Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
provoman

Topless in your own home...maybe not in Utah

Recommended Posts

Utah woman was charged for being topless in her own home. Now, she’s arguing the lewdness law is unconstitutional.

Does Utah law that prohibits a female from being topless violate the US Constitution, A 10th circuit Federal Judge and the 10th Federal Appeals Court have deemed a female only ban on toplessness as presumptively in violation of the US Constitution. See here 

Utah State law (and Provo, Utah) specifically prohibits a female from being topless, but does not prohibit males from being topless.

Edited by provoman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Any woman found without her garments on shall be burned at the stake! LOL, wow really?!?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Any woman found without her garments on shall be burned at the stake! LOL, wow really?!?

Before mocking members of the church who have made covenants in the temple you should probably read the complete story.  Step children were involved as well as allegations that the woman may have been intoxicated at the time. 

Edited by ksfisher
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Before mocking members of hte church who have made covenants in the temple you should probably read the complete story.  Step children were involved as well as allegations that the woman may have been intoxicated at the time. 

What do step children - still children, or alcohol have to do with whether a law violates the US Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, provoman said:

What do step children - still children, or alcohol have to do with whether a law violates the US Constitution?

I didn't mention anything about the constitution in my reply.  My comment was directed at the derision aimed at members of the church in a case that has nothing to do with the church.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Who runs and tells when they accidentally see their step Mom's breasts?!?... 

It would probably depend on whether or not it was accidental, and how old the children are.  A step mom purposelly wandering around topless in front of her teenage step sons is different than one who is accidentally topless in front of a 7 year old.

But neither example has to do with constitutional rights.  It would be an issue of parental custody and whether or not a home was a suitable place for a step child.  There are a lot of things that are constitutionally allowed but which would cause someone to lose custody or visitation of their child.

Given this recent ruling, it seems like the constitutional issue of being topless in your own home is a now a moot point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Booze and insulating do not mix.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Who runs and tells when they accidentally see their step Mom's breasts?!?...and then they tell their Dad and the a-hole calls the cops?!?....that is some stone cold anger between both parties....and then the cops press charges! 

I would bet good money these people are on the local police department’s rewards program for frequent domestic calls. Two more calls on them and they get a free t-shirt......which mom should put on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It would probably depend on whether or not it was accidental, and how old the children are.  A step mom purposelly wandering around topless in front of her teenage step sons is different than one who is accidentally topless in front of a 7 year old.

But neither example has to do with constitutional rights.  It would be an issue of parental custody and whether or not a home was a suitable place for a step child.  There are a lot of things that are constitutionally allowed but which would cause someone to lose custody or visitation of their child.

 

Step Mom and prosecutors have very different stories.  I wonder which story the Trib wants to promote?  :P 

The source of the claim for her being drunk and in a pissing contest with her husband...is that bioMom, kids, or Dad?  The pissing contest, btw, is quite inappropriate in front of kids no matter the subject or visual aids, imo.

If Dad is the source of the info for prosecutors, I see it as undermining her claim bigtime that it was meant as a "teaching moment".  If kids, got to wonder why they went to her being drunk, etc. though turning family drama up a notch with adding story interest is not unknown  among kids.  If bioMom, then I am thinking it needs to be seen if there is bad history so she might inflate something her kids told her (intentionally or not, but the specifics given make it appear intentional if it isn't accurate).

I would think if Dad contradicted the drunkenness claims, etc., so it becomes an accidental encounter where StepMom just says this shouldn't be a big deal because....I just don't see prosecutors pressing the issue.  You live in a household and unless really making the effort, you are going to see each other in all one's glory at sometime, especially if sharing bathrooms.  Doors just accidentally remain unlocked or even forgotten to close if no one else is thought to be around, people forget to knock in excitement, people are sick and just don't care to keep their robes closed, etc.  Her attorney if Dad is there as her witness can too easily claim this is what happened and she was just trying to defuse the awkwardness.  So I am thinking the prosecutors likely have more to back them.  They don't want to look like uptight idiots in court.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, snowflake said:

Who runs and tells when they accidentally see their step Mom's breasts?!?...and then they tell their Dad and the a-hole calls the cops?!?....that is some stone cold anger between both parties....and then the cops press charges! 

Sounds like a case for the Dr Phil Show, with dual custodial parents yelling at each other and DCFS threatening to take the children into custody.  Really?

Aside from this being a case of prosecutorial overreach.  They do have discretion, you know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Booze and insulating do not mix.

Drinking booze is legal for adults in Utah.  However, unruly and dissolute behavior could result in loss of child custody.

In this case, it is quite true that working with fiberglass insulation is a problem for the skin, and it must be removed before doing anything else (it can itch like crazy), and that is best done with a cold shower.  So remaining topless might have been advisable.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

It should be illegal to charge a woman with not wearing a shirt when the man right next to her without a shirt was not charged --- equal protection means just that.  (And how is it "lewd" to be naked, anyway.  Our culture has done a really good job over at least the last fifty years of sexualizing things that we'd all be better off considering as simple fact. ) 

Edited by rpn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I definitely agree with that.

If the prosecutor's charges are what happened though, it was much more than just walking around without a shirt on.  No one may actually care about that.  It could be the drunkenness, etc...

Quote

West Valley City Deputy Attorney Corey Sherwin offers a different account in court papers: He alleges that Buchanan stripped down in front of her stepchildren after making a statement about how if her husband could take off his shirt, then a woman should be able to as well.

He further alleges that Buchanan, while “under the influence of alcohol,” had told her husband that she would only put her shirt back on if he showed her his penis.

The police became involved in the situation after the Division of Child and Family Services began an investigation involving the children that was unrelated to Buchanan. Though it was not the focus of the initial investigation, Sherwin wrote, the children’s mother reported it to authorities because she was “alarmed” about what had happened in front of her kids.

I am curious about what the initial investigation was about that didn't involve her, but the children.  Someone else got accused and this was brought up for distraction perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post

If you have ever been on a beach with lots of older German couples, you might decide that going shirtless is NOT a good fashion choice. 😯

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I definitely agree with that.

If the prosecutor's charges are what happened though, it was much more than just walking around without a shirt on.  No one may actually care about that.  It could be the drunkenness, etc...

I think there is a problem with using "drunkenness".  First the article says "under the influence of alcohol", what does not mean? Was that language used because it is inflammatory and has created the desired result of reader/listeners concluding "oh well she is a drunkard".

As best as can be ascertained this topless investigation was sometime after the event, which means, no sobriety test, no blood alcohol test, no first person observation from a person trained to identify drunkenness.

Is it possible that the "under the influence of alcohol" really means that the accused consumed alcohol at some point during prior to the incident, but was not legally or factually intoxicated

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/30/2019 at 10:16 AM, provoman said:

Utah woman was charged for being topless in her own home. Now, she’s arguing the lewdness law is unconstitutional.

Does Utah law that prohibits a female from being topless violate the US Constitution, A 10th circuit Federal Judge and the 10th Federal Appeals Court have deemed a female only ban on toplessness as presumptively in violation of the US Constitution. See here 

Utah State law (and Provo, Utah) specifically prohibits a female from being topless, but does not prohibit males from being topless.

There you go. Just told you all this was creepy

If I had any influence at all I'd shut it down. Ridiculous topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, provoman said:

I think there is a problem with using "drunkenness".  First the article says "under the influence of alcohol", what does not mean? Was that language used because it is inflammatory and has created the desired result of reader/listeners concluding "oh well she is a drunkard".

As best as can be ascertained this topless investigation was sometime after the event, which means, no sobriety test, no blood alcohol test, no first person observation from a person trained to identify drunkenness.

Is it possible that the "under the influence of alcohol" really means that the accused consumed alcohol at some point during prior to the incident, but was not legally or factually intoxicated

 

You are right, I should have been more careful.  I do assume evidence of a stronger state of being "snui" (seminaked under the  influence) because I assume prosecutors rarely take cases to court unless they think they can win and I don't see how they could win in borderline cases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

,

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If I had any influence at all I'd shut it down. Ridiculous topic.

You don't seem to be in a talkative mood today or prone to let others talk and just ignore them (second thread).  Something bothering you? (Serious, not sarcastic question)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

,

 ...let others talk and just ignore them (second thread).  

Sounds like a plan.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen plenty of men for whom it SHOULD be illegal for them to go sans top...ewwwwwwwww.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I've seen plenty of men for whom it SHOULD be illegal for them to go sans top...ewwwwwwwww.

Amen. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/1/2019 at 3:20 PM, Calm said:

state of being "snui" (seminaked under the  influence)

Really? This is a thing that deserves abbreviation?

Why not "wopwuti"?

Wearing only pants while under the influence?

Wopwuti has a much better doo-whoppy kind of ring to it. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, ttribe said:

I've seen plenty of men for whom it SHOULD be illegal for them to go sans top...ewwwwwwwww.

This is sexist and inappropriate, and worst of all insensitive and body shaming. You could hurt someone's feelings and their self esteem for a lifetime. They might commit suicide because of you.

I had a male buddy who died of breast cancer. In his last days he wanted to go to the beach but would not because of people like you.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Oh My...  burr meet blanket... knickers meet twist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...