Patterico's Pontifications

10/12/2006

The Perfect Defense for the Prosecution

Filed under: General,Humor — Patterico @ 8:41 pm



Memo to the nude prosecutor: just say it was a protest. (Both links via Howard.)

8 Responses to “The Perfect Defense for the Prosecution”

  1. Protest, nonsense. If you’ve got it, flaunt it! (You young people are so Puritanical.)

    nk (d5dd10)

  2. Was he wearing a wristwatch or shoes (or even a tie)?

    Because if so, he would be perfectly within his rights if he were in Canada, since, after all he isn’t completely nude:

    “Further, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that if you’re wearing any piece of clothing — even just a sock on one foot — then you are NOT automatically considered “nude” for purposes of subsection 174(1), even if your genitals are completely exposed.”

    tntmen.abuzar.net/tnt/news/e33.html

    Your country is rather puritanical. As long as he covered up something, well, then it should be fine.

    And in Canada, based on equal rights between men and women and the fact that men are allowed to be topless, it is perfectly legal for a women to be topless in Canada and not just at nude beaches. Indeed, she can be topless anywhere.

    modblog.bmezine.com/2006/07/04/canadian-laws/

    I actually support this, again, on equality grounds.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  3. To be very clear all of the above is context specific. While not illegal on its face, it could easily be illegal if you had an ulterior motive or if a person committed an offensive act while almost fully or partially nude.

    Of course, even if almost completely nude at an acceptable time, it would be a bad idea, legally, to remove your socks.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  4. Maybe he had to do some things in the nude in order to bring his annual income up to $650,000 average.

    jim (27cef6)

  5. any goodlooking women out there who haven’t started spreading and sagging yet should take off their clothes, take a pic, upload it somewhere and give us a link! i’ll tell you if you’re ready for prime time!

    assistant devil's advocate (ab58c7)

  6. How dumb did this prosecutor have to be? Even someone as clueless as actus knows that there are security cameras in government offices.

    The problem is less that this gentleman has a screw loose than the fact he’s an utter moron.

    Dana (3e4784)

  7. Does this really qualify as “public” indecency?

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  8. James is right, I think. One could as easily charge the security guard with invasion of privacy. A building after-hours, with the doors locked, is not a public place.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0765 secs.