Does California have such a law in the books?
2006-12-01 13:13:25 · 16 answers · asked by llexpat 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I'm not going to discuss religion, theology or the Bible, as I have categorized the question under LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I thought that all 50 states carried laws against indecent exposure (which is a LEGAL definition of exposing your private parts).
Guys are busted every day for urinating in the streets, when they don't mean to expose themselves, but rather acting on a desperate measure after unsuccessfully trying to find a bathroom.
Why should Britney be spared a judgment when her offense is worse than any of the guys' in such a situation.
2006-12-01 13:24:04 · update #1
No offense, but for those who say that she didn't intentionally expose herself, obviously have rocks where their brain is suppose to be.
Don't tell me that you don't intend to expose yourself when you choose not to wear panties, but choose to wear a short dress.
2006-12-02 10:29:20 · update #2
double standard, duh, if it were a guy he would be a sex-offender for lewdly exposing himself to others.
2006-12-01 13:22:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
First off, I am by no means a Britney Spears fan. I think she is just one shining example of how society is in a very sharp decline.
Having said that, she did nothing illegal. To be charged with indecent exposure, the person must "willfully and intentionally" expose themselves in a public place.
The matter of intent is the important thing. By not wearing underwear, that does not show intent to publicly expose herself. But in your example of a man peeing in the street, that's a big difference. You say that he's not trying to expose himself, but that's not true. The reason he is trying to expose himself is to pee, not flash anyone, but the effect is still the same. He willfully removed all clothing and materials between his genitals and the public, for whatever reason.
There's the difference. Like it or not, that's the reason why she has not been charged with anything.
2006-12-02 00:54:22 · answer #2 · answered by RJ 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is the law in California from California Penal Code Section 314:
Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:
1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby;
2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person to expose himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
2006-12-01 21:58:11 · answer #3 · answered by Pablo Rueben 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because she didnt purposefully expose herself. Some nasty pervert camara person thought theyd be cute. Dont be surprized if the camara man is brought up on charges though.
2006-12-02 00:52:37 · answer #4 · answered by SittinPretty! 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably because "some" people think she's some kind of special person, and those laws don't apply to her! I personally think that's B.S.! But then, there's a lot out there I think is B.S.
One day she'll wake up and realize her sh-t truely does stink, and she'll go into some sort of shock, and a week later she'll buy the paper who wrote about it...hahaha!
2006-12-01 23:34:53 · answer #5 · answered by Republican!!! 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ok, the primal male instinct in me says...............WHO CARES AND THANKS. The better more logical and feeling side of me feels sorry for her, ashamed of the person who would photograph and sell such a picture and most of all I don't believe there was anything illlegal about that ANYWHERE! She goes commando apparently and someone took advantage of the situation. That is what is shameful.
2006-12-01 22:43:19 · answer #6 · answered by Leigh P 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If You do not look up her dress there is nothing to see. If you do then you should not be scared of what you see. Her body is covered and only sicko photographers focus on private parts.
2006-12-01 21:19:54 · answer #7 · answered by old codger 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I guess it depends on their version of indecent. Some might say it is pretty darn decent. LOL
2006-12-01 21:17:08 · answer #8 · answered by DR 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are right she should be charged with indecent exposure. I guess some people call that "entertainment." They must be hard up for entertainment. I think it is weird that she calls her perfume "curious" instead of "odd."
2006-12-01 21:27:02 · answer #9 · answered by papricka w 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Saw that. Unimpressed...looked pretty indecent to me, but that's just my opinion...never thought she was all that hot.
2006-12-01 21:24:18 · answer #10 · answered by Rich B 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Indecent would be Serena Williams nude. I would run from that exposure. Her butt is as big as a Mack truck.
2006-12-02 12:05:49 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋