[Almost went to the pit with this, but the prosecutor probably won’t read it anyways]
A prosecutor litterally used a 9/11 argument to try to convict - the super bowl streaker!
Ok, so the streaker at the last Super Bowl probably did not provide the most tasteful entertainment. I would also argue that he tresspassed, although:
But this goes too far:
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
What? His weapon was blurbed on my TV, but I doubt it was a WMD. 
What does this have to do with 9/11?
“You there, don’t cross the street at the red light, we can’t tolerate that in a post-September 11 America”
“You there, don’t have you dog S*&t on my lawn, we can’t tolerate that in a post-September 11 America”
“Stop Mardi Gras, we can’t tolerate that in a post-September 11 America”
Next we send kids who climb over the fence to get access to the public pool in prison for life because they might do the same to a top-secret government facility. GET REAL. I am as afraid as anybody who works in a big city and takes the train to work. But filling the legal network with !$#@# like this will not solve the problem.
Convict him of an actual crime, use arguments such as public exposure and indicency if you must (as a European, I can not help but laugh at all this anxiety reg. nudity anyways) - but do not use the fear of people for every single potential “crime” out there.
Also, as a sidenote and second topic, so much for a “jury of peers”:
