Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strange Topfree arrest in Ohio

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Aaron_bongart
    replied
    you know there really needs to be a topic about this kinda thing. not the trans but the boys deeloping -larg- breasts. it would seem that this IS a common thing but not to such an extent as to have a secenerio like i described

    Leave a comment:


  • KirkOntario
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
    quote:
    Originally posted by KirkOntario:

    We don't know that. We don't know the context in which he exposed his breasts.


    It doesn't matter what the context is. Exposure of your breasts in OHIO is never never ever indecent exposure. It might be some other crime (solicitation?) but it CAN NOT BE indecent exposure. That is the law. Period.

    -Mark


    Show me the case and the level of court and I may agree with you after I read it. What the facts are may matter here and we simply have almost no facts, no context.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    "We don't know the context in which he exposed his breasts."

    Kirk, I could go out to an area of the city that is popular with prostitutes, wear a shirt that only exposed my nipples, along with some leather skin-tight pants and act in a way that is questionable. I still couldn't be charged (at least successfully) with indecent exposure for showing my nipples.

    This is like the bill that caused the VA legislature a lot of publicity this past year. The bill was aimed at fining anyone wearing pants that "lewdly" esposed their undergarments. The problem with the bill was that no one could be charge with any lewd crime for wearing just their underwear so it would be unenforceable.

    No one in Ohio can indecently expose their breasts. And more importantly, no male can do that anywhere in this country (or most, if not all countries in the world). That makes the charges of indecent exposure inane and just plain wrong.

    "We do not yet know if a crime occurred or not."

    As far as the charges that have been reported and the description of the arrest, no crime has occurred except for possibly false arrest. Kirk, you even suggeted that unless the police catch someone in the act, they can't charge them with prostitution or being a john.

    So we know he was out at 1am in a questionable area of town. He was shirtless. He was arreted and the only charge we know about was indecent exposure. The only part of the anatomy exposed or talked about were his breasts, which were womanly. It matters not what the other charges are yet. Unless he showed his penis or butt, he could not have been charged with IE.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by KirkOntario:

    We don't know that. We don't know the context in which he exposed his breasts.


    It doesn't matter what the context is. Exposure of your breasts in OHIO is never never ever indecent exposure. It might be some other crime (solicitation?) but it CAN NOT BE indecent exposure. That is the law. Period.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • KirkOntario
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
    quote:
    Originally posted by KirkOntario:

    We do not yet know if a crime occurred or not.


    He may have committed a crime, but it wasn't indecent exposure for exposing his breasts - which is all that he was charged with.

    -Mark


    We don't know that. We don't know the context in which he exposed his breasts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by KirkOntario:

    We do not yet know if a crime occurred or not.


    He may have committed a crime, but it wasn't indecent exposure for exposing his breasts - which is all that he was charged with.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • KirkOntario
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
    quote:
    Originally posted by KirkOntario:

    Depending on what criminal code says in Ohio that's often a difficult charge to bring. You need to catch someone in the act of solicitation of sex for money. Not easy for police to arrest would-be prostitutes merely for being in a area frequented by prostitutes.


    That doesn't mean it was sensible to make a charge for a crime that didn't occur. The police and prosecutor should have made an appropriate charge (if there really was an offense), or dropped the matter - that is their duty.

    -Mark


    We do not yet know if a crime occurred or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Topfreedom for women in Ohio isn't some minor law that a cop wouldn't know about. Sure, cops won't know every law but this is major.

    And even then the prosecutor could have changed the charges to reflect the "crime", if there was one. This whole thing is just silly!

    Leave a comment:


  • Aaron_bongart
    replied
    this is a very intriging topic. what puzzles me is why didnt he lawyer up.. i mean it would have saved him lots of trouble well maybe he didnt feel he did anything wrong. and of cuurce he didnt but he should stil have gotten somebody to represent him. and about the "Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
    Also, I saw a slender 13/14-year-old boy who had breasts the size of a girl his age. I thought it was a girl until I saw his lower body. I spoke with him and his dad, and the boy had a DEEP base voice. He was most unusal and fascinated me: the genitals of a male, the breasts of a 14-year-old girl, and the speaking voice that you would expect to hear on a base singer. " i know a friend who has a kid with the same problem only differenc is his breast were like c cup and were very larg. it would seem that in rare cases such a chemical imbalenc can scar not only the person who is experiencing it but also the others around this person. i have to admit a 12 year old boy with breasts like a 19 year old is kinda creepy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Naturist Mark
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by KirkOntario:

    Depending on what criminal code says in Ohio that's often a difficult charge to bring. You need to catch someone in the act of solicitation of sex for money. Not easy for police to arrest would-be prostitutes merely for being in a area frequented by prostitutes.


    That doesn't mean it was sensible to make a charge for a crime that didn't occur. The police and prosecutor should have made an appropriate charge (if there really was an offense), or dropped the matter - that is their duty.

    -Mark

    Leave a comment:


  • KirkOntario
    replied
    quote:


    If they felt he was "strolling" then they should have charged him with prostitution charges as well.

    Bob S.



    Depending on what criminal code says in Ohio that's often a difficult charge to bring. You need to catch someone in the act of solicitation of sex for money. Not easy for police to arrest would-be prostitutes merely for being in a area frequented by prostitutes.

    Leave a comment:


  • TANZ
    replied
    According to the article,this guy was charged with "Indecent exposure" for baring his breast.
    In my opinion it shouldn't matter if they are "man ****","woman ****",or "tranny ****",baring them shouldn't bring a charge of indecent exposure,it shouldn't end up putting you in front of a judge.
    If he WAS trying to drum up some business,though there is no suggestion of this,he should have been charged with that,not the fact he bared his chest.His dress or undress should not be an issue.
    To bring up an old beaten horse,the same thing happened when Janet Jackson flashed her breast,everyone,including some on this site,attacked her for it,losing sight of the fact,that if the breast was not thought of as offensive there would not have been an issue.
    The same(going by the article,and the charge),would seem to apply in this case.
    The issue is not why,or how his breasts were exposed,but why a bare breast is indecent or offensive.

    Naturally Kiwi

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob S.
    replied
    "Cops dont know all laws though and some are rather vague about what is legal and what isnt."

    Mike, after finding out that a person they were arresting for indecent exposure for being topless was a man, the police should have just dropped the arrest. After all, they do know that men can go topless anywhere in public.

    "My guess is this guy is a pre-op transexual who was exposing his breasts for a sexual purpose."

    And yet, this is not in the report as reported by the media, Kirk. But again, he is a male and nowhere in this country can removing a male's shirt be comsidered indecent exposure. In the case that made it legal for women, the exposure was not "innocent" either. It was during a "lingerie fashion show" in a nightclub. Sounds fairly sexual to me.

    If they felt he was "strolling" then they should have charged him with prostitution charges as well.

    Bob S.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Doug,

    I had never seen breasts that large on a boy before, and I haven't since--except exceptionally large boys, but he was slender. They came to a point.

    Leave a comment:


  • KirkOntario
    replied
    quote:
    Originally posted by TANZ:
    Isn't this a naturist forum?
    Shouldn't we be condemning the fact that ANYONE be arrested and charged for going topfree,not attacking the victim and accussing him of being a transvestite and baring his "breasts" for "sexual" reasons.
    That is the exact argument that is used against us as nudists.
    Even a cop must know that a man without a shirt is not illegal.

    Naturally Kiwi


    The article merely raises the question. If he has female breasts and is exposing them for a sexual purpose (in Ontario we have had female strippers outside strip clubs flashing cars in order to attract clients; we have also had prostitutes doing the same) I do not support that sort of behaviour nor does it help naturism.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X