A 33 year old man was arrested by Port St. Lucie police and charged with felony lewd or lascivious exhibition committed on, or in the presence of, persons less than 16. So what was he doing?
Ok, that’s weird, but is that really a crime? Where does the “lewd” part come in?
So, that’s it? I don’t get this case at all. Say I approached you in the street and asked you to do a cartwheel. Harmless, right? But then afterward you learn I have a fetish for cartwheels. Does that mean I just committed a sex crime?
I am not licensed in Florida, but a quick search found this statute that might be the one he’s charged with violating. Unless there is more to the story, I think it might be difficult to convict on the facts presented. I did not see any mention of anything in the linked article that meets the statutory definition of sexual activity. The guy did apparently mention he has some sort of fetish and that may be what triggered the arrest.
Did he tell the girls about his fetish, or just the police? If he told the girls, then I can see the case: “I consider this act to be sexual, and I am asking you to do it” sounds like he’s asking them to commit a sexual act. But if they didn’t know his reasons for asking, it’s weird and creepy, but doesn’t look legally actionable to me.
That’s a bit of a flawed analogy, don’t you think? How do you think you’d react if you looked out your window and saw a stranger asking your 12 year old daughter to do cartwheels for him?
So you dont have a problem with someone admitting to having a fetish of young girls in socks, and approaching those girls so he can participate in the fetish?
Ask the parents of those kids and lets see their reaction…
While there are examples of a Fetish being nonsexual in nature, what do you think the chances are that this one is?
JMHO, the fact that he interacted with the children is the issue. Had he been at a distance looking, and not interacting, then I would agree with you
ETA: But, yeah, I don’t see how just being a creepy bastard is a felony. I’m sure that there was something sexual going through his mind, but until we get mind rays that would be bad to start convicting people on this basis.
Update: Found another link with slightly more details.
No one is saying he isn’t a creepy weirdo. Being creepy and weird isn’t a crime though.
Nothing the man did was overtly sexual though. If he hadn’t told the cops anything about his fetish what, then, would they have booked him on? Isn’t this just “thoughtcrime”?
Yes, he’s the type momma warned you to stay away from, but again, he didn’t do anything overtly sexual. He asked three girls to put on socks. They declined and he left. For this he is being charged with a felony. Is what he did really equivalent to publicly masturbating on a playground or fondling a child? The state is charging him like it is.
As described in the article, he was arrested for lewd and lascivious behavior and loitering and prowling. That comes after he did the following:
Then we have the incident where he approached the girls and tried to talk them into wearing the socks, and then…
That sounds like pretty clear cut stalking- and more generally like the kind of thing that can get you arrested whether or not you tell the police you have a “sock fetish.”
Repeatedly driving past children does not sound like pretty clear cut stalking. I believe the offender would have to have some malicious intent to be engaged in stalking and I don’t think asking kids to try on socks cuts it.
He may get to plead to one of those types of charge. I can see Oakminster’s point about the difficulty of getting a conviction for something like this - it may count as a sexual act because he said it was for purposes of sexual gratification, but the act wasn’t overtly sexual. That said, I’m feeling a distinct lack of sympathy. If you have something you are into sexually, do it with a partner who can consent and understands what’s going on. If your thing involves people not knowing you are getting off or being unable to consent to sexual involvement, you probably need help.
I should’ve known better than to use a term that might have a legally defined meaning. I don’t know what category that behavior belongs in, but it does sound like the kind of stranger-danger-ing that could easily result in an arrest.
My sister was warned by the nuns in our parochial school specifically about this (also about climbing a ladder or tree) when a man was nearby. “There are bad men who want to look at little girls’ underpants.” And this was back in the 1960’s.
Honestly, it just shows how otherwise completely intelligent people’s brains go to mush around children when sex is possibly involved.
No one with a fucking sock fetish is going to be engaging in any actual harmful activity towards the kids. Staring at people does not hurt them. Having a foot fetish does not hurt people. Asking someone to do something weird does not hurt people. Masturbating in private to something that happened in public doesn’t hurt people. And a guy who fucking leaves when told to is not hurting people.
I mean, I still the guy is stupid because of how our society promotes irrationality when it comes to children. But to act like charging him with a fucking felony makes sense, or, even worse, have someone show that they give absolutely no care for a fellow human being being improperly charged–Gah, it’s just so frustrating seeing how far the fight against ignorance still has to go.
