Sun-bathing senior pleads not guilty to lewdness

[DocM]

Mormon houses of worship aren't called churches, they're temples. This is likely a different denomination as I would assume local Utah media would know the difference.

[Hum]

Mormon houses of worship aren't called churches, they're temples. This is likely a different denomination as I would assume local Utah media would know the difference.

Odd -- around here they go by the name of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

 

The missionaries invite you to church.

 

The main Salt Lake City and DC buildings are the temples [more accurately, Tabernacle], where they perform the higher rituals.

[Rippleman]

Again, you're playing the "what if" game, and it's just not relevant.  The guy in question wasn't having sex or touching himself, he was just sunbathing.  You're attempting to foster false outrage by making it appear as if his "crime" were significantly worse than it is.

 

this question was "specifically" about a certain question and most defiantly was a question about "what if". It was NOT about his "crime", it was a question about a private action (sex) being done in public view.

[SierraSonic]

honestly you would be ok with your kids watching your next door neighbor having sex in his backyard?... you are one weird dude. Adults could turn away, kids would look.

They will get bored of it, and move on, it's certain adults that have trouble moving on.

[adrynalyne]

They will get bored of it, and move on, it's certain adults that have trouble moving on.

Everyone telling others to move on, cut it out.

 

If you break a law, expect consequences.  

 

 

I live in AZ and it falls under indecent exposure:

 

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01402.htm

 

A. A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

 

 

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_09_070200.htm

 

76-9-702.   Lewdness.

 

            (1) A person is guilty of lewdness if the person under circumstances not amounting to rape, object rape, forcible sodomy, forcible sexual abuse, aggravated sexual assault, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses, performs any of the following acts in a public place or under circumstances which the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm to, on, or in the presence of another who is 14 years of age or older:

            (a) an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;

            (b) exposes his or her genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola, the buttocks, the anus, or the pubic area;

            © masturbates; or

            (d) any other act of lewdness.

 

 

 

It is against the law, period.  Why are we even having this discussion?  Notice the law does not require it to be in a public area?

Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from following it.

[SierraSonic]

Everyone telling others to move on, cut it out.

 

If you break a law, expect consequences.  

 

 

I live in AZ and it falls under indecent exposure:

 

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01402.htm

 

A. A person commits indecent exposure if he or she exposes his or her genitals or anus or she exposes the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts and another person is present, and the defendant is reckless about whether the other person, as a reasonable person, would be offended or alarmed by the act.

 

 

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_09_070200.htm

 

76-9-702.   Lewdness.

 

            (1) A person is guilty of lewdness if the person under circumstances not amounting to rape, object rape, forcible sodomy, forcible sexual abuse, aggravated sexual assault, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses, performs any of the following acts in a public place or under circumstances which the person should know will likely cause affront or alarm to, on, or in the presence of another who is 14 years of age or older:

            (a) an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy;

            (b) exposes his or her genitals, the female breast below the top of the areola, the buttocks, the anus, or the pubic area;

            © masturbates; or

            (d) any other act of lewdness.

 

 

 

It is against the law, period.  Why are we even having this discussion?  Notice the law does not require it to be in a public area?

Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from following it.

Check out every post I made and learn to read, every time I have stated there will be legal consequences. I just don't agree with them. So let people who actually don't care about something so trivial move on. I'm not telling people to move on, I am saying that most people would instead of making it a problem. Learn to read, then learn to comprehend what you read.

[adrynalyne]

Check out every post I made and learn to read, every time I have stated there will be legal consequences. I just don't agree with them. So let people who actually don't care about something so trivial move on. I'm not telling people to move on, I am saying that most people would instead of making it a problem. Learn to read, then learn to comprehend what you read.

 You don't have to agree with the law, only obey it (or not if you are prepared for consequences).  Moving on doesn't make it go away or the consequences less real.  People have been trying to tell you that it is illegal and you have this attitude of I don't agree, so its a non-issue.  That is a load of crap.

 

Thee is nothing natural about it in a society that views it as unnatural.  Pooping on the ground in front of everyone is "natural" too, but don't expect ANY public support.  What is natural to a society != what is natural to a human body.  The law is for the prior, and you are arguing for the latter, making it irrelevant.

[SierraSonic]

 You don't have to agree with the law, only obey it (or not if you are prepared for consequences).  Moving on doesn't make it go away or the consequences less real.  People have been trying to tell you that it is illegal and you have this attitude of I don't agree, so its a non-issue.  That is a load of crap.

 

Thee is nothing natural about it in a society that views it as unnatural.  Pooping on the ground in front of everyone is "natural" too, but don't expect ANY public support.  What is natural to a society != what is natural to a human body.  The law is for the prior, and you are arguing for the latter, making it irrelevant.

He is the one with the consequences, not me. He chose to weigh the risk vs the reward and will be punished for it. A lot of people do not find it to be an issue, but those that do are obviously going to be vocal about it, I'm vocal against it. Tough.

 

The problem with pooping in public is that someone has to clean it up as it is a biological hazard proven by science. Nudity on the other hand is seen every day by everyone. So it really shouldn't be traumatizing or bad for your health. I'm sorry that you disagree with me, but plenty also disagree with you.

 

I've agreed to your point, the man will get in trouble and have to face the consequences of his actions due to the public deciding he should as per written by law. I'm sorry that you have a problem with me not having a problem with what this man has done. To me, this is only an issue because people made it one, not because it is one.

 

Most people will just move on after seeing someone do this, others will combat it because it offends them that much. My argument is that I'm not arguing, just answering peoples questions.

[Noir Angel]

Gotta love prudish idiocy.

[FloatingFatMan]

It is against the law, period.  Why are we even having this discussion?  Notice the law does not require it to be in a public area?

Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from following it.

 

I don't have a problem with it being against the law, I just have a problem with certain people trying to make his crime seem even worse by bringing in ridiculous "what if" scenarios.

[Rippleman]

I don't have a problem with it being against the law, I just have a problem with certain people trying to make his crime seem even worse by bringing in ridiculous "what if" scenarios.

 

I am surprised that you don't get the "what-if" comparisons. I am seeing the broader implications of cause and effect. Oh well, play on.

[FloatingFatMan]

I am surprised that you don't get the "what-if" comparisons. I am seeing the broader implications of cause and effect. Oh well, play on.

 

Oh, I get what you're trying to do, I just think it's complete BS.

 

Try the guy for what he did, not for what he might have done.

[adrynalyne]

Oh, I get what you're trying to do, I just think it's complete BS.

 

Try the guy for what he did, not for what he might have done.

They all fall under the same law anyway.