Cops like to claim that they HAVE to use a SWAT team sometimes because, say, it's really dangerous to serve a warrant in a no-knock style raid that more or less simulates a break-in.* Someone could have a gun!
I'm assuming they didn't use that excuse when they brought two SWAT teams to arrest some naked people.
Bonus points for threatening streakers with the sex offender list.
*So don't do it that way, CC says, but nobody listens to my advice on these things.
When I read that article, I shook my head in wonder that the police were using the million-pound hammer of "sex offender" on streakers. Somehow I missed the part about the SWAT team. Jumping Jeebus!
The observation which sticks in my craw is that, for nudity to be "indecent exposure" it would have to be "likely to affront or alarm the other person."
Now, if everyone knows when and where Boulder's Naked Pumpkin Run is going to be, doesn't it make it hard to "affront or alarm" others? If you don't want to see people's genitals, then all you have to do is avoid the event.
Sure, that point is debatable, but one thing is not: When you're naked, you're unarmed.
Unless you consider hollowed-out pumpkins to be as dangerous as guns...
((((When you're naked, you're unarmed.))))
Yeah, that was my point.
"When you're naked you're unarmed."
Not if your lethal weapon's your mind. I think those Boulder police knew just what they were doing.
The best line in the article for me was, "A throng of naked people with jack-o-lanterns on their heads is, by definition, an alarming sight, Chief Beckner says. Therefore, it's illegal."
"Not if your lethal weapon's your mind."
Sounds like you're taking The Men Who Stare At Goats a tad bit too seriously
Post a Comment