Pinnacle Capt. has Awesome overnight!

[PBRstreetgang]

You are obviously not in law enforcement.

Indecent exposure does NOT require you to be listed as a registered sex offender.

Exposing yourself to a minor is about the lightest crime that will get you stuck on that list, and rightfully so.

What he did in the eyes of the law is about the same as a drunk college student going around the side of the bar on his way back to his car to take a leak and getting busted. Class A misdemeanor by the time they're done with it AT THE VERY WORST.

NOT a sex crime. Methinks you've had a bit to drink and are being a wee bit dramatic. Relax... he's in enough trouble without all the added hysteria.

She's actually in more trouble than he is for breaking into a car.

OOPPPS,
Guess you are kinda caught behind the closet door,
Here is a copy of the of the California Penal Code text:
314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any
public place, or in any place where there are present other persons
to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,
2. Procures, counsels, or assists any person so to expose
himself or take part in any model artist exhibition, or to make any
other exhibition of himself to public view, or the view of any number
of persons, such as is offensive to decency, or is adapted to excite
to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,

is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Every person who violates subdivision 1 of this section after
having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or
trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the
inhabited portion of any other building, is punishable by
imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail not exceeding
one year.
Upon the second and each subsequent conviction under subdivision 1
of this section, or upon a first conviction under subdivision 1 of
this section after a previous conviction under Section 288, every
person so convicted is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by
imprisonment in state prison.

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 290-294




290. (a) Sections 290 to 290.023, inclusive, shall be known and may
be cited as the Sex Offender Registration Act. All references to
"the Act" in those sections are to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

(b) Every person described in subdivision (c), for the rest of his
or her life while residing in California, or while attending school
or working in California, as described in Sections 290.002 and
290.01, shall be required to register with the chief of police of the
city in which he or she is residing, or the sheriff of the county if
he or she is residing in an unincorporated area or city that has no
police department, and, additionally, with the chief of police of a
campus of the University of California, the California State
University, or community college if he or she is residing upon the
campus or in any of its facilities, within five working days of
coming into, or changing his or her residence within, any city,
county, or city and county, or campus in which he or she temporarily
resides, and shall be required to register thereafter in accordance
with the Act.
(c) The following persons shall be required to register:
Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter
convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military
court of a violation of Section 187 committed in the perpetration, or
an attempt to perpetrate, rape or any act punishable under Section
286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 207 or 209 committed with intent to
violate Section 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, Section 220, except
assault to commit mayhem, Section 243.4, paragraph (1), (2), (3),
(4), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261, paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 262 involving the use of force or violence
for which the person is sentenced to the state prison, Section
264.1, 266, or 266c, subdivision (b) of Section 266h, subdivision (b)
of Section 266i, Section 266j, 267, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.3,
288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, or 311.1, subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of
Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, or 647.6, former
Section 647a, subdivision (c) of Section 653f, subdivision 1 or 2 of
Section 314, any offense involving lewd or lascivious conduct under
Section 272, or any felony violation of Section 288.2; any statutory
predecessor that includes all elements of one of the above-mentioned
offenses; or any person who since that date has been or is hereafter
convicted of the attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
above-mentioned offenses.


I will guess the local jurisdiction will have a similar statute also, will look up for you and post in a minute or two, in the meantime you should stick to flying your Cessna around the patch.
PBR
P.S. here ya go, couldn't find registered sex offender, but most states have similar statutes.

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA3127.html

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18)
PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES.
CHAPTER 31. SEXUAL OFFENSES

Subchapter B. Definition Of Offenses

§ 3127. Indecent exposure.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.

(b) Grading.--If the person knows or should have known that any of the persons present are less than 16 years of age, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the second degree.
[Webmaster note: Section 5901 (relating to open lewdness)

 

[regionaltard]

You seem to think that the posters on this website are gonna do the prosecution. The people of this country created the law defining "indecent exposure" Running around naked in public qualifies one for the "indecent exposure" arrest. If you don't like the possible consequences for this type of behavior, don't do it. This wasn't drunken hijinks gone wrong it was what it was, a naked male adult running around in public. I guess driving your Mustang around at high speed drunk would qualify as hijinks too. BBQ his ass!
PBR

Got Issues?

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Got Issues?

Sure lots, but when people think that this type of behavior is just hijinks and is ok, I take no small measure of amusement when they underestimate the criminal justice system. Do you really think if this pinhead knew that he would be held accountable for his actions in and/or out of the cockpit? If this discourse causes one future pilot/sex offender to keep his/her pants on until behind closed doors, it might be worth it. But, then it would not provide future F/I posters any fun!
PBR
Its ok Lear, I am sure you have been wrong before and will continue to be wrong in the future too.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

ur gay

And you deduced that how? Just because that is your orientation, does not mean everyone else is. But thats ok, you can be who/whatever you wanna be, we will accept you for who you are!
PBR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Lear, paging Mr Lear.......

 

[Lear70]

Sorry, PBR, I was busy gathering ACTUAL CASE HISTORY in California, since you evidently have a hard time understanding the Code.

Its ok Lear, I am sure you have been wrong before and will continue to be wrong in the future too.

Actually, it's not me who's wrong on this one. Guess those reading comprehension classes didn't work for you too well,,,

referencing the pertinent parts of your own quotes:

Here is a copy of the of the California Penal Code text:

314. Every person who willfully and lewdly, either:

1. Exposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby; or,,,

is guilty of a misdemeanor.

In this case, the pilot didn't willfully and lewdly expose himself in a public place.

You're dreaming if you think that any decent attorney isn't going to get him off the hook for this, having initiated the act where he had reason to believe they were alone and he wouldn't be offending anyone, then subsequently got lost.

This is EXACTLY the same as being in the lake, messing around, losing your trunks, and having no way to get to your towel without streaking across the bank.

It's an accident, not lewd and lascivious behavior.

Every person who violates subdivision 1 of this section after having entered, without consent, an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, or the inhabited portion of any other building, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or in the county jail not exceeding one year.

You emphasized this section by bolding "Code"; I have no idea why you did it, he didn't enter a home, trailer coach, or other building. He knocked on a door, retreated behind a car, and asked for clothes without exposing himself. Again, he's trying to be decent here, a fact that won't be overlooked by the district attorney.

No entry, no felony. It's right there in black and white.

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 290-294

290. (a) Sections 290 to 290.023, inclusive, shall be known and may be cited as the Sex Offender Registration Act. All references to "the Act" in those sections are to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

(b) Every person described in subdivision (c), for the rest of his or her life while residing in California, or while attending school or working in California, as described in Sections 290.002 and 290.01, shall be required to register with the chief of police of the
city in which he or she is residing, or the sheriff of the county if he or she is residing in an unincorporated area or city that has no police department, and, additionally, with the chief of police of a campus of the University of California, the California State University, or community college if he or she is residing upon the campus or in any of its facilities, within five working days of
coming into, or changing his or her residence within, any city, county, or city and county, or campus in which he or she temporarily resides, and shall be required to register thereafter in accordance with the Act.

(c) The following persons shall be required to register:

Any person who, since July 1, 1944, has been or is hereafter convicted in any court in this state or in any federal or military court of a violation of...

subdivision 1 or 2 of Section 314, ...

Again, we go back to whether he WILLFULLY and LEWDLY exposed himself.

Here is an excerpt from some local legal interpretations of Section 314 in California:

California Indecent Exposure:

Indecent exposure is publicly displaying one's genitalia to one or more people, usually with the intent to shock or disturb the unsuspecting viewer. Often this is done to give the exposer sexual satisfaction.

and here:

Indecent Exposure

This crime is charged by the District Attorney when a person willfully exposes his genitals in the presence of another person who might be offended or annoyed by this action. The action must be done with the intent to direct public attention to his genitals for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying himself or another person, or to sexually offend another person (Penal Code Section 314).


Upon first offense, this crime is charged as a misdemeanor. It will be elevated to a felony if there is a prior conviction, or if the act was done inside of an inhabited dwelling without consent of the owner. Thus, sentencing ranges from a maximum of up to one year in county jail, to several years in state prison.

These are both from established California case law. There's more to the law than just reading the book - established enforcement history takes precedence.

But you probably knew that already, didn't you?

I will guess the local jurisdiction will have a similar statute also, will look up for you and post in a minute or two, in the meantime you should stick to flying your Cessna around the patch.

Ohhh, you're guessing. You're also citing California law for a Pennsylvania case. Here's another tidbit for how crazy California law is:

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Judge: Indecent Exposure Law Applies to Men Only

[/FONT] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] California: Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong has dismissed charges of indecent exposure against a 40-year-old woman on the grounds that the law was gender specific.
The defendent in this case allegedly disrobed in front of a 14-year-old boy who lives next door because of the noise he was making playing basketball. When the boy's parents remonstrated she told them she would do it every time he played basketball.


[/FONT]

P.S. here ya go, couldn't find registered sex offender, but most states have similar statutes.

http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA3127.html

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18)
PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES.
CHAPTER 31. SEXUAL OFFENSES

Subchapter B. Definition Of Offenses

§ 3127. Indecent exposure.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.

Thank you for making my case.

They're going to VERY EASILY argue that where he initially disrobed was nowhere near anyone that likely would have been offended, affronted, or alarmed. Additionally, his actions by knocking then hiding while asking for clothes behind cover suggests that he was taking pains NOT to offend, affront or alarm someone.

As far as "sticking to flying my Cessna around the pattern", maybe you should read my profile, genius. Oh, that's right, you have a reading comprehension problem, never mind. We'll have to make special dispensation for you here...

p.s. When everyone else thinks you're wrong and you're the only one trying to crucify the guy by adding him to a "sex offenders list", maybe you're the only one with a skewed set of values...?

Just a thought.

 

[wmuflyguy]

Why are we talking about California, I thought this happened in Harrisburg, PA.

 

[timmay]

You seem to think that the posters on this website are gonna do the prosecution. The people of this country created the law defining "indecent exposure" Running around naked in public qualifies one for the "indecent exposure" arrest. If you don't like the possible consequences for this type of behavior, don't do it. This wasn't drunken hijinks gone wrong it was what it was, a naked male adult running around in public. I guess driving your Mustang around at high speed drunk would qualify as hijinks too. BBQ his ass!
PBR

This has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read! The best part though is how you are trying to justify your answer with California state law. News flash for you pal, he was arrested in PA, California law in no way, even remotely applies. I am sure if you look hard enough you could find a law from a country in the middle east that would let you cut his pec$er off.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Hehe... I'm just laughing at the amount of times I've seen the word "penal" on this page.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Sorry, PBR, I was busy gathering ACTUAL CASE HISTORY in California, since you evidently have a hard time understanding the Code.


Actually, it's not me who's wrong on this one. Guess those reading comprehension classes didn't work for you too well,,,

referencing the pertinent parts of your own quotes:

In this case, the pilot didn't willfully and lewdly expose himself in a public place.

You're dreaming if you think that any decent attorney isn't going to get him off the hook for this, having initiated the act where he had reason to believe they were alone and he wouldn't be offending anyone, then subsequently got lost.

This is EXACTLY the same as being in the lake, messing around, losing your trunks, and having no way to get to your towel without streaking across the bank.

It's an accident, not lewd and lascivious behavior.

You emphasized this section by bolding "Code"; I have no idea why you did it, he didn't enter a home, trailer coach, or other building. He knocked on a door, retreated behind a car, and asked for clothes without exposing himself. Again, he's trying to be decent here, a fact that won't be overlooked by the district attorney.

No entry, no felony. It's right there in black and white.

Again, we go back to whether he WILLFULLY and LEWDLY exposed himself.

Here is an excerpt from some local legal interpretations of Section 314 in California:

and here:

These are both from established California case law. There's more to the law than just reading the book - established enforcement history takes precedence.

But you probably knew that already, didn't you?



Ohhh, you're guessing. You're also citing California law for a Pennsylvania case. Here's another tidbit for how crazy California law is:


Thank you for making my case.

They're going to VERY EASILY argue that where he initially disrobed was nowhere near anyone that likely would have been offended, affronted, or alarmed. Additionally, his actions by knocking then hiding while asking for clothes behind cover suggests that he was taking pains NOT to offend, affront or alarm someone.

As far as "sticking to flying my Cessna around the pattern", maybe you should read my profile, genius. Oh, that's right, you have a reading comprehension problem, never mind. We'll have to make special dispensation for you here...

p.s. When everyone else thinks you're wrong and you're the only one trying to crucify the guy by adding him to a "sex offenders list", maybe you're the only one with a skewed set of values...?

Just a thought.

I wasn't trying to crucify the guy, I was simply stating what the likely outcome could be. California is the Penal Code I am familiar with. The PA code was slightly harder to find.
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP8/18PA3127.html

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18)
PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES.
CHAPTER 31. SEXUAL OFFENSES

Subchapter B. Definition Of Offenses

§ 3127. Indecent exposure.

(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons under circumstances in which he or she knows or should know that this conduct is likely to offend, affront or alarm.

(b) Grading.--If the person knows or should have known that any of the persons present are less than 16 years of age, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise, indecent exposure under subsection (a) is a misdemeanor of the second degree.
[Webmaster note: Section 5901 (relating to open lewdness)
I think that the jury hearing the case will decide whether or not the the behavior fit the criteria for guilt and the subsequent penalties. You can argue the bush or any number of mitigating circumstances that are not provided in the newsclipping till you are blue in the face, but the bottom line is, if he is found guilty he will have to comply with the law as it pertains to convicted sex offenders, at least in California.
PBR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Lear,
If you read section 3127 closely:
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or

Did he or did he not expose his genitals in any public place or not?
PBR
P.S. you will notice the "or" in the above code section

 

[PBRstreetgang]

A jury will determine his intent and if guilty, the judge will determine the sentence. If guilty, he will be a convicted sex offender.
I hope he has a good lawyer, ALPA, APLA is there an ALPA lawyer in the house(just kidding)
If he is guilty, fukk him, if he is innocent good for him, either way its gonna be a long and dusty road.
PBR

 

[AiRegency]

Did the Pan AM FOM say the CA has privledge on the liquor cart for crew use at the hotel...

You are confusing law/policy with accpeted social culture.

It is soically accpetable to drive 5 miles over the speed limit. We all do it... hardly anyone gets a ticket... it is an accpeted and condone illegal activity...


If you think about this event... if this guy was on days off it would be a non event...

Apparently, the Pan Am CM didn't address it at all. Pan Am higher ups certainly knew it was going on and so if they wanted to stop it then the CM would have said it wasn't allowed. But it didn't because it was accepted. So once again you are confusing what you have no clue about with what you wish you knew.

Just because you might not get a ticket for going 5 over doesn't mean it is accepted and condoned. That's rediculous. A cop has to pick his battles. Try going 5 over in front of a traffic camera. You'll get the ticket every time. And not everyone speeds. I swear my father-in-law hasn't busted the speed limit since who knows when. He's 5 under all the time. I myself won't admit to you if I do or don't speed but I can say that I've never once gotten a ticket for speeding. Now maybe that's because I don't speed or maybe it's because I only do it in the right places. But that's called using your head. Something the nude pilot has just learned a valuable lesson in.

If this guy was on his days off he would still have been arrested and it would still have been an event for him. His company's name just wouldn't have been all over TV.

 

[prtyprtyprncss]

If the public knew that a 19-year-old was an FO, many would probably object. Not that they're not able to fly safe - but it's like walking into the surgery room and seeing a 19-year-old doctor. I'm sure they'd be able, but there is a confidence factor that goes beyond accident statistics.

2 words...Doogie...HOWSER! BAM! IN YO' FACE!

Really tho...point taken...I once had a guy walk off a charter flight (cheyenne) because I was flying that day and not my 50 year old boss...I was 22 and had twice the qualifications my business major boss did...

 

[Lear70]

Lear,
If you read section 3127 closely:
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits indecent exposure if that person exposes his or her genitals in any public place or

Did he or did he not expose his genitals in any public place or not?
PBR
P.S. you will notice the "or" in the above code section

Again, it's not about the wording of the Code, it's about established case law, which CLEARLY delineates between deliberate intent to expose himself and an accidental state (and I'm pretty certain he didn't start the night off thinking, "Hmmm, I think I'll go expose myself to a few people after sex tonight").

Established case law will take precedence. It's up to his attorney to convince the D.A. not to press charges and, if the D.A. insists anyway, it's up to the attorney to bring relevant case law to the front of his/her arguments.

Any attorney worth their salt should be able to win this one.

p.s. My best friend from college who is an attorney in Cali is finding all this vastly humorous. She says the judge, no matter WHERE the case is held, is likely going to have trouble keeping a straight face given the *ahem* circumstances with which the pilot found himself unwillingly unclothed in front of other people.

Personally, after a year or two thinking about the errors of his ways, I'd hire him. Bet you money he will never, ever touch a flight attendant or go out and get trashed on an overnight EVER again, should his career continue.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I will not disagree, my position is if he is convicted of indecent exposure, he will be a convicted sex offender. The reason to have a jury trial, is so he could be judged by a jury of his peers. Problem is if his peers on that jury happen to be from an extremely conservative religious sect, the community standards might be slightly different than a jury in SFO or NYC. I think the lesson is if you run around nekkid you are probably gonna have a problem with the authorities. I still think he is gonna have a problem with the wiener in public thing if the lady got a glimpse, hopefully it was cold and the Costanza effect was working for him, if his nickname was Johnny Wad, or Donkey he is gonna have a problem.
PBR

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

PBR- you be diggin'

 

[Papps]

And you deduced that how? Just because that is your orientation, does not mean everyone else is. But thats ok, you can be who/whatever you wanna be, we will accept you for who you are!
PBR

lol you sound like such a bitter looser in your posts. Just because you live a sorry miserable existance and probably have no friends, you log on to FlightInfo to bask in someone elses misfortune.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

lol you sound like such a bitter looser in your posts. Just because you live a sorry miserable existance and probably have no friends, you log on to FlightInfo to bask in someone elses misfortune.

Dang you nailed it, but his wasn't misfortune, Katrina was misfortune, his was plain stupid, and he is gonna hafta pay for it, sorry!
PBR

 

[Lear70]

Dang you nailed it, but his wasn't misfortune, Katrina was misfortune, his was plain stupid, and he is gonna hafta pay for it, sorry!
PBR

Oh and make no mistake about it, PBR... he WILL be paying for this mistake. For a LONG time to come.

Even if he retains his job, he will be the laughingstock of the company. He likely will have to enter a HIMS program, and might not see an aircraft for another 6-8 months or more which will then require him to re-do his training and checkrides. I don't think he was finished with consolidation.

Even if he manages it back through all that, he now has a bullseye on his back. He's painted it there and there's nothing he can do about it. The next time he does something even vaguely questionable, he'll be doing a carpet dance explaining why, then doing a random drug and alcohol screening. Every time. For life.

Then, to get OUT of pcl, he's going to have to tell this story again,,, and again,,, and again,,, putting the best spin on something that was fairly stupid, but at least non-aviation oriented, and try to get an HR department to hire a known HIMS problem candidate when there's thousands of other non-problem children to choose from. That sounds SO familiar to me right now...

Can't tell you how hard his life is about to get. Personally, I think he has enough hell coming his way for the next few years without wishing anything else on him.

But that's just me. I'm about the punishment fitting the crime, and the mental anguish this is levying on him, especially the knowledge that he brought it on himself, will certainly guarantee it won't happen again. Suits my "reciprocity" factor in justice that I don't need to add anything more to the fire.