How is this indecent exposure?

[Liberal_in_LA]

seems like he was just trying to do some harmless ritual. No one there. He had no intention of being seen. Charge seems harsh.


-----------------
Security camera snaps naked man in Miss. cemetery

Associated Press December 13, 2010 12:12 PM

A man caught naked in a south Mississippi church cemetery says he was trying to take photographs of spirits. Robert Hurst told The Picayune Item newspaper that he shed his clothes because he believes skin is the best canvas to show spirits' orbs of energy.

The 47-year-old said he only intended to remove his shirt, but he took off all his clothes — a move he now calls "stupid."

Authorities had set up a motion-activated camera to try to catch vandals. Shane Tucker, the chief deputy in Pearl River County, said Hurst was not accused of vandalism, but the camera caught an unexpected image of Hurst naked.

Hurst faces a misdemeanor charge of indecent exposure. He posted $500 bond after turning himself in Friday.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/12/13/national/a120632S93.DTL#ixzz18KY8pLeM

[AlabamaLibrul]

1. So because a church is employing surveillance...

it's "indecent exposure" when a guy does some goofy... thing?

[Riftaxe]

16. I think it has more with his stripping buck naked

in a public place. Pretty sure the statute does not address goofy, but if you have any more need for the obvious being pointed out to you, please PM me.

[villager]

2. uh, who are these benighted authorities accusing him of exposing himself *to?*

:shrug:

[Motown_Johnny]

4. the spirits he was trying to photograph? maybe???

Hey, ya know that the second coming is at hand don't ya? The dead could be risen from their graves at any moment. How would you like to come back to life and be greeted with some guy's junk hanging out?




:sarcasm:

[Riftaxe]

17. Perhaps the people who have to review the surveillance

tapes?

[Motown_Johnny]

3. I tend to agree, but.....

you do need to draw a line somewhere. He could have worn a pair of shorts and it would have all been fine.


With any luck he will receive a very light fine and maybe some probation for punishment.

[msanthrope]

5. Only those completely unfamiliar with the criminal element believe this dude.

Seriously.

I've defended more jackasses than I want to count who somehow end up naked in cemeteries, taking pictures.

No, really.

You really don't want to think about these cases too hard.

[MrModerate]

8. Jebus, maybe you should consider another line of work! n/t

[SidDithers]

15. Posts are like this are why you're one of my favourite DU'ers...

Seriously. :toast:

Sid

[msanthrope]

19. Thank you...I think, right?

I'm drinking some serious gin tonight....

[pacalo]

33. Well, then...you're forgiven.

:rofl:

No, seriously, I enjoyed going back & forth with you. :)

[Stevenmarc]

6. No Shirt.... No Shoes... No Spirits

[Riftaxe]

26. +1 Although it would not be the first time

spirits have led to no shoes and no shirt...especially the high proof stuff :)

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Sounds like Pearl River County is in dire need of a nightclub or a casino.

People really ought to have better things to do with their time than fuck around at a cemetery.

[MrModerate]

9. I thought that in misdemeanor, the cops were allowed to exercise . . .

I don't know . . . discretion? Judgment?

I guess not. The "spirits" must have made them charge this guy.

[pacalo]

10. The video could help him show that there was no one else in the cemetary who would have

seen him expose himself. Unless there were signs posted in regard to video surveillance, the fact that he was seen on tape in his birthday suit should be regarded as nothing more than a WTH, humorous moment if no one else was present in the cemetary.

[Riftaxe]

27. So presumably people who review video tapes

are what in your opinion, 3/5ths of a human being? Is it what they do to earn a paycheck that makes them subhuman, or just all lower paid people?

[pacalo]

30. People who get paid to review surveillance videos must surely be prepared to see

weird stuff.

Quite a gift for spin you've got there. :crazy:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. The criminal act of indecent exposure would require him to know he had an audience.

If the cameras were hidden and no one else was around, there would be no criminal intent.

Perhaps the camera attendants have a civil case where the burden of proof is much easier to meet.

[msanthrope]

11. Does no one here defending this jerk ken that he is a necrophiliac?????

Seriously, people----

they charged indecent exposure to both save this asswipe some embarrassment, and because they don't want the witnesses to have to testify that they saw this creep yanking one out over the gravestones....

People, please.

You don't put up cameras in a cemetery for 'vandalism.'

You put them up because someone's jerking off over the gravestones...and people are finding the evidence.

Trust me on this.....

[pipi_k]

12. Maybe I'm wrong, but...

doesn't necrophilia involve actual sex with actual dead people?


As opposed to merely whacking the weasel over the gravestones, I mean...

and even that, as sick as it looks, probably might not be vandalism if nothing gets destroyed, right? Disrespectful, but not really any damage done...

[msanthrope]

13. No.

The disorder involves a whole host of behaviors that involve the dead. It escalates.

No damage done?

Imagine going to lay flowers at your kid's grave and finding, well, fluids?

Trust me. Damage is done.

[pipi_k]

22. Well, I've looked it up and...

all I can find is that it specifically involves sex with a corpse.


But as far as the rest of this goes, you are accusing him of doing something nobody has proof of.

The article doesn't say he was caught masturbating on gravestones. He was caught removing his clothing. That's it. Why assume he's a necrophiliac just because he removed his clothing in a cemetery?

If someone removes his clothing in some strange ritual in a department store, does that mean he's into sex with mannequins? Or camping equipment?

If someone removes his clothing in a barn, that means he's into bestiality?

I don't think it's fair to jump to a conclusion here, especially without a shred of proof as to what his intentions were.

[pacalo]

14. "You people..."

:rofl:

No, seriously, if the man were doing what you think he had been doing, I think the police report would have described just that.

[msanthrope]

18. Nope--

'cause then the locals in So. Miss. would have wanted to know which grave he was yanking it out over....

The police report gives the asswipe some cover, the witnesses some cover, and keeps actual people out of it.

[pipi_k]

24. I knew it...

It's all this huge government plot to protect cemetery wankers...


:tinfoilhat:

[pacalo]

29. Police report what the facts are & allow the chips to fall where they may.

It would defend their course of action if there ever were a complaint against them in the future by anyone involved in the incident.

[TransitJohn]

32. That is the most naive thing I've read all day.

n/t

[pacalo]

34. Yes, I went back & forth on that "report the facts" thingy, but then I realized

cops will stick out their necks to cover up something only if it involves bribes or their own crimes.

"Gravely exposure" in a cemetary would be small potatoes, so "report the facts" it is.

[Canuckistanian]

23. The usual tool of a necrophiliac is a shovel

I don't think wanking over a gravestone is a satisfactory substitute...

[pipi_k]

25. Well hell...

Maybe the guy thought digging up the dead body was too much work and he was hoping to lure ghosties and spirits for his wanking pleasure....

[Canuckistanian]

28. That's a possibility

But necrophiliacs are usually a "hands on" bunch. That's why it's a felony in most places.

[Liberal_in_LA]

35. ewwwww!

:puke:

[Toucano]

20. He's photographing spirits. Indecent exposure is the least of my worries.

I doubt naked cemetery frolics are frequent enough to warrant much concern.

[Canuckistanian]

21. I usually keep my "orbs of energy" covered

You never know when they need protection from the cold.

[Liberal_in_LA]

36. lol n/t