Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: KGTV 10 News at 11. Watch it!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    KGTV 10 News at 11. Watch it!

    I think Sam made the news again! Watch it and, if you can record and post it, please do!
    Last edited by pullnshoot25; 08-15-2011 at 01:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    Good Job Sam

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    And for the return trip? Is someone monitoring the Detroit news stations? Can Jason practice in Michigan? Is Sam OCing in Detroit? Inquiring minds want to know!
    Last edited by cato; 08-15-2011 at 07:16 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486
    Thanks Sam!!

    The supremes have ruled (I can't find the case; sorry for not giving a citation) that clothing must cover certain parts of the body. Namely, the anal cleft and pubic area. Women must cover the airola and nipples of their breasts (unless a women is in New York City; a judge ruled that under the equal protection clause, women don't need to cover their breasts if men do not have to).

    Police are not supposed to be judges of pop-fashion. Police are to ensure that a person's private parts are covered, AND THAT IS ALL!

    Therefore, wearing tighty-whiteys, boxers, or panties is legal.

    Sam's actions are bigger than a TSA tussle. This is constitutional stuff--more than the illegal search and seizure stuff (4A). This is also a 1A issue.

    markm

  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkBofRAdvocate View Post
    Thanks Sam!!

    The supremes have ruled (I can't find the case; sorry for not giving a citation) that clothing must cover certain parts of the body.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_United_States

    What they said is that a state law regulating public nudity doesn't violate the 1A. CA has no state law against nudity that I know of. 314 PC is for lewd conduct that doesn't apply to general nudity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •