Elements of Exposure, Indecent and Otherwise

[Archangel]

In a general way, the fact that you've discussed it, and referred to it here, takes away your defence of accident. I'm no expert, just taken a few law courses at university level and elsewhere. That's the hidden information when we read about liability settlements. For example; the case with the McDonald's hot coffee and the lady brought about a lot of laughs. What the comedians and most of the press did not bring out was that, not only did McDonalds serve coffee hotter than coffee specialty places and she suffered third degree burns, but hers was the umpteenth similar accident (I forget the actual number). The ruling was based on McDonald's proven awareness and their not doing anything about it. Ford's SUV settlement was lost based on a similar argument.
Probably, best to go with your wife's point of view (how big a gun does she carry? joke)

Related to this, in Canada, a recent ruling decided that if it was in your house but visible to outside, you're still in the clear. (Before there's too much flak about this, I can see the judges' general ruling on this but disagree intently with the decision on the specific incident.)

[Streetcar]

The law in the State of Washington:

"A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure."

The key phrases here are "intentionally," "Knowing" and "cause reasonable affront or alarm."

Let me present two possible scenarios:

1. While walking down a public street, a stray gust of wind blows a man's kilt, briefly revealing Scotland's Pride to any who happen to be looking at his crotch at that exact second.

2. While standing in a playground, supervising a dozen or so 9-year-old girl scouts on the joys of kite flying, a stray gust of wind blow a man's kilt, revealing the same.

In both scenarios there was no "intent" to make an "open and obscene exposure." However in the second scenario, it is reasonable to assume that such and exposure would be possible - even likely.

In the first scenario, there may be "affront or alarm," but not necessarily an "unreasonable" amount.

In the second scenario it is likely that the incident would cause a VERY unreasonable amount of "affront or alarm." In fact, though the kilt wearer did not directly expose himself by his own actions, a "reasonable person" would expect that an exposure in that circumstance is likely and exceptionally alarming to those who witness the exposure.

Laws vary by jurisdiction, but I would expect something similar on most books.

The bottom line is common sense. If it's a legitimate accident, it's not a problem. If it's an accident where you really should have known better, it might be an issue.

[taipei personality]

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV.

In US common law there is the concept of mens rea (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea ) that states that a person much possess some degree of a guilty mind, as defined by a jury of his or her peers, in order to be guilty of an offense. Were I on the jury, none of the scenarios described would rise to the level of mens rea.

[Shay]

If a woman flashing a bit of breast while feeding her child is not indecent exposure, I don't see why the sight of a willy that was clearly an accident would make people run and scream bloody murder.

I think the story about the parade has the right of it- as long as cop doesn't think you're doing it on purpose or to make people uncomfortable, you're in the clear. I hate to say it, but here in America we've heard so many jokes and seen so many scenarios where a men goes off kilter from a breeze, it would be about the same shock value as seeing a man in a kilt in the first place. Maybe less so- we're prepared to see the blue ribbon winner under the kilt, it's the kilt that's the surprise in the first place!

[Freedomlover]

Maybe less so- we're prepared to see the blue ribbon winner under the kilt, it's the kilt that's the surprise in the first place!

Very perceptive, and, I think, right on.

[Freedomlover]

Doc Hudon said:

Yes, I am an Unreconstructed Confederate, and a Southern Nationalist. And mark my words folks, the South is not "Gonna rise agin." The South IS Rising! Now!

And I agree. My given names are Robert (for general Lee) and Thomas (for General Jackson). It may seem like a quaint conceit to some folks, but anyone who pays attention to the Federal monster will not see it that way.

[KMacT]

I am not an attorney...In US common law there is the concept of mens rea (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea ) that states that a person much possess some degree of a guilty mind, as defined by a jury of his or her peers, in order to be guilty of an offense. Were I on the jury, none of the scenarios described would rise to the level of mens rea.

I am an attorney, and I'd just like to jump in to say that while all this discussion is fine (perfectly fine), please don't *rely* on any of it. It's just the opinions expressed by relative strangers who may or may not know what they are talking about, or may or may not be fully explaining everything that they do know. Grain of salt and all. For example, one can be convicted of a crime in Canada and many many countries without ever facing a jury (I don't know of the United States, but I think there is a jury trial by right). And the whole concept of means rea is primarily a product of the criminal law. It's possible that one could be charged with an offence that is not "criminal" in nature but still face significant penalties.

As I just said in another post, this is free advice, and worth every penny!

Kevin

[GatorUK]

As I see it there are 3 options:
1. Don't worry about it and go regimental. (My option)
2. Remember mom's admonition to always wear clean skivvies in case of an accident.
3. Wear pants.

[ZelieMike]

Or, just avoid states were its really hot, the state police wear very dark sunglasses and cowboy hats, are named "something" Lee, and ask "Just what are ya'll think you wear'n boy?".



ZM

[Doc Hudson]

If I made similar comments about a Northeastern State, or another country, folks would get on my back about bigotry.

This is another great examle of people of people finding it acceptable to make fun of Southern states.