be life-altering.
happycat wrote:
What if, hypothetically, there was a 14 year old girl that wished to jog on the high school track at the same time?
Well, a 14-year-old girl jogging in the dark at 4:30 am - even I would be alarmed by that!
Seriously, that would really lead me to call the police and the youth department.
happycat wrote:What if, hypothetically, there was a 14 year old girl that wished to jog on the high school track at the same time?
Ah.
I thought we were talking about this case. Not about some hypothetical case.
But okay.
I guess we can just throw in a couple of hypothetical circumstances until we can all agree that this guy should be labelled a sex offender.
walter wrote :
Quote:"I really wonder why something from June 22 is published just now. "
a slow news day = saure gurkenzeit
perhaps the police officer was just trying to fill "his quota" - or he didn't like catholics
?
hbg
I'm beginning to think that Walter and Mame just enjoy arguing.
used very good judgement. 