Elements of Exposure, Indecent and Otherwise

[taipei personality]

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV.

In US common law there is the concept of mens rea (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea ) that states that a person much possess some degree of a guilty mind, as defined by a jury of his or her peers, in order to be guilty of an offense. Were I on the jury, none of the scenarios described would rise to the level of mens rea.

[Shay]

If a woman flashing a bit of breast while feeding her child is not indecent exposure, I don't see why the sight of a willy that was clearly an accident would make people run and scream bloody murder.

I think the story about the parade has the right of it- as long as cop doesn't think you're doing it on purpose or to make people uncomfortable, you're in the clear. I hate to say it, but here in America we've heard so many jokes and seen so many scenarios where a men goes off kilter from a breeze, it would be about the same shock value as seeing a man in a kilt in the first place. Maybe less so- we're prepared to see the blue ribbon winner under the kilt, it's the kilt that's the surprise in the first place!

[Freedomlover]

Maybe less so- we're prepared to see the blue ribbon winner under the kilt, it's the kilt that's the surprise in the first place!

Very perceptive, and, I think, right on.

[Freedomlover]

Doc Hudon said:

Yes, I am an Unreconstructed Confederate, and a Southern Nationalist. And mark my words folks, the South is not "Gonna rise agin." The South IS Rising! Now!

And I agree. My given names are Robert (for general Lee) and Thomas (for General Jackson). It may seem like a quaint conceit to some folks, but anyone who pays attention to the Federal monster will not see it that way.

[KMacT]

I am not an attorney...In US common law there is the concept of mens rea (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea ) that states that a person much possess some degree of a guilty mind, as defined by a jury of his or her peers, in order to be guilty of an offense. Were I on the jury, none of the scenarios described would rise to the level of mens rea.

I am an attorney, and I'd just like to jump in to say that while all this discussion is fine (perfectly fine), please don't *rely* on any of it. It's just the opinions expressed by relative strangers who may or may not know what they are talking about, or may or may not be fully explaining everything that they do know. Grain of salt and all. For example, one can be convicted of a crime in Canada and many many countries without ever facing a jury (I don't know of the United States, but I think there is a jury trial by right). And the whole concept of means rea is primarily a product of the criminal law. It's possible that one could be charged with an offence that is not "criminal" in nature but still face significant penalties.

As I just said in another post, this is free advice, and worth every penny!

Kevin

[GatorUK]

As I see it there are 3 options:
1. Don't worry about it and go regimental. (My option)
2. Remember mom's admonition to always wear clean skivvies in case of an accident.
3. Wear pants.

[ZelieMike]

Or, just avoid states were its really hot, the state police wear very dark sunglasses and cowboy hats, are named "something" Lee, and ask "Just what are ya'll think you wear'n boy?".



ZM

[Doc Hudson]

If I made similar comments about a Northeastern State, or another country, folks would get on my back about bigotry.

This is another great examle of people of people finding it acceptable to make fun of Southern states.

[bubba]

Aw Doc, don't worry about it. They call us in Wisconsin cheeseheads for cripes sake. ;)

[Streetcar]

Doc, I took the liberty of checking the laws of Mississippi:

§ 97-29-31. Indecent exposure.

A person who wilfully and lewdly exposes his person, or private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present, or procures another to so expose himself, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) or be imprisoned not exceeding six (6) months, or both.

Again, the exposure must be wilfull and lewd. Accidents are accidents.

I used to patrol an area that had visible cross-dressing segment. I have stopped men who were wearing very short skirts with nothing underneath. When they were walking down the sidewalk making accidental exposures, I'd give them a friendly but firm warning and they'd be on their way.

I've also stopped men who were "hanging around" groups of young children at a wading pool who had their genitals "accidentally" hanging out the leg of their shorts. Needles to say, they didn't get a "friendly warning."

The point I'm trying to make is it can be very situational. I REALLY don't think the average kilt wearer has to worry about prosecution because of a stray breeze.