Judge: Exposure Law Is Gender Specific

ABC News ^ | October 20, 2006 | Associated Press

[grjr21]

A judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman accused of disrobing in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law only applies to men. Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said earlier in the week that the law only mentions someone who "exposes his person."

"It's gender specific," Armstrong said.

He dismissed a misdemeanor charge against Alexis Luz Garcia, 40, of Corona, who was cited in May after parents of a neighbor boy said she showed him full-frontal nudity as he played basketball.

Prosecutor Alison N. Norton said the decision to throw out the case will be appealed because another section of state law says that "words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter."

Norton said Garcia had complained that the 14-year-old was making too much noise while playing basketball. She went out on her sundeck.

"He looked up at her, she looked down at him, and she disrobed," Norton contended.

The boy ran inside and told his parents, who complained to Garcia.

"She threatened to do it every time he played basketball," and the parents called police, Norton said.

[Keith in Iowa]

Stupid kid. He could have had a free show every time he shot hoops. But then again, the neighbor probably looked worse than Helen Thomas...

[Wil H]

I'm getting a team together, any takers?

[boomop1]

But did he score?

[n230099]

OK, she shouldn't do it and if she continues legal action should be taken.

Having said that I'm trying to picture me and my buddies in the mid 1950's playing whatever in the neighborhood running scared to Dad if it happened to us. We'd a run it out for a while I'm sure.

[Cicero]

The words "he" or "his" have always been applicable to any person, male or female. Even in these politically correct days, here is what I find at dictionary.com:

he1 pronoun, nominative he, possessive his, objective him; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun, plural hes; adjective

–pronoun 1. the male person or animal being discussed or last mentioned; that male.
2. anyone (without reference to sex); that person: He who hesitates is lost.

If it's true that the law actually goes on to say that the word "he" applies to masculine, feminine, and neuter, then this judge should be impeached.

[capt. norm]

But then again, the neighbor probably looked worse than Helen Thomas...

Worse than Helen Thomas?

Please tell me that that level doesn't really exist (except in science fiction).

But then, again, that is the type that does this sort of thing, except on rare occasions.

[grjr21]

Thats always been my assumption.

I think its just another example of equality in an Orwellian manner

[goldstategop]

Liberal idiot judge. Does that mean streaking is now constitutional?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Political Junkie Too]

Are we now back to defining "is?" or maybe that's (h)is?

-PJ

[supercat]

A judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman accused of disrobing in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law only applies to men. Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said earlier in the week that the law only mentions someone who "exposes his person."

Although certain laws are sex-specific, and have been for millenia (Mosaic Law, for example, specifically defines adultery as the act of a man (married or not) sleeping with another man's wife), the mere use of a masculine pronoun is hardly sufficient to justify a male-only interpretation.

In at least some jurisdictions, the indecent exposure laws define what anatomical areas may or may not be shown. If the law in this jurisdiction only happened to mention male anatomical features, that would be basis for applying it to men only; if it mentioned male and female features, that would prove it was unambiguously meant to apply to men and women. If it says nothing about particular features, then the issue to be resolved would be exactly what features qualify and whether they were exposed. If the women were topless but covered below the waist, this could be a legitimate area for some argument. After all, while men's and women's chests tend to develop differently, they are qualitatively the same. Indeed, some men have bigger breasts than some women. Most likely, though, the judge was just out to lunch.

[zbigreddogz]

You know...I'm not condoning her actions necessarily, but do we really need to run to the courts everytime something like this happens?

[capt. norm]

If it's true that the law actually goes on to say that the word "he" applies to masculine, feminine, and neuter, then this judge should be impeached.

I also thought gender-specific laws were politically incorrect.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Most likely, though, the judge was just out to lunch.

More likely the judge is going to take up shooting hoops.

[Night Hides Not]

You know...I'm not condoning her actions necessarily, but do we really need to run to the courts everytime something like this happens?

LOL!!! Which court are you referring to? Judicial or basketball?

[grjr21]

I think this involves a criminal and not civil courts.

Though if this happened to me when I was 14 I'm sure it would have involved hardwood ;)

[zbigreddogz]

lol. Judicial.

But anyhow...yah, just not sure it's necessary.

[marsh_of_mists]

Ridiculous! Especially since the law specifies that "his" is gender neutral. That judge isn't even trying to hide "his" activism anymore!

[jwparkerjr]

If I still worked in the news photo department of a major daily newspaper it would have befallen me to try to get a picture of this criminal. Since she was apparently arrested for her show there could well be a booking photo or mug shot of her available if the sheriff's office in that county has an online system. You would be amazed at how many jurisdictions now make available their arrest records. I think they got tired of having to deal with requests from the press and just figured it was easier to make them public records and readily available. They've always been public records and as such it could be real PITA when a high profile case came along.

I used to spend a good deal of my time trying to get photos for the paper. Sometimes it can be a real treasure hunt. It's not a job for the person that can't take rejection! The biggest problem we faced was not finding the picture(s), but rather finding someone with the computer savvy to get it to us. I used to spend hours on the phone with podunk newspapers trying to walk someone from their staff through the process of using ftp or email to send us a photo. The most fun time though was when someone would call us for a picture and I would send it along and then they would call back and say the needed the high resolution version of the file. I would try to explain that resolution is strictly an output device number and has nothing whatsoever to do with the jpeg file that I had sent them. The next big argument would come when they got a file that was only about 100k in size and they would tell me their prepress department insisted a picture that was going to run fairly large in the paper could not be only 100k. Sigh. Mug shots are always small and usually of pretty poor quality.

[Nomorjer Kinov]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

Oh well, we gotta look into firing Hillary then.