posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:13 AM
Having read the article there and the responses can be stated:
After reading and giving thought to the matter both are wrong and right in their assessment of the situation.
The mother is correct, this is a toddler, and toddlers are going to pretty much be toddlers. They are not potty trained, they are not able to hold
their bladders or make determinations as to when they have to go, they just do. However, the officer is correct that the child should not be going in
the front yard. Most front yards are in view of the public and that is in itself a danger to the child. With all of the different kinds of people
out there, would you want your child exposing himself to some stranger? Or where the potential for some one who could molest your child be watching
or even worse take your child?
The officer went a bit over board on the ticket, yes, but at the same time, based off of what could be stated, or not stated, as there was no
indication, is what was the mothers reaction when the officer stopped and knocked on the door or approached her about such. If she blew up and
started to get irate or even have no manners, It appears that it escalated badly and ultimately that the officer issued a ticket based off of what all
transpired. But there is one other little detail that is over looked, the actual law in the state of Oklahoma as follows:
A. Every person who willfully and knowingly either:
1. Lewdly exposes his or her person or genitals in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed
thereby; provided, however, for purposes of this section, a person alleged to have committed an act of public urination shall be prosecuted pursuant
to Section 22 of this title unless such act was accompanied with another act that violates paragraphs 2 through 4 of this subsection and shall not be
subject to registration under the Sex Offenders Registration Act;
2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person to expose such person, or to make any other exhibition of such person to public view or to the view of
any number of persons, for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer;
3. Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cuts, or otherwise prepares, publishes,
sells, distributes, keeps for sale, knowingly downloads on a computer, or exhibits any obscene material or child pornography; or
4. Makes, prepares, cuts, sells, gives, loans, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any disc record, metal, plastic, or wax, wire or tape
recording, or any type of obscene material or child pornography,
shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor
more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such
fine and imprisonment.
So while the officer and the situation may seem wrong, the law is very clear cut in this case.
The final question has to be asked: Had the young child not been in full public view at the time, then would this have been a news worth event?