Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
Court reverses ruling that women can't be charged with indecent exposure
Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2007-09-11 13:45
From Marc A.:
On August 28, 2007, the Appellate Division of the County of Riverside in California reversed the sexist decision of Judge Robert W. Armstrong that held the crime of indecent exposure only applies to men and not women. The case is People v. Alexis Luz Garcia, Riverside Appellate Case Number APP004054.
The defendant, an adult female, was charged with indecent exposure (Penal Code ยง 314(1)) after she allegedly unclothed in front of a boy because the boy continued playing basketball when she told him to stop. Judge Armstrong said the conduct may have been 'very silly and illegal' but that it did not warrant having to register as a sex offender. He also held that indecent exposure cannot apply to women because the statute says 'exposes his person.' On that basis, the trial court dismissed the case. The appellate division reversed, holding there is no logical reason why a woman cannot commit indecent exposure, and citing numerous authorities interpreting the statute to be gender-inclusive despite the word 'his.'
If an adult man unclothed in front of a young girl for playing basketball, anti-male sexist Judge Robert W. Armstrong would not call it "silly" and say the mane does not deserve to have to register as a sex offender. Sexist judge Robert W. Armstrong should be disbarred for his obvious misandry.
--
Ed. note: Link to the ruling on-line is not yet available (or at least I couldn't find one), so it isn't included here. If you find it, please post it.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Outraging
Here is a link about this case:
Judge drops indecent exposure charge against woman
"The victim's father asked me how he was supposed to teach his son about right and wrong after this," Norton said. "That just broke my heart."
If a 40-yo man got naked in front of 14-yo girl - he would be probably accused in a rape attempt.
----------------------------------------------------
Two pillars of the World of the Future:
Asexuality
Artificial Reproduction
"What freedom men and women could have, were they not constantly tricked and trapped and enslaved and tortured by their sexuality."
J. Steinbeck.
lazing in the nude day sun
I believe that she was trying to intimidate the boy and would possibly have phoned the cops to make a more serious complaint had it not been for the parents nipping it in the bud.This is not apt behaviour for an adult of either sex and the police really have to be mindreaders
to take the correct action.However if it had been the other way around there would have been no second thoughts.
What an idiot!
That judge should be reprimanded (understatement of the year) for this ruling! Sure the law said "his" but the SPIRIT of the law is there. No naked people in public! How hard of a concept can that be?
PS. Yes captcha, I did type tvdiv
So what does this mean?
Does this mean that the pedophile flasher will be punished? Or will there be another rush to condemn the male involved?
http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com - Old, phased out due to Google's policies. Archives here.
http://petepatriarch.wordpress.com - Current.
I say it is good...
...that the ruling has been reversed. Judge Armstrong's reason for not upholding the law was stupid and childish.
"the most outrageous aspect is the total and i mean TOTAL silence from women. hell, they could care less. makes me sick." ~ donnieboy5
"Feminism: The most organized form of nagging" ~ Peter Zohrab
*E-Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No_Feminazis
America Still Wants To Be a Virgin
This foolish, repressed, pathological country is still so stuck in Puritan sensibilities.... it is beyond tragic.
In almost every civilized country on the planet, women can go to the beach and get naked without fear of being raped, being sued, or being photographed for profit.
No so in Free America.
So, how come every R-rated movie has female nudity; yet you can count the number of films with frontal male nudity on one hand?
And please, keep your hand in full view....
They Should Consider Body Mass Index
Women with high or low BMIs should be charged with indecent exposure while women with normal BMIs should be immune. :)
"Women with high or low BMIs
"Women with high or low BMIs should be charged with indecent exposure while women with normal BMIs should be immune. :)"
WRONG. This is the same kind of thinking that sent the Denver man to jail for telling women they were beautiful. Only because he was not good looking enough was it abuse. A sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender. Bottom line. No double standards. Just justice. (that we do not seem to have enough of these days.)
Bad boys! bad boys! Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
"A sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender. Bottom line. No double standards. Just justice. (that we do not seem to have enough of these days.)"
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever seen an MRA type.
By your logic that Denver guy who went to jail for telling women they were beautiful is the same as a child abducting, raping and killing pedophile?
Is it kill 'em all and let God sort it out that you are seeking?
What happens when a woman falsely cries rape or sexual harassment against you and your very own thinking is used to lock you up for decades? Or even worse, some kid you met 15 years ago, but since the Statute of Limitations clock does not start until the victim turns 18 in most States you are asked to defend your self against a claim that is so old you may not even remember the person making it or they may be completely mistaken about every detail. Can you come up with an alibi for 365 days of a year 15 years ago? No? Then you'd better change your thinking that a sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender because when they start hangin' em all your head could as easily be in the noose as an actual child killers.
no no no,
misunderstanding here. I am talking about the double standard that the man goes to jail for nothing more than telling a woman she is beautiful while the 40 year old woman gets sent on her way from court after exposing herself to a young boy. Not that it is the same as a baby killer. I am sorry if that was the way it came across.
Then be more carefull about what you say
There are more then enough moronic MRAs out there who whale like an infant who's been kept up past nap time about men being 'the disposable sex' yet, their solution to said problem is not making no sex disposable, but they want absolutely to maintain mens current status of disposability, they just want women to be disposable as well.
Those are the MRA version of feminists if you ask me. They don't want to make things better for men, just make things just as bad for women.
Even by saying things like "a sex offender is a sex offender is a sex offender" you are lending credibility to this group of morons and reinforcing the fear in the general public that has seen sex offenses elevated to a higher status crime then first degree murder.
We should devote energy to fighting this defective line of thinking rather then contributing to it - no matter the context.
Sorry you feel that way
But all I am saying when I say that is that there should be no difference between a woman exposing herself to a young boy/girl over a man exposing himself to a young boy/girl. I am not saying that the punishment fits the crime for either sex. But focusing on the punishment is like treating the symptoms of an illness so my focus is not on that. For me the focus is on why people (both men and women) do this in the first place. I would not want ANYONE, man or woman, to expose themselves to any child who is just playing basketball for example. Man or woman this is wrong. And further more I think it is far more unjust for them to let this lady go on the simple fact that she is a woman. That is what I was getting at with that statement. I can see where you are coming from with how my statement came across. I hope that I can make it clear over all that I agree that the current situation of media lynching and anti-male hysteria in our culture is by no means ok or right. But I still hold true to my statement that an adult exposing themselves to a child is not ok, man or woman. (woman in this case.) I am sorry you feel so strongly against my views that you must revert to using names such as moronic.
Nudity Does Not Necessarily Equal Sex...
...and it's a shame that so many can't think of the former without thinking of the latter.
That said, the rule, whatever it is, should be the same for everybody across the board, male or female, no matter what people might look like.