Court says Law allows for man's crude behavior - FLORIDA

[shel90]

QUOTE=Reba;1617141]I don't care what the creep's sexual orientation is. He's nasty and gross with his public display in front of children. Ugh![/QUOTE]

I am surprised at the court's ruling because that kind of behavior is usually a warning sign of a child predator. [

 

[DJGrace]

I don't care what the creep's sexual orientation is. He's nasty and gross with his public display in front of children. Ugh!

Agreed, that's my main view of this article. Even if children were not involved, you just plain don't do that in public.

Naisho, what he did was not gay. Putting a phallic object in your mouth does not make the act gay nor the person. The guy is just plain a deviant. A predator. When I read the article, nothing made me assume anything of what his orientation might be, just that he's a disturbed individual.

The reason I've gone into discussions about this because there has been a long running history of people classifying and grouping deviant acts with being gay etc. I just wanna help clear it up a bit.

 

[DJGrace]

QUOTE=Reba;1617141]I don't care what the creep's sexual orientation is. He's nasty and gross with his public display in front of children. Ugh!

I am surprised at the court's ruling because that kind of behavior is usually a warning sign of a child predator. [[/QUOTE]

Well, the ruling went that way because technically he didn't violate the law. Unfortunately, he won't be viewed as a child predator because he didn't actually do anything to the children or make contact with them.

I am interested in seeing how this pans out, for all the legalities etc.

 

[naisho]

DJ.. come on. One last time then I'm gonna forget this because it is pointless chatter. I just want to clear up what I am saying.
To me it's not his actions that was gay, (as in him putting it into his mouth) it's the thought and what he chose to do while intoxicated. There has been no categorization of him with a community, it's what he did and as you could say, the result he chose to do himself.

It's like saying, you put someone under the 'truth serum' and they spill themselves out.

He had it around, then got drunk, had some fun with the thing towards women observers (note, why not anyone and males?). The one with the child in the adjacent lot was what got him into trouble.

 

[shel90]

I am surprised at the court's ruling because that kind of behavior is usually a warning sign of a child predator. [

Well, the ruling went that way because technically he didn't violate the law. Unfortunately, he won't be viewed as a child predator because he didn't actually do anything to the children or make contact with them.

I am interested in seeing how this pans out, for all the legalities etc.[/QUOTE]

Hell will break loose if this guy does end up kidnapping a child in the future. People will probably go back to this case and blast the court for letting him go.

I am just worried for the children who will be around this guy in the future. This guy scares me.

 

[lovezebras]

for lack of better term, I think it's just better to identify him as closet-perverted-gay-who-doesn't-realize-he's-gay.

perverted actions of boys during elementary school towards girls is the first thought I had about this dude..

so what u said in bold isn't trying to reference him in a gay category..if not then u don't really know how to choose your words properly..and please don't call my girlfriend dude she isn't a boy, please and thanks

 

[naisho]

No, it doesn't reference him as a representation of a gay person, it is about him alone. I said it right there in the start. "for lack of better term" :| because I didn't know what else to call it. DJGrace asked if he was classified as gay, what are two homosexuals called, so I answered it in my perspective.

I apologize, I did not realize DJGrace is female and will withdraw the reference of imposing her as a guy.

If anyone has any more issues with my statement(s) (since all red flags indicate me alone, no one else is referred) you can take it to me in PM otherwise all I can see is this topic continually going off tangent into a discussion about homosexuality.

 

[DJGrace]

Well, the ruling went that way because technically he didn't violate the law. Unfortunately, he won't be viewed as a child predator because he didn't actually do anything to the children or make contact with them.

I am interested in seeing how this pans out, for all the legalities etc.

Hell will break loose if this guy does end up kidnapping a child in the future. People will probably go back to this case and blast the court for letting him go.

I am just worried for the children who will be around this guy in the future. This guy scares me.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, but unfortunately that's how it is with the law and has been a common scenario. Hopefully prosecutors will find a different charge to lay upon him. Kinda like locking up mobsters back in the day with tax evasion lol.

Naisho, I really don't think you are seeing what we are trying to get to, so I'll just leave it at that. But having something, and doing something with it and even thinking about it, doesn't mean they're gay. If he was doing that on a guy, well then, that's a different story. But either way, I'm not going to discuss this further.

Alicia, you're a dork but I still love you anyways.

 

[DJGrace]

PS, Shel, I think we broke the quote machine for this topic...lol

 

[naisho]

I am good to go with it, letting it go. Back on topic.

There's some tidbits about his method of "simulation" in the Florida law. I see how he got away now. Check this out.

(16) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse; actual lewd exhibition of the genitals; actual physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person is a female, breast with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either party; or any act or conduct which constitutes sexual battery or simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance constitute "sexual conduct."

(19) "Simulated" means the explicit depiction of conduct described in subsection (16) which creates the appearance of such conduct and which exhibits any uncovered portion of the breasts, genitals, or buttocks.

Looks like his lawyer is pretty good.
And there's a loophole that needs to have Florida's lawbook updated about 20 years or so.