Priest Charged for Jogging Naked

happycat wrote:

I'm beginning to think that Walter and Mame just enjoy arguing.

No, no. Me too, specially libelling people as sex offenders when it doesn't have anything to do with sex..

0 Replies

happycat wrote:

No, I'm saying that maybe that would be a good reason for the police to NOT ALLOW naked men on the high school track.

Yes. Maybe that would be a good reason.

But in this case, there was no 14 year old girl. So maybe, in this case, there wouldn't be a good reason.

happycat wrote:

Maybe they should post a sign so that everyone with no common sense will be sure to understand: NO NAKED JOGGING ALLOWED

Well, he was jogging at night. It was dark. Nobody could see him. Until Officer Loveless pointed a flashlight at him.

So he arguably had some common sense.

It may not fall into your "common sense" category, but that's the problem with the line "Well, that's just common sense" in the first place, innit?

0 Replies

This is the region where the off-duty police officer was alarmed by the genitals at 4:30 in the darkness of a June morning:

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

This is the original (local) report:

Quote:
Publish Date: 8/9/2007

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.

According to that report, the word "alarm" is what triggered the exposure charge. What if the officer had felt "disgust" or "hilarity"?

0 Replies

Or horny?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Or horny?

I kinda wondered if that might have been what caused his alarm.

0 Replies

In the US, getting convicted of indecent exposure means you typically have to register as a sex offender.

Stupid? Yes.

Priest an absolute moron for running around in public naked? Yes.

0 Replies

Stupid law in the first place, naked is natural. Given certain societal considerations, that there needs to be some constraint re running around nude in town (I will entertain arguments for and against that), the connection to sex offender state is very iffy to me. This present situation seems a possible/probable set up for the sex offender list as the policeman would have known that alarm was a key word. I'm still unclear how the policeman saw him/knew to put the light on him, perhaps moonlight, will have to go back and read.

So, I think the sex offender bit is a rig.

The jogging priest was also stupid, given his guidance role in the community and the community's laws. There is an element of streaker rebellion in the run.
He was visible from what look like a fair number of houses in moonlight. (maybe he has a watcher, sorry to think of that.)

0 Replies

At the same time I follow this thread, I remember the photographer who shoots all the naked folk in various world sites. Last one of those I noticed was in Mexico City, maybe in the Zocalo...

0 Replies

Officer Loveless Laughing

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

In the US, getting convicted of indecent exposure means you typically have to register as a sex offender.

Stupid? Yes.

Priest an absolute moron for running around in public naked? Yes.

Yes!

0 Replies

Whether or not you hippies think being naked in public is ok, it's illegal. The sex offender thing is stupid, however it is part of the law. Technically you can be a sex offender for urinating in public. Unless you're at the least midly retarded, you should know better than to run around naked. The priest is an idiot...move on.

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

Whether or not you hippies think being naked in public is ok, it's illegal.

I love it when people talk Puritan! That's just awesome.

0 Replies

The next time you decide to walk around naked in public, keep in mind that 4-7 year old kids are about eye height with your business. Being naked in a public place says to me - you are either streaking, or out of your mind, or both.

0 Replies

happycat wrote:

Mame wrote:
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.

What if, hypothetically, there was a 14 year old girl that wished to jog on the high school track at the same time?

She should stay home and behave herself, till the sun comes up and the naked man puts on his pants.

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

Whether or not you hippies think being naked in public is ok, it's illegal. The sex offender thing is stupid, however it is part of the law. Technically you can be a sex offender for urinating in public. Unless you're at the least midly retarded, you should know better than to run around naked. The priest is an idiot...move on.

The priest has problems... Cool

0 Replies

I went to school with a guy who made the sex offenders list for pissing behind a tree in the middle of the night, which is not right, just like it's not right for this priest to make the list for running naked in the middle of the night, but there are laws in place that people are aware of, so it's a "get naked at your own risk" situation.

I know different cultures do things differently and in our part of the planet, running around naked is just not something I could ever see as being accepted here.

Different strokes Cool

0 Replies

Well, eualling running naked in the dark night to raping a child is indedd .... what did you say, a different culture.

Priest Charged for Jogging Naked

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know