Post Left Wing looniness here

Mr D
I just did not know public indecency required complete exposure of genitals.
I was asking if that same ahole had exposed himself to the 17 yo in public could he ve arrested?
 
Horn6721 said:
Mr D
I just did not know public indecency required complete exposure of genitals.
I was asking if that same ahole had exposed himself to the 17 yo in public could he ve arrested?
Click to expand...

Again, the standard of exposure is the same regardless of age.

I don't think it requires the complete exposure. If you just pulled one ball out the bottom of your shorts and showed it off to a bunch of 15 year old girls or adult women, you could still get into trouble. However, there would have to be at least some exposure of the anus or genitals.
 
And on this Plainview story, people need to understand something. The fact that there was a sex act in a first grade class is disturbing. The fact that a teacher either knew about it and did nothing or was so checked out that she didn't know about it is disturbing. But those facts aren't what should really horrify people. What should really horrify people is that the school's first instinct was to cover its ***. It wanted this kept hidden from the public.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Obviously Garmel is the real authority on stuff like this, but doesn't the judge have a point here? If you can't see it, is it being exposed?
Click to expand...
It is an intent-based offense. He clearly entered the women's area for the purpose of self-gratification.

What I was surprised at was the judge was a DeWine appointee, so presumably Republican.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I completely understand, but let's suppose I'm the trial judge and dealing with the Texas indecent exposure statute. It says, "a person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act."

It refers specifically to the exposure of theanus or genitals, not his hairy fat stomach. It would gross me out and I wouldn't feel good about it, but I'd have to follow the law as it's written and let the guy walk.
Click to expand...
He exposed himself to gratify himself. Hence the 'any person' element would have been met. And, having previously been reported, he was beyond reckless...
 
Mr. Deez said:
And on this Plainview story, people need to understand something. The fact that there was a sex act in a first grade class is disturbing. The fact that a teacher either knew about it and did nothing or was so checked out that she didn't know about it is disturbing. But those facts aren't what should really horrify people. What should really horrify people is that the school's by first instinct was to cover its ***. It wanted this kept hidden from the public.
Click to expand...

But government schools are the biggest employers in rural communities! (that's not aimed at you Deez)
 
mb227 said:
He exposed himself to gratify himself. Hence the 'any person' element would have been met. And, having previously been reported, he was beyond reckless...
Click to expand...

mb227 said:
He exposed himself to gratify himself. Hence the 'any person' element would have been met. And, having previously been reported, he was beyond reckless...
Click to expand...

But that isn't enough. He must expose his anus or any part of his genitals. If he didn't do that, he's not guilty as a matter of law. Again, it's not the result I'd want, but a judge has to follow the law, not what he wants.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
And on this Plainview story, people need to understand something. The fact that there was a sex act in a first grade class is disturbing. The fact that a teacher either knew about it and did nothing or was so checked out that she didn't know about it is disturbing. But those facts aren't what should really horrify people. What should really horrify people is that the school's first instinct was to cover its ***. It wanted this kept hidden from the public.
Click to expand...

And the district acts surprised...

"
Classes have been cancelled for a second day, according to the release. First, Monday’s classes were canceled due to “threats of violence” directed at the school and the recent mass shooting in Allen.

School officials stated they have contacted the Texas Education Agency and the Texas DPS’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division. They stated they have received threats against the school district and its educators from across the nation.

“Once we receive feedback from both entities, we will decide on when classes may continue,” the released said.
"
The district should be closed until arrests are made. It's obviously unsafe for first graders.

Plainview ISD working with local police, FBI after claims of sexual assault of 6-year-old
 
Law professor escorted out of classroom by police. WTF!!!!

E6A37C2D-66D2-4C97-9062-529B2763F482.jpeg
 
Horn6721 said:
That will cost him a pharaoh amount.
Click to expand...

No, it won't. He'll take out student loans for it all. Then he'll set up an income-driven repayment plan (that won't actually reduce the principle) for ten years while working for the university, and the loans will be forgiven under the PSLF Program.
 
Texas House votes to ban medical transition of children. Here's a link to the record vote. It's mostly along party lines but not entirely.

If you want to see what statesmanship looks like, this is it. A very liberal member from Houston voted with the GOP. She explains her rationale here. (Wish other members did this sort of thing.) Why is it statesman-like? Because she is risking her entire career to do the right thing. She is from a solid blue, urban district, where something like this could get her into real trouble. It will attract national, negative attention and almost guarantee her a well-funded primary opponent. Though she's an incumbent, she hasn't been there for that long, so she isn't overly entrenched. She isn't the only Democrat to vote Yes, but most of the others are from redder districts. (When the bill passed the Senate, no Democrats voted Yes.)

 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
Texas House votes to ban medical transition of children. Here's a link to the record vote. It's mostly along party lines but not entirely.

If you want to see what statesmanship looks like, this is it. A very liberal member from Houston voted with the GOP. She explains her rationale here. (Wish other members did this sort of thing.) Why is it statesman-like? Because she is risking her entire career to do the right thing. She is from a solid blue, urban district, where something like this could get her into real trouble. It will attract national, negative attention and almost guarantee her a well-funded primary opponent. Though she's an incumbent, she hasn't been there for that long, so she isn't overly entrenched. She isn't the only Democrat to vote Yes, but most of the others are from redder districts. (When the bill passed the Senate, no Democrats voted Yes.)

Click to expand...


Wow. Monster cojones on that lady.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top