The Perfect Defense for the Prosecution
Memo to the nude prosecutor: just say it was a protest. (Both links via Howard.)
Memo to the nude prosecutor: just say it was a protest. (Both links via Howard.)
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ||||||
2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
30 | 31 |
Powered by WordPress.
Protest, nonsense. If you’ve got it, flaunt it! (You young people are so Puritanical.)
nk (d5dd10) — 10/12/2006 @ 8:59 pmWas 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:
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) — 10/12/2006 @ 11:06 pmTo 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) — 10/12/2006 @ 11:12 pmMaybe he had to do some things in the nude in order to bring his annual income up to $650,000 average.
jim (27cef6) — 10/13/2006 @ 4:41 amany 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) — 10/13/2006 @ 8:06 amHow 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) — 10/13/2006 @ 8:25 amDoes this really qualify as “public” indecency?
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 10/13/2006 @ 12:48 pmJames 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) — 10/14/2006 @ 12:59 am