How would you have handled this "nude child" situation?

To arrest the parent for the action of a six year-old seems harsh, even if she was advised the first time it happened. Kids do the darnedest things all on their own.

It seems like it would be better to find out why she watching her son, as well as ask the child why he went ahead and did it again after being told not to. In talking to them, as an officer, it might be more beneficial to call in Child Protection Services to have them investigate. But to arrest the mother? I wouldn’t have done it.

Ridiculous. Seriously. All of it. But I’m a hippie.

Hm. Well, the Mom was kind of dumb. I mean, I’m all for nakid children but this society frowns on it. She had to have known that what she was allowing was TOTALLY against the mores of this society, whether it’s right or wrong. So I’d say yeah. The po-lice did the right thing. It is what she should have expected, even if it is a dumb law, IMO.

Wait. Thinking. What if the Mom told the kid to keep his clothes on and he just didn’t…that’s not her fault. Is it? If the law felt it was such a bad, bad, bad thing, they should have arrested the KID. Scared the crap outta him so he wouldn’t do it again.

What they did WRONG however was turn off the hydrants!!!! Geez! You know how hot it is out there???!!!!!!!!!!!

Pied, the child was only 6 years old and her mother was responsible for the actions of her son. The fact that the fire hydrant had been turned on again and the mother never put clothes on him, after being warned, was the reason she was arrested. Witnesses told the police this.

O. Thinking again. So the mother chose to allow the child to run amok nekid. Well. Hm.

John, do you mean that the child went out of the house without any clothes on and the mother knew this? That is a different story, although arresting the mother seems pretty extreme.

In my opinion, if the mother had been warned once and she still didn’t do anything about her kid being nude, and messed with the water hydrant, then the police did the right thing.

Indecent exposure!? For a 6 year old? That’s fucking ludicrous.
I can understand getting in trouble for messing with the hydrant. That makes sense to me. But for a naked child? Is that seriously what the world is coming to?

Honestly. That is nuts. People are so hung up about things these days. A naked 6 year old! Call the police! The mother was arrested? That’s insane.

I agree with all yall who say it was insane to wig out over a naked 6 year old…but that’s the way this society swings, and the mother knows it. There has to be something deeper for no other reason than by the age of 6 a child knows it’s not acceptable (in this crazy society) to run around naked and he did it anyway.

A nude six-year-old? Horrors. The authorities were being ridiculous.

My husband chimed in with “that’s just crazy.”

Anyway, the more serious issue, I think, is that the fire hydrant was opened illegally. It compromises the fire departments ability to fight a fire. That’s pretty serious. All the parents knew they were allowing their children to play there knowing the fire hydrant was opened illegally. Why weren’t all the parents arrested for contributing? Isn’t teaching your kids that it’s o.k. to engage in illegal activities at least, if not more, contributing to the delinquency of a minor than letting a 6 year old be naked in public?

I think they overreacted about the fire hydrant and the kid, but I wouldn’t have expected anything different to happen.

It sounds like the police were throwing the book at the lady for not listening to them. And having charges filed doesn’t mean anything if the police don’t follow through. I doubt they were serious about the indecent exposure. I guess the question is what else or what different they could have done, and would it be useful to anyone if they had to come back a third time.

I’m with @Simone_De_Beauvoir

Pretty extreme for a child just feelin’ groovy playing in the water naked.
Hell, I think the adults should have ripped off their clothes and done a little dancin’ in the streets too. haha

Seriously, while I can understand, to a degree, some peoples uncomfortableness, I think arresting the mother and slapping an indecent exposure charge on her is beyond ludacris.

When my daughter was small she was always naked in her pool in the yard, infact, god forbid I’d probably be arrested these days I have , ooooh, gasp! PICTURES of her darling little naked self eating popcicles in the buff in her swimming pool and at the river playing in the sand.

“Properly” is a loaded word here. Perhaps what the officers did was legal, though I doubt it. Most indecent exposure and public indecency laws—and these are separate offenses in many states—are written with clauses that relativize them to societal standards. The fact that nearly no one would consider a nude six-year-old indecent would mean that neither he nor anyone responsible for him could be guilty of indecent exposure. And since the child was not indecently exposing himself, the mother cannot be said to have been contributing to any delinquency either (since running around outside and dancing in water are not against any laws—which is why none of the other kids nor their parents were cited for anything).

Given that the story we’ve been told does not implicate the mother as the one who had opened the fire hydrant, she does not seem to be guilty of anything. If she was the one who did it, on the other hand, she should have been cited for that and not for anything else. Why it was so important to the officers that the child put on some clothes is beyond me, but that could have been handled better as well. Bring the child to his mother, ask her to put clothes on him, wait to see that she does so, then leave without saying another word. This is still a bit heavy-handed, in my opinion, but it’s better than handing out spurious citations.

Arresting the mother seems wrong. I can understand someone being arrested for setting off the fire hydrant but not for letting their young child play naked in the street. Not in these circumstances.

Since when is a naked 6 year old indecent? Is this what we’ve come to now? Have all the porn and sexually explicit movies activated some ancient shame gene that seeks to repress even a child’s spontaneous joy? In Europe you can see 12 year old girls going topless at the beach, totally unselfconsciously. Here in the United States we are so prudish and hung up about nudity and sexuality. For all the explicit nature of our entertainment business we still seem to think (at least some of us) that nudity is shameful. Yes, it’s true, I do not want the man next to me in the subway exposing himself, but a 6 year old dancing in a fire hydrant on a hot day? Rules are rules and I understand about turning the hydrant off and speaking to the parents, but an arrest for indecent exposure? Pleeeease! Ridiculous, absolutely.

I hate our oversexualized society. 6 is on the edge, but only a perv would see something sexual about a child playing in the water.

Personally I don’t see anything wrong with it but I wouldn’t want my child playing with the child at all. I wouldn’t want him/her to think it is alright to run around naked simply because of the dangers of running into pedophile. There is even a slight chance his parents may be pedophiles.
I think its child endangerment.
You wouldn’t let a child of 6 years old wander the street naked at any time of the day. What difference would it be to let him play naked in water.
A 6 year old knows that clothing is the norm. If his mom did not teach him this than she should be held responsible.
If a teacher were to let a child in his class sit there naked, he would be held responsible for the childs behavior. He would no doubt cover the kid and take him to the office to get dressed till the parents arrived. If the teacher did no such thing than he would be in trouble for child endangerment. Parents should be held to the same standard.

@Pandora GA.

How do we know the mother didn’t put clothes on the kid and he just took them off and ran outside again? I think it was over the top.

It’s silly to arrest the parent and the poor kid has no idea or fault. The parent was foolish to shine a light on their kid for weirdos to be drawn to but that’s on them, not enough to arrest them for though.

My son liked to be naked in the rain until maybe age 4…Luckily for me I guess, since our police chief lives on our block and his 4 & 6 yr old sons were naked in their kiddie pool every afternoon. Location! Location! Location!

What race was this child & what location did this occur in?

I have it on good authority that all children are naked under their clothes. If this is true, then they should all be arrested immediately. I’m surprised the police didn’t shoot the offender AND his pervert mother. What is the world coming to?!

Next thing ya know they will pass a law about being naked in front of farm animals. I’ll be screwed. No more naked moonlit summer nights with the geese on the hill. In-geese-ent exposure.

I could see giving her a warning about endangering her child if he was out there without any supervision, but that would be about it.

Your goose would be SO relieved if you’d stop running around in front of her with no clothes on, @Coloma!

@Dutchess_III

The goose might, but not the gander. lol

Dang. Another typo on my part in the first answer. It should have read, It seems like it would be better to find out why she wasn’t watching her son,...

Just an FYI for everyone. @john65pennington and I live in the same US state. Upon checking on the law here for indecent exposure, the child committed an illegal act by going naked in in public. The only mention of age is when a person 18 or over. If under 18, it is considered a misdemeanor. Feel free to read the Tennessee laws on ‘indecent exposure’.

In this case, if indeed it took place in Tennessee, the police were generous to let the mother off with a warning the first time. The second time this happened, they were overreacting by arresting her. It is only a misdemeanor, if I am reading the law correctly.

Pied Pfeffer, yes, it’s only a misdemeanor charge in Tennessee. This case did take place in the Volunteer State. She plead guilty in court to a $50.00 fine.

@Pied_Pfeffer That law is stupid.

No. The mother should not have been arrested! Just because her little boy was nude, who cares. Like yeah now the neighbors might think she’s an idiot but she shouldnt be arrested!
I walked in on a 7 year old i babysat singing “I wanna be a billionaire” wearing a cowboy hat. And ONLY a cowboy hat.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir That is a whole other discussion. As a resident of TN, it means that I cannot sunbathe in the nude nor frolic through a sprinkler in my back yard, despite having a fence around it, because it is within view of neighbors across the street with two-story houses, without risking the police showing up.

To all: the point of the case seems to be possibly at least one person found it offensive and reported it. It is against the law here, and the responsibility of the police force is to adhere to the law, whether they agree with the circumstance or not. The mother was lucky to get away with a warning the first time, and only end up with a $50 fine the second time. However, she shouldn’t have been arrested, unless there is more involved in this case than the details we were provided.

At 6 years old, we are talking first grade, right? Nope I don’t think someone in first grade should be running around naked. By that age, like it or not, one must begin to conform to the rules of living within the laws of the land. And if a mother can’t control her 6 year old, how the hell is she ever going to control her 16 year old. I think she better start now while she still can have some influence.

On top of all that, the world is full of weird people. Some folks won’t put their kids pics on facebook because of the weirdos so I can’t imagine letting one run the streets naked. This wasn’t their own backyard, it was a public place.

This was a tad harsh and incidents like this, where it seems like cops overreact, are what gives cops a bad name.

Ica, the mother blantely denied doing what the police officer told her to do. There were other parents and children, also playing in the hydrant water. All of them had on clothes or bathing suits. I feel that she was the one that did not overact or act at all.

This was not an action toward a 6 year old child. Parents are responsible for the actions of their underage children, in most of the U.S.

@Pied_Pfeffer Having read through the law, I contend that what the police did was illegal. Here is the relevant section:

(b) (1) A person commits the offense of indecent exposure who:

(A) In a public place, as defined in § 39–11-106, or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises:

(i) Intentionally:

(a) Exposes such person’s genitals or buttocks to another; or

(b) Engages in sexual contact or sexual penetration as defined in § 39–13— 501; and

(ii) Reasonably expects that the acts will be viewed by another and such acts:

(a) Will offend an ordinary viewer; or

(b) Are for the purpose of sexual arousal and gratification of the defendant;

It is not clear to me that either (i) or (ii) are satisfied in this case. The intentionality clause is questionable insofar as the child cannot legally form the requisite intent and there is no evidence that the mother was trying to expose her child (as opposed to merely not being as active as the officers wanted in preventing the child from exposing himself). That aside, however, the expectation clause is clearly not fulfilled. Ordinary viewers would not be offended by a six-year-old dancing naked in the water—as evidenced by the reactions here—and no one has suggested that the mother let her child dance naked for her own sexual gratification. As such, she did not violate the law.

@john65pennington It is not a crime to disobey a legally unjustified order. Yes, the mother is responsible for the child’s actions. But according to the law, neither did anything illegal. She can be bullied into pleading guilty, but that’s a different matter entirely.

The kid was naked on a hot day.

I ask again, where was this (inner city?) and what race/ethnicity was this child?

About the naked 6 year old: If this happened in my community, at least 90% of the witnesses would have been appalled and disturbed by it. This is a different time. We (developed countries) do not live in a society where this behaviour is considered ok in public anymore. Maybe 20 plus years ago it was ok for a naked 6 year old to run around a spraying fire hydrant. Society is different now. Whether one thinks it’s wrong or not. That behaviour is unacceptable. It doesn’t matter whether or not the child kept ripping his clothes off ..the parent is responsible for the child’s behaviour and discipline.

I think the charge of indecent exposure may be a bit much though. Whatever happened/happens, the parent of this child should know the societal rules ..therefore, making sure the child knows them as well.

I would not let my child run around naked out in public (no matter the temperature) – it’s just not as safe or acceptable to do so these days. Running around the sprinkler, naked, on private property? Sure.

@rooeytoo explained it exactly as how I see it.

It might just be me, but I live in a “developed country” and I don’t see anything appalling or disturbing about a naked child playing outside. Cute or funny, sure, but definitely not unacceptable. I’m not sure that I can understand how a naked prepubescent body is indecent in any way.

@ANef_is_Enuf Oh, I know there are plenty people who are ok with it as well. I just think the majority are not comfortable with it – times have changed. I should have added the term “majority” or “in general” in my original statement.

@ANef_is_Enuf I agree that it is not indecent. But letting a child run around naked in public is a huge risk today. To the average adult this is not a problem. But in many communities today your neighbor may be a pedophile.
If the child is later harmed by such a pervert than there will be a huge outcry from the public. People will ask the following questions.
Why didn’t the police intervene when this child was reported to be going around naked in public?
Why didn’t the mother get in trouble for child endangerment?
The neighbors would go on the news and say, it was just a matter of time that this happened. The mother had no control over her childs behavior, or that she could really care less because she would be told of his behavior and would ignore it.
I don’t think she should go to jail for this but she should face some consequences. For those that believe she may have had no control, I didn’t read where she tried to intervene and keep him from doing it again. Which means she didn’t care too. My mom would’ve grounded us immediately.
We are a society of laws. If you teach your child to ignore them than don’t be surprised if they or yourself suffer in the future from this.
The law can’t be and should never be willy nilly. So most of us agree a 6 year old naked isn’t a shameful thing.
But I think, allowing a child to paint a target on his or her back should be considered shameful.
You wouldn’t allow your child to cross a non busy street without checking for traffic? Why? Because its still a street, and a car can still come along.
We cannot predict danger to our children. But it is always our responsiblity to be aware of things that may pose a danger to their well being and life and guard against it whenever possible.

There use to be a time when you could let your children play outdoors without little of no supervision. I grew up in the tail end of that time. I grew up in the city. But by the 70’s that time stopped existing. We live in a different world than the one my parents lived in as children. So we must react differently if we mean to see our children grow into adults.

Pandora, excellent answer, concerning pedophiles and perverts as it could apply in this situation.

Cunning, this was an intentional act, of not obeying the law, by the child’s mother. She had been given a fair warning by the officer, but she chose to ignore it, thus the intent to not clothe her child. Part i of your answer.

@john65pennington Thanks. There is one more thing that people don’t consider. So many people have cell phones that can record and later be placed on the internet. I’m sure if the kid ends up being plastered all over a child pornagraphy site there would be an outrage over that as well. Its a shame parents have to be told what is the right thing to do in regards to their childs safety. I hope in this case she has to take some parenting classes and is educated on the dangers that can befall her child if she is careless.

I think this type of law is an ass. It is like telling women not to wear short skirts because they’ll get raped. If the kids are being supervised by watchful adults, all 6 and unders could have been naked. Perhaps the US has more pedos per square mile than anywhere else and they need these laws, or perhaps they just like to spread their fear and panic and Puritan attitudes

@Plucky I live in a developed, civilised country, and our daycare lets the kids run through a sprinkler naked with the parent’s blessings.

I live in the Midwest, in a gorgeous suburban village. Kids are naked here all the time. We have no pedophiles running amok, either.

No one would open a fire hydrant here to get cool. However, children are naked in yards in kiddie pool, sprinklers and at least my son’s case, the rain. To me it’s a natural part of childhood.

@Plucky ” We (developed countries) do not live in a society where this behaviour is considered ok in public anymore.” – wow.

I’m with @Simone_De_Beauvoir except I’m not a hippy and @Coloma.

That the mother was arrested for contributing to delinquency of a minor? That is stretching it. I would not be surprised if she were poor and African American. They get picked on by the legal system because we all know if it were a rich white woman she would have hired a lawyer in a heartbeat, it would be all over the papers and the cops and the town would look idiotic. The cops would not even ticket a rich white woman in this instance.

@chyna Good point.

@Pandora The pedophilia aspect is irrelevant. It goes to the general advisability of allowing the child to do this, not the legality of it. If the public asks stupid questions as the result of an incident, someone should say “here’s why that’s a stupid question” and explain to them that we don’t want police officers giving out tickets for things that aren’t illegal on the grounds that someone else might commit a crime later. Imagine getting a ticket for being a blonde woman because there are serial killers who only kill blonde women. Talk about blaming the victim!

@Plucky The consensus seems to be against you regarding the indecency of the act. And it’s not just Fluther that disagrees with you. Children play around naked from time to time where I live, and no one bats an eye.

@john65pennington If you read my response, you’ll see that I admitted the case regarding the intentionality clause was hazy. Your answer, however, does not actually sway anything to the other side. The mother was disregarding an order that could not be legally given in the first place; therefore, her failure to follow it is not to be construed as intentionality in the requisite sense. Second, to break the law requires violating both the intentionality clause and the expectation clause (thus the use of the word “and” at the end of (i) after the semicolon). Since the expectation clause was clearly not violated, the fact that the vagueness regarding the intentionality clause in this case is immaterial. The officers were wrong.

@CunningLinguist ; are you an attorney? You sound like one. :-)

Just out of curiosity, at what age is it no longer cute or natural? Age 6.5 or 7, second grade or third grade? At what age do you start to teach a child to become a citizen who obeys the laws of the land whether you agree with them or not?

@rooeytoo LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

At what age does it become illegal for a child to be naked?

There was no proof that the mother of the child illegally opened the hydrant.

I am not saying I personally find a naked child indecent – or that anyone should. I would like to point out that I never stated the act as being “indecent” in either of my posts. That was not my point – I am being misunderstood here. I think it is unfair and judgemental to give me the flak on this matter.

I was stating how I find the majority of society reacting on the matter. I find that most people in our society are uncomfortable with a naked 6 year old child in public (whether they are wrong or not). Also, by “developed country” I did not mean civilized – that is so not where I was going. I meant countries like the western ones – countries that frown upon public nudity (such as women walking around topless). I am not saying the naked human body is indecent. It is the popular view of our societal norms – that is all.

The examples people are giving about “in their community” children can do this. Those examples are in private yards and daycare (which would not be considered public) – naked in the street is very different than those examples provided.

I do not expect the majority of Fluther people to be against the idea of a naked 6 year old running around a fire hydrant. Because…the majority of Fluther tend to be more open and intelligent than the majority of the outside world.

Please do not take my previous posts as my own personal belief on child nudity. I stated I would not allow my child to run around naked in public (such as on the street) because it is frowned upon in my community. NOT because I am against the very idea of a naked child. There is a reason most of us do not see naked children running around on the street, in public, on a regular basis – because it is not a normal thing in our society anymore. Right or wrong – it is not an acceptable behaviour. I am simply stating how our society is.

People are giving added intent and meaning to what I said, in this thread, that are just not there. This leaves me feeling rather frustrated and a little ticked off at the misreading and misjudging. Please reread my original statement with what I just said in mind.

Americans take their Puritan heritage too seriously. There is absolutely nothing wrong with kids or even adults “skinny dipping”. In some countries women not wearing burkas is a crime. I think that many of the radical conservatives would be happy to institute similar laws. This country is very warped. Television shows that have extreme violence and murder can be shown at prime time unless there are “boobs” exposed then it’s harming the children.

I say more nudity, less war! That being said, if the mother was opening the fire hydrant, she should have been arrested and fined for wasting water.

@Judi I have studied law, but I am not an attorney and I do not have a law degree.

@rooeytoo The question is not whether or not it’s cute or natural, but whether it is perceived as offensive to an ordinary viewer. We do not have to solve any complicated metaphysical or ethical problems to understand this law; we need only take the temperature of society. An appeal to subjective attitudes is built right into the law.

Your second question, meanwhile, is purely rhetorical. The child did not break any laws, and neither did the mother. Therefore, this situation does not raise the issue of when you start teaching a child to become a citizen who obeys the law.

To answer your question, however, no decent parent teaches a child to obey the laws of the land tout court. That is not the proper standard to take to the law. Instead, a parents should teach their children the difference between a law that is disagreeable and a law that is unjust and what sort of actions are appropriate to take against that law in each case.

@Plucky To the extent that your last answer was a response to me, note that I was speaking in terms of the law cited above. You said that the majority would find the child’s act indecent, and I said that the evidence suggests otherwise. Furthermore, my experience with people finding the child’s behavior acceptable does not involve either daycares or private yards.

@CunningLinguist – so if I, as a decent parent, feel the speed limit in any given area is too slow, I should teach my teen aged son to flout it and go as fast as he deems appropriate because I think the law is unjust?

Sounds like metaphysical bs to me!

Once again it is a good thing I never had children, I would have raised them as I was raised, to respect authority and the law. Probably would have scarred their little psyches irreparably. As I assume I must be since I pretty much buy the whole tout court thingy. :-)

My reply, in defense of myself, was pointing toward a number of people who listed my name in their replies.

@CunningLinguist You said that the majority would find the child’s act indecent, and I said that the evidence suggests otherwise. Furthermore, my experience with people finding the child’s behavior acceptable does not involve either daycares or private yards.

Again, I did not say the word “indecent” to describe people’s reactions. I used the terms appalled and disturbed (for my community). I also used the term uncomfortable. The reason being that it is not usually a normal occurance – I believe that to be true for an increasing number of communities in the western world (more so than not). The appalled and disturbed part would be on the actions, or lack thereof, of the parents of the nude child (not the actual nudeness of the child).

You stated the evidence suggests otherwise ..what evidence? People’s answers on Fluther? I already replied on that in my previous post. I’m not speaking in terms of the law. I am speaking in terms of the general societal norms in the western culture. In my original post I was merely trying to explain why people may have reacted the way they did to a nude 6 year old in public. I’m finding it rather pointless to explain myself further. I’ve already done so.

I find it interesting that the few others who expressed basically the same bloody view as I did were not immediately jumped upon by others. I was only trying to explain those views in more detail – to better contribute to the understanding of why the behaviour is generally seen as unacceptable by a given community. Apparently I failed. I see, and agree with, certain aspects of both sides of this debate – it’s my nature to do so. I do not appreciate people putting extra meaning/intent into my words that are not there. Nobody does. That’s that.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question at what age does it become illegal for a child to be naked?

@rooeytoo It’s funny. The first draft of my previous reply had a paragraph pointing out the (extremely obvious) difference between disagreeing with a law that changed the speed limit and disagreeing with a law that asked us to turn in Jews in hiding. It seemed to me precisely the kind of (extremely obvious) distinction that someone would ignore if they were feeling argumentative, and I thought it might be prudent to head it off in advance.

After writing it, however, it seemed to be giving you too little credit to assume you’d make such a foolish reply. As such, I replaced it with the short bit about teaching children the difference between a law that is disagreeable and a law that is unjust and how flouting the law is primarily appropriate in the latter case. Sadly, it seems that my original instincts were correct.

So here I will say it as explicitly as possible, despite the fact that it should be wholly unnecessary to do so given what I’ve already said: there is a difference between disobeying a law merely because you disagree with it or dislike it and disobeying a law because it is fundamentally unjust. No decent parent teaches a child to follow the law no matter what because any decent parent understands that the law can be wrong.

A child needs to be taught the skills to discern which laws are to be followed and which are to be flouted. Speed limits—which, incidentally, are probably the laws most often broken with the fewest consequences for those who do so—are not laws that it makes sense to flout on principle. This should be extremely obvious to any honest participant in this discussion, but there it is in type so that we can move on from such a ridiculous reply.

@Plucky You said that a majority would be “disturbed,” which in the context of the law—and I again remind you that I am using the word “indecent” in its legal sense—is the same thing as saying it is indecent. A sufficient number of people finding the naked child offensive is what makes it indecent under the law. Therefore, your comment logically commits you to the view that what the child did was (legally) indecent even if you yourself are not offended by it.

Regardless, I think your community is unrepresentative. You ask what evidence I have and assume that I mean other comments on Fluther—this despite the fact that I explicitly stated I was not talking about just the community here (what’s that about putting extra meaning into the words of others again?). No community I’ve lived in would agree with yours, and I’ve lived in many communities in many places. It is also evident in the way that overblown charges of this sort are regularly ridiculed in the media and by ordinary people. This is not decisive, of course, and neither is your impression of your own community. But again, I only said that consensus seems to be against you.

It’s the law. We don’t like some laws. We think some laws are silly. But we obey them anyway. (This isn’t to be confused with seriously BAD laws, like segregation and voting rights. I’m talking about silly laws.) That’s life in every society. Some things are allowed, some aren’t.

At what age does it become illegal for a child to be naked? Maybe it’s not “the law.” A cop should know the answer to that question before handing out a ticket. Just because a cop tells you to do something does not mean it’s a law.

@CunningLinguist I am not talking about the law. You are. So, to me, we are on completely different pages regarding the term indecent. I have stated this.

I did not say my community was representative – I gave an example. I did not assume you meant other comments on Fluther – I asked you if that is what you meant (that is not assuming, it is asking for clarification – there’s a huge difference).

I have lived in many communities as well. Some more lenient than the one I am in now, others not so much. Again, I am not going by that as evidence. That is not my reason for saying that the majority of people in western countries would find the behaviour inappropriate. I am not that short sighted, egotistical and unintelligent to assume my experience is the end all and be all. Studying societies and cultures (past and present) are one of my passions – that is where I gain my experience and knowledge on the matter. Believe about that statement what you will – I’m aware people lie on the internet all the time; it’s all too easy for them to do so.

You know, there’s a reason you don’t see naked babies/toddlers (bare bottoms) in the mainstream media anymore – even that shows a difference in society’s view on child nudity. Society has viewed nudity on different levels during different eras (even decades in some cases). I think the western society will get more stringent before it loosens up again. Because of the information/technology age we have entered into, western culture has been bombarded with different types of nudity from around the world. Our (by “our” I do not mean every single person – I hope that is clear by now) first reaction is to shut our doors, and minds, to it (history has proven that time and again). The majority are still doing so (including the laws – which make it even harder for people to change their views or express that change in view). The majority view will change; it’s just a matter of time – we are still stuck in the confusion mode of acceptance. But, the laws need to change in accordance with this view. In almost all cultures, the acception of nudity is situational. Western society is no different.

Any ways, no matter what I say on this thread, it seems I am poking a dead horse now. I am merely clarifying ..as much of what I first stated was misunderstood (partially because I did not explain it well enough or use the right wording). So, as for what the majority in our society believes or not, I guess we’ll just agree to disagree on the matter.

@jca… Public nudity is against the law. I don’t know that there is an age thing on it. I mean, if a parent took their two year old to Wal Mart and the kid was naked, it would be against the law.

@jca Perhaps public child nudity is not clear in terms of law – it may be more situational though. The context is important.

I guess I’d have to see the actual law.

@Plucky: Yes, but the law is spelled out, so as for situations to be illegal or legal. Having this amount of drugs is illegal, having this amount is legal. Doing this speed is legal, this speed is illegal. There must be a law stating what the age is. Again, just because a cop says to do something does not make that a law.

Time out! For those who are on the mom’s side…would you let your kids run around naked in public? http://www.fluther.com/124927/what-kind-of-parent-would-allow-his-or-her-kids-to/

@jca I’m thinking it may be the “age of consent” for the most part. It really depends on where you live though.

Since nobody can answer my question, I looked up the legal definition of “Indecent Exposure.” None say a 6 year old child should be a legal issue if he’s naked.

Can you give us the link? Does is specifically exclude children under a certain age from the law?

I am not tech savvy, so giving a link is not my forte, but just google indecent exposure age and see what comes up. You’ll see more things regarding adults doing indecent exposure to children.

@CunningLinguist – most parents can’t get their children to clean their room, or in this case keep their clothes on in public, but you seem to believe they can be taught, apparently from age 6, to make a determination on the “justness” of a law and flout it if they feel it is such.

Sounds like an orderly way to run a country!

@rooeytoo It has nothing to do with expecting a child to understand the “justness of a law.” At six, the child is learning right from wrong from his or her parents. Nothing more. Again, if the mom put clothes on the kid, and the kid took them off, that’s a whole different animal. But, from what I understand, up there @john65pennington wrote ”...and the mother never put clothes on him, after being warned, was the reason she was arrested. Witnesses told the police this.” So it sounds like the mom disregarded the officials and got in trouble.

@Dutchess_III No matter what, she shouldn’t have been arrested. It sounds to me like training was needed for the arresting officer. This was a misdemeanor in this locale. In my locale it might be a warning, or it might not be addressed at all. There was no crime committed. Generally, Milwaukee cops are too busy addressing actual crime.

Who’d ever know if she put clothes on him or not. There isn’t a link to a story/news article here.

This would not have happened to a rich person because they would have hired a lawyer, it would have been all over the news, and it would be laughed out of court. I am betting this was the inner city (where kids have no choice but play in fire hydrants – rich people usually would have a pool). Regardless, if a six year old was naked on the front lawn of a mansion, do you think the cop would arrest the mother?

@jca I don’t have a mansion, but no one bats an eyelash when my kid is naked and the cop shop is practically across the street from my home. I completely agree with you. That’s why I asked above where this happened. No mom in my suburb would be arrested for a naked kid, let alone ticketed or warned

I have to agree that I think it was wrong that they arrested the mother, but there is so much we don’t know. Was the mother watching the child or was she inside somewhere? Were there any extenuating circumstances other than that? Did she get combative? I can’t believe that’s the only kid who dance naked in a fire hydrant ever. I just need to hear the “rest of the story.”

@SpatzieLover You keep referring to your own property. I have no argument with that, but that’s different than a public street.

@Dutchess_III In the city people often don’t own their property, they rent. Often in Milwaukee they’ll put up a barricade, open a hydrant and let the kids cool off. If they don’t do the same thing in TN, that is their own fault, IMO. Without particulars, I am drawn to the conclusion that this occured in the inner city…as that is where people often take hydrant opening into their own hands when the temperature goes above 90.

@SpatzieLover I’m quite sure no one would be arrested in my neighbourhood either (for the nudity). However, my community would differ from yours in that the majority would be uncomfortable with it (even if it was on a private front lawn). I live in a newer area on the edge of a city (Canadian version of the suberbs).
Interestingly, I have a friend who lives in a trailer park/mobile park (in the same city) – I recall a couple summers ago several kids playing in a sprinkler. Two were naked (around the age of 4), the other 5 had shorts or swimsuits on (they were from age 4 – 8). No one seemed to care about it – this was on one of the front lawns there. I think the main aspects, or deciding factors, of the situation were the age of the children and location.

@SpatzieLover..even when you’re renting it is not a public place.

@Plucky I live on the “Catholic” side of my village. There are more children than adults on this side. ;) When children get hot, they get naked and drench themselves with or without parental consent.
@Dutchess_III it is if it’s on a city street and there is no back or side yard.

OK.

The police could have given a second warning that if done again, she would be arrested. I would think that would deter her. Of course I don’t know how it actually went down, and the law probably has the police entirely in their rights, but as the question was what’s the best course and could it have been done differently, I do think so:

Being told not to do something by the police does not imply to everyone that they will actually get arrested and charged if they don’t. If it’s not a huge offense then it seems to me that the police could make that outcome explicit before arresting and filing charges. This makes it clear to the person that their choice is between stopping the infraction, or getting arrested, which I would expect to stop the infraction, and at worst would mean the person can’t reasonably be outraged that they were actually arrested, since they were told specifically that would happen. Depending on how the conversation goes, the authorities and reasons could be explained too, also leading to understanding and compliance etc.

A little further explanation. The police did not go to the fire hydrant on their own. They responded to a complaint from a citizen. Their complaint was about both the open fire hydrant and the naked juvenile male.

I thought juveniles were, like, aged 10 to 17?
Well, shame on the neighbor who blew the whistle on the naked kid.

@jp you know there are those that are freshmans in their job . Maybe the arresting officer was a newbie and wanted to apply the law by the letter .

There might be something strange in dealing with this .
How one reacts to what he sees is another aspect . One can be bothered by a simple nude kid while another not enjoying the waste of water .

Always a whinney ass neighbor in every neighborhood.

Apparently, both bothered one woman.

@Dutchess_III – I was responding to @CunningLinguist who says that “decent” parents teach their children to identify which laws are “just” and which can be flouted. I think that is a bit much to ask of a 6 year old or actually a 16 year old. I think children should be taught to obey the law of the land and not to try to bend it to their own liking. If they decide to do that, they will most likely meet up with @john65pennington or one of his peers.

And I still maintain that by the time you are in first or second grade, you are past the age where running around naked in the streets is acceptable behavior. So bad marks to the mother.

@rooeytoo but the kid was 6. He had time to change but someone had a different thing to say.

@Hibernate – I don’t understand what you are saying???

@rooeytoo I see. I agree with you. On both counts. On all 3 counts because I don’t understand what @Hibernate is saying either!

@Dutchess_III See here for where @Pied_Pfeffer linked to the complete law, and here for where I gave an analysis of the relevant section of the law to show that it had not been violated. For what it’s worth, I have sent my analysis to former professors and colleagues of mine who are now lawyers or law professors. The six who have responded tell me that my analysis is correct as far as this conversation is concerned.

I, too, would like to know all of the available details. It seems that @john65pennington wants to release them bit by bit, perhaps hoping to trip people up. Based on the details available right now, however, I still see no reason to think the police acted properly.

@Plucky It seems that despite your cries of us misunderstanding you, you are intent on misunderstanding me. I have only said that I was using “indecency” in the legal sense when I first responded to you, not that I was interpreting you as talking about the law. The issue is that you claimed the following:

“We (developed countries) do not live in a society where this behaviour is considered ok in public anymore. Maybe 20 plus years ago it was ok for a naked 6 year old to run around a spraying fire hydrant. Society is different now.”

But this is false—more people accept this behavior than you think. Thus, it does not fit the legal standard of “indecency,” which is just shorthand for saying it does not offend the public in the way you were asserting. Quite simple, and it doesn’t matter whether or not we’re both talking about the law or not once you take the time to understand how I was using the term.

As for your question about what I was taking as my evidence, I had already answered it. As such, the implication was that you were asking it rhetorically. There was no reason for me to think it was asked as a matter of clarification under those circumstances. Regardless, I did clarify at the same time that I pointed out this linguistic infelicity, so your answer is already above.

Finally, the point about the media does not seem to prove what you think it proves. It seems to me more likely that naked babies have been seen less in the media not because most of society disapproves of them, but rather for legal reasons and to appease a vocal minority. We hear a lot about the left wing’s PC police, but the right wing has its own version that operates in the name of “family values” (which apparently means “no sex,” even though none of us would have any families to value if it weren’t for sex).

They call a baby’s bottom a sexualized image—revealing much more about themselves than about those of us who can see a baby naked without becoming aroused—and threaten boycotts. It’s bad publicity, so they get appeased even if they do not in any way represent the majority.

In addition, there is the fact that the police have made a habit of reading too much into child pornography laws across the United States. This makes it safer from a legal perspective to just go without said images. While they may fear legal action, however, this does not prove there has been a change in society’s view on child nudity.

@rooeytoo I have not once said that children should be able to tell from age six the difference between a just law and an unjust one. What I have said is that a decent parent teaches that to a child—over the course of a lifetime—rather than blind obedience. As for the orderliness fighting injustice, my home country was built on dissent and rebellion against unjust laws. If that makes things a little messier, so be it. I’m not handing over an innocent man just so I can have a quiet evening.

@john65pennington The further information is welcomed, of course, and would have been more welcome at the beginning. Regardless, it has not changed my opinion. A single complaint may warrant talking to the mother, but it does not warrant an arrest. It’s the same way a single complaint against you while you were an officer would not warrant an arrest by Internal Affairs. Or do you hold yourself to lower standards?

@Hibernate Applying the letter of the law would have meant not arresting the mother because the law was not broken.

Hey, this situation is nothing compared to what just happened in my town. The police suspected a man of buying beer for kids. His teenage son was with him. He asked if he was under arrest. They said no so he started to walk away. This is where the police and the sons story differ. The son says they hit him behind the knees with their Billy club. He fell to the ground where the beer cans in his bag exploded. The police shot and killed him. The police say he swung the bag with 2 beer cans and hit one officer in the head, so they shot him. Either way, this former NFL player is dead over 2 cans of beer.

THANK you for that line @CunningLinguist!

OK…that was all pretty harsh. The thing that I was looking for was age restrictions, of which there weren’t. Not any that would apply in this situation any way. All I saw was (2) “Indecent exposure,” as defined in subdivision (b)(1), is a Class B misdemeanor, unless the defendant is eighteen (18) years of age or older and the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, in which event indecent exposure is a Class A misdemeanor. Additionally, “indecent exposure,” as defined in subdivision (b)(1), is a Class E felony when the defendant is eighteen (18) years of age or older, the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, and the defendant has any combination of two (2) or more prior convictions under this section.”

At the very beginning, in the middle of all the sex shit, it does list simple “nudity” as indecent exposure. So literally, the child was “guilty,” and by proxy, the parent. It was still an overr ection, IMO.

I just know that if the police approached me and said my child was running around in the street naked, I’d sure get some clothes on them.

@Dutchess_III I’m not sure what line you are referring to, but you are welcome for the references to the earlier posts. It is true that there are no age specifications in the law, but there are other qualifications that limit one’s liability. Furthermore, the Tennessee law does not list simple nudity as indecent exposure. It lists it under the section on public indecency, and even then simple nudity is not itself enough for a criminal charge. Conditions of intent must be met—conditions that children are not legally capable of meeting.

Regardless, indecent exposure and public indecency are separate crimes, and it is indecent exposure with which the mother was charged according to @john65pennington. Indecent exposure has a higher threshold than public indecency, and it was not met in this case. Thus neither the child nor the mother could be guilty of it. Like you, I would probably put clothes on a child if the police asked me to; but that you or I would do so in no way means that we are legally required to do so or that those who don’t are breaking the law.

It’s right there at the top. I don’t even like to copy and paste it but it goes like the, 4th line down from the very top:

39–13-511. Public indecency – Indecent exposure.

(a) (1) (A) A person commits the offense of public indecency who, in a public place, as defined in subdivision (a)(2)(B), knowingly or intentionally:

(i) Engages in sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions or other ultimate sex acts;

(ii) Appears in a state of nudity; or

(iii) Fondles the genitals of such person, or another person.

To me, it appears that law is mainly to stop sexual acts in public, but then they throw that one little thing in there, all by itself. No age limit, no disclaimer, nothing. You can’t be naked in public.

@Dutchess_III Right, but context is important:

39–13–511. Public indecency – Indecent exposure.

(a) (1) (A) A person commits the offense of public indecency who, in a public place, as defined in subdivision (a)(2)(B), knowingly or intentionally:

(i) Engages in sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions or other ultimate sex acts;

(ii) Appears in a state of nudity; or

(iii) Fondles the genitals of such person, or another person.

The mother was charged with indecent exposure, not public indecency. That charge is dealt with in the section of the law I analyzed above, whereas the portions in bold above show that this section of the law concerns something with which the mother wasn’t charged. If she had been charged with public indecency, we’d be having a very different conversation.

Still, the “knowingly or intentionally” clause is also important. We would need more details—and so would the police—to give a certain verdict on even a public indecency charge. This is especially true since there are often other laws that blanket over laws like this one that say what a child can and cannot be guilty of (and what a parent can and cannot be guilty of by proxy). The lack of an age specification within this section of the law, therefore, is no guarantee that the child’s age is legally irrelevant.

O I C! I didn’t catch that. Nice. Nice post all the way around.

However, to address one part of it, it appears that the mother did “knowingly” allow her child to run nakee. At least the 2nd time, for sure.

And whomever called the cops should be charged with “Excessive Anal Retentiveness. Maybe. I still have to wonder….what kind of mother would let their child run around on a city street with no clothes on?

@Dutchess_III Agreed on all counts. I’d still want more details, but I think the police would have had more of a case if the charge had been public indecency. It does appear that the mother knowingly let her child run around naked the second time.

Right. And you have to question the mother that would let her child do that in this society.

Cool.

Had time to change as in DRESSING HIMSELF.

“Someone” is the lady who called the cops. She wanted to make harm and she did.

I have to agree @Hibernate about the lady causing trouble ‘cuz she’s just an ass.
What do you mean by “Had time to change as in DRESSING HIMSELF.”?

He had time to change CLOTHES but the lady had a different thing to say WHEN SHE CALLED THE COPS. Maybe now I’m clear .. I hope I am.

I still don’t understand. The kid had no clothes on, period.

Gosh… When the hydrant was closed the first time the kid was sent home to dress himself. He had time to do it but he didn’t. Gosh… is it that hard ?

No. The police talked to his mother. Told her to put some clothes on him. She refused to comply. The kid was 6 years old.

I would like to know why the kid’s state of dress is so important.

Because the Mom got arrested for it, #1. #2, I think it’s weird that she let him do that. I wouldn’t let my kids run around naked on a public street.

@Dutchess_III what I don’t get is why it’s an issue in the first place. Except for the unauthorized opening of the hydrant, to me, there is no other issue that wasn’t initiated by the policeman, not the mother.

Some neighbor called it in. Twice.

@Dutchess_III Someone called the police about the fire hydrant. There is no mention by John about the call(s) having to do with a naked child.

@Pied_Pfeffer See this response from @john65pennington. Apparently, the neighbor complained about both. That doesn’t mean the neighbor was right to do so, however.

You guys..honestly. If I was driving down a residential street and saw 5 or 6 kids playing in the sprinkler in the front yard, and one of them was buck naked, I really would see it as a problem. Maybe not if it was a two-year-old, but definitely if it was a bigger child, like a six year old. Wouldn’t you find it a bit strange? I wouldn’t call the police, but it would be odd. Because that’s the society I was raised in.

I also wonder exactly where the mom was. Was she even outside keeping an eye on her child? Or was she inside?

@Dutchess_III Yes it would seem odd and a bit strange to me. I don’t think odd and strange things are problems, but I would wonder if it might become a problem one way or another, such as what happened (mother being arrested and charged, for example). I wouldn’t recommend it, and I’d generally prefer everyone keep their clothes on in public. None of which means I think that the police should arrest and charge people for it, especially not without first giving them a warning to stop it or else they will be arrested and charged.

@CunningLinguist Ah, thank you.

@Dutchess_III Yes, in this scenario, I would find it odd. But then, I don’t know what goes on behind the doors of my neighbors. If a six year old is allowed to run around in their house or back yard naked, then they might not consider it to be unacceptable to do so in a more public setting. Despite that, I think that most parents would teach their children that there is a time and place where nakedness is acceptable or not for a variety of reasons. Most children, by the age of six, know a few of these…at least where I come from.

@Zaku They did give her a warning. She refused to comply, according to witnesses. Then they turned the hydrant on again, and the police got called again and the kid was still naked!

@Pied_Pfeffer Exactly! Chubby 2 and 3 year olds are super cute when they’re running around nakid (I have a picture of my daughter with a glitter butterfly stuck to her butt!—I put it there!), but even at that there is a limit. I’ve found myself in the front yard for a moment, hosing them off on a summer day…but after about the age of 4 they’re getting all tall and lanky and it’s just not so cute anymore. And certainly not in a crowed of other people on a public street. There is just so much more that we don’t know. What kind of person in America would, apparently, encourage such a thing in a 6 year old?

@Dutchess_III It might be a little odd, but I wouldn’t consider it offensive. And offensive is the legal standard for indecent exposure. With regard to your response to @Zaku, though, it has not yet been stated that the mother who was arrested was the one who opened the hydrant nor that she was given a warning. All we’ve been told is that someone opened the hydrant and that the police requested or ordered the woman in question to put clothes on the child. There is presently no indication that they told her she could be arrested for failing to comply.

An officer can tell me to go home after intervening in some incident or other, but he cannot ticket me for going to a friend’s house instead. Unless I break a law and I am given a ticket for breaking that law, they cannot legally do anything to me.

I’m not entirely clear exactly what happened between whom, but I still think it seems like although the woman was told to put clothes on her kid and it didn’t happen, my recommendation (to the original question) and where I draw the line (replying to @Dutchess_III ) is at whether the police tried telling her clearly that she would be arrested and charged if she didn’t keep her child clothed in public, giving her a chance to choose between clothing the child and getting arrested. If they just told her it was against the law and to stop and she could be charged, and then left, and then came back, saw the kid, and arrested her, then that seems like they were too quick to arrest and to charge, to me, as far as what I would want them to do. It seems to me there is at least one other level of escalation available before doing that, which I would want them to use. What I really want them to do is make it very clear to her that she’ll be arrested and charged if she persists or re-violates within a certain time, and only if she continues or re-violates within that time, arrest her.

Again, I just think arresting the mother for this was a tad on the harsh side.

I agree with all of you. I wouldn’t find it “offensive,” I certainly would call the cops, but I would very odd for this society. Which makes me wonder what the mother was thinking. I agree with you @jca. It was probably a revenue thing…

I would wager the woman gave the coppers a bunch of lip when they told her to put some clothes on the kid. Probably got on the wrong side of them, they are human you know. So when they came back a second time, for whatever reason, and there was the same naked kid and mouthy adult, they acted.

Most of the cops I have known are like any other segment of humanity, that is the majority are good people doing their job in the best way they can. Some are the opposite. But anyone can get annoyed with a smart mouth.

I am just assuming here, but can’t you just picture it happening that way? In the city open hydrants in the summer are a constant nuisance and danger to the police and firemen. If someone else were being robbed and the police were not there lickety split or your house were on fire and the firemen were not there because they were following up something of this nature, you would be upset about that as well. Somethings are just no win situations.

@rooeytoo I can definitely see it going down that way. An unfortunate, but very human situation—on all sides.

@rooeytoo I asked John about that. He said she did not resist arrest. John doesn’t talk much!