Quote Originally Posted by Shay
Hmmm... isn't one part of the other?
I shouldn't do this kind of thing but it's the sheepdog thing. Deconstruct the whole charge. Do we need to know the person is a transient? No, but what image does that create? The answer is a slavering exhibitionist, therefore book'im, Dano.
Critically, a transient with a kilt could be a Scottish tourist, and if he's from Glasgow, well, he's being normal (sorry, that sounds bad but it's not too far off).
Do we need to know that he faced two females? No but if it said facing (that's not what he's charged with) two people, you might assume two men and think so what? Females, yeah, book'im.
For forensic reasons, if they are asked how did they know he was urinating and not writing on the wall with a water bottle, they confirm a penis was seen. It also reminds the reader that he was a male and women were involved.
Now you get a double whammy, all sorts of body parts and power stances. Book'im.
Early in the morning and on Sunday, too. Well, that's a pretty picture, I must say (where's that quote from?). Book'im.

My question, Scottish in a kilt, in Arizona, suggests some money or legitimate story, did he mouth off to the polis?

Read the story my way: Scottish tourist arrested for urinating on wall after bars close Saturday night. He was interrupted by two people and returned a traditional Scottish response which lead to police being called in. The Scot was inebriated and did not co-operate with the police.

Of course, this is completely made up but if it was the after effects of the parties in the various kilt-lifting threads, what was the big deal. The press may have been written in such a way to direct the readers' response to agreeing with the outrage of this man's actions.