PDA

View Full Version : Exposure Law is Gender Specific, Judge Rules



johnnymk
10-22-2006, 05:02 AM
Is this kid silly or not?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FOR_MEN_ONLY?SITE=NJASB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) -- A judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman accused of disrobing in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law only applies to men. Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said earlier in the week that the law only mentions someone who "exposes his person."

"It's gender specific," Armstrong said.

He dismissed a misdemeanor charge against Alexis Luz Garcia, 40, of Corona, who was cited in May after parents of a neighbor boy said she showed him full-frontal nudity as he played basketball.

Prosecutor Alison N. Norton said the decision to throw out the case will be appealed because another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."




Norton said Garcia had complained that the 14-year-old was making too much noise while playing basketball. She went out on her sundeck.

"He looked up at her, she looked down at him, and she disrobed," Norton contended.

The boy ran inside and told his parents, who complained to Garcia.

"She threatened to do it every time he played basketball," and the parents called police, Norton said.

LPMiller
10-22-2006, 06:34 AM
wait, applies to neuters? Who sat there and worried people would flash their Barbie Genitals?

ShawnLee
10-22-2006, 07:28 AM
wait, applies to neuters? Who sat there and worried people would flash their Barbie Genitals?
Well, I'd assume that they're not talking specifically about people, but yeah... Not cool.

Anti-props to the judge for being an idiot.
Anti-props to the prosecuting attorney for not bringing up that point sooner.

I want to make a joke about this, I really do, but that's just wrong.

InfiniteNothing
10-22-2006, 03:18 PM
To me, public nudity seems like it comes with the rest of the offensive stuff we have to put up with to ensure our own freedom of expression. The gender inconsistanty is wrong though.

Houdini
10-22-2006, 10:06 PM
To me, public nudity seems like it comes with the rest of the offensive stuff we have to put up with to ensure our own freedom of expression. The gender inconsistanty is wrong though.

While I agree with the second part, and in theory with the first part of your statement, in practice indecent exposure laws haven't really affected our freedoms except maybe to keep flashers from harassing people, etc.

DarkFury
10-23-2006, 06:12 AM
She must be going downhill fast at 40... cause if she wasn't, I'm surprised that the teen didn't call over a few of his buds to come and watch that peep show. :heh:

InfiniteNothing
10-23-2006, 07:53 AM
While I agree with the second part, and in theory with the first part of your statement, in practice indecent exposure laws haven't really affected our freedoms except maybe to keep flashers from harassing people, etc.
Hmm? Indecent exposure laws prevent people from getting tans with no stripes :) Even if it did restrict only one group, I'd still oppose it because other restrictions on offensive behavior would not be too slippery a slope to travel.

Paymaster
10-23-2006, 12:28 PM
OK... I would love to google this to verify it, but I am at work so I definitely not be searching for "indecent exposure" and "public nudity". Maybe someone at home can check this out...

I had a roomate who was in training to be a police officer. I made a joke once about someone getting arrested for "indecent exposure". She corrected me, saying that the charge would be "public nudity". She went on to explain that "public nudity" was just what it sounds like, but that "indecent exposure" was the charge when it involved an erection.

So, this could likely be a very loaded story... once again we have only a few details and we are drawing a lot of conclusions...