Comments on: Judge rejects challenge from Utah woman charged for being topless in her own home

By: DavidM

DavidM — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:19:06 +0000

Tilli needs a better attorney. Is there anyone out there that can help her?

By: TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:28:47 +0000

“Alas Young Lady, You reside in the Land of Polyamorous Relationships”; …the charge is an oxymoron, is it not?

Some judges just do not prescribe to the Judicial oath…

By: Edward Nightingale

Edward Nightingale — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:39:19 +0000

In reply to CherokeeJack. Amen, brother! I've been wanting to call the US the new USSR. Ironic, the role reversal since the Berlin wall fell.

By: Edward Nightingale

Edward Nightingale — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:36:36 +0000

So, they could easily charge lewdness for a woman to be breastfeeding her baby as she is, technically, exposing her breast to baby to feed. I agree this may be an extreme condition, but the way our country is going with all this, who knows.
What should happen to all the people who went to Woodstock? How about the videographers? Pornography? How soon before sex is outlawed altogether due to the nudity involved.
But in the end, it’s ok for all the celebrity women to show all on national tv….Grammys, and all the other award shows?

By: Maestro

Maestro — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:05:58 +0000

I love how the idiots in the comments section are saying shit like “the judge wants to see the evidence” (in other words; her breasts). And “the jury wants to weigh the evidence” (again, referencing her breasts). These people are making fun of the issue because the issue IS WORTHY of being made fun of as it clogs up the justice system. HOWEVER… I call these commenters “idiots” because when the woman ends up on the registry for this joke of a conviction, these same people making fun of it now, will NOT want her in THEIR neighborhoods when her face is on the registry.

By: DavidM

DavidM — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:52:46 +0000

I see China has picked up on this shamming registry idea from the US. They now have a shamming list of people who wear pajamas in public . They post there faces on signs to publicly shame them and warn others about them . It’s all about protecting the children.
Don’t know if they have started banning them from foreign travel ,from living within 2000 ft. Of a school, from entering a school or hospital, and all the other restrictions that have been added here. Those will probably be added on as they think about it more.

By: John

John — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 14:47:54 +0000

In reply to DavidM.

I believe this is already filling the courts now…..the jealous ex is exactly what happened to us…..it was my ex. Had proof in WRITING what she would do and she did. Court was hearing none of it…irrelevant they said. Though they have the threat in writing….We have no choice but to wait on KARMA, it just takes soooo long but still I am hoping.

By: CherokeeJack

CherokeeJack — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:39:29 +0000

I think the judges are on drugs clouding their judgement.
I could see this IF, she has purposely exposed herself out of lewdness.
If she had been in public
If she had shown then on purpose to the neighbor kids
This was IN her own home and and act of changing clothes.
We have become a Police state like the Soviet Union.
When I was a kid I saw my parents come out of the shower all the time when we lived in Military housing as it was a one room unit with one bathroom.
( Ok yeah gross seeing your parents naked ) but it didn’t scar me for life.
My comment from a long ago post is coming true, soon 90% of the people in the U.S will be on the registry if something doesn’t give.

By: CMC

CMC — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:26:56 +0000

In reply to DavidM.

I’m sorry, but the ACLU has crafted some poorly thought out arguments resulting in horrible precedent such as their “Right” to live where want argument in Miller.

Justice Clarence Thomas defines this vaguely argued “Right” as the Right of changing ones situation. It’s the vagueness of this claimed “Right” (to live where you want) which doesn’t rise to a Federal question thus the denial of cert.

By: CMC

CMC — Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:13:51 +0000

That statute “requires prosecutors to show that the defendant exposed themselves and knew their actions would either cause “affront or alarm” to the children or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires” of either party.

Its about cause and effect. Did the prosecutors prove that moms action caused “alarm or affront” to the children or whether her intent was to sexually arouse herself or the children”? If not, than walking around her home topless in and by itself is not a lewd act.

Statutory wording matters.