Indecent exposure in public library

[rvb]

...so have her start documenting interaction with her superiors. Keep a journal.

yes

Yeah. Why do you think they wanted access to that info?

But, having worked in and spent a great deal of time in libraries over the years, I've rarely seen little old blue haired ladies (outside of a cafeteria) get so worked up as when they imagined authorities trying to infringe on patrons' right to read whatever they wanted without fear of repercussions. Seriously, some of those ladies would have gone to jail before giving up that kind of info.

and good for them...
but this isn't really related, imo. no one cares what he's looking at / reading, it's about what he's doing.

I would call police and video him each and every time he does this. I don't care what the 'policy' is. at least get him to go elsewhere...

2c

-rvb

 

[spec4]

The "history of being violent" tells me the police may already know this guy. How about a visit to the police and explain what is going on and ask for suggestions? As mentioned above, any action against her by superiors could result in a lawsuit.

 

[grunt soldier]

The below says it all. They have more than enough to charge him. He may not end up convicted but if officers witness this, have a witness willing to write a statement or it's on video they have PC.

At a bare minimum they can show up and criminally trespass him from the property. If he comes back after he can be arrested

Indiana Code 35-45-4-1
Sec. 1 . (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place:
(1) engages in sexual intercourse;


(2) engages in other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5 );

(3) appears in a state of nudity with the intent to arouse the sexual desires of the person or another person;  or


(4) fondles the person's genitals or the genitals of another person;

commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place, appears in a state of nudity with the intent to be seen by a child less than sixteen (16) years of age commits public indecency, a Class A misdemeanor.


(c) However, the offense under subsection (a) or (b) is a Level 6 felony if the person who commits the offense has a prior unrelated conviction:
(1) under subsection (a) or (b);  or

(2) in another jurisdiction, including a military court, that is substantially equivalent to an offense described in subsection (a) or (b).


(d) As used in this section, “nudity” means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple, or the showing of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.


(e) A person who, in a place other than a public place, with the intent to be seen by persons other than invitees and occupants of that place:

(1) engages in sexual intercourse;

(2) engages in other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5 );

(3) fondles the person's genitals or the genitals of another person;  or

(4) appears in a state of nudity;


where the person can be seen by persons other than invitees and occupants of that place commits indecent exposure, a Class C misdemeanor.


Who is telling them that they are not allowed to call the police? That's ridiculous. The police will investigate an anonymous call, so I'd let the police handle the situation. Especially if this guy is potentially violent.

I'm not sure what kind of manager thinks that it is acceptable to let someone come into the library and pleasure himself in front of everyone.

 

[HoughMade]

Route 45 bolded the nudity portion, but I think this is the part that definitely applies.

Yeah, forget the nudity thing. The "fondling" subsection is the pick to click and easier to prove.

"What did you see?"

"He was staring at a sexually suggestive ad with his hand down is pants."

"Did you notice anything about where he had his hand down his pants?"

"Yes."

"What?"

"He was moving his hand in a way that appeared like he was fonding his genitals"

"Your witness"

As opposed to a discussion about whether he was in a "discernibly turgid" state and how do you know that vs. large junk.

In the end, it's no so much a conviction, but a basis to have the police come out and trespass him.

 

[rw02kr43]

Well a bit of an update. The guy was kicked out for a year. This past week was a big system wide meeting. The topic of sexual harassment came up and the presenter said that luckily there had been no reports of anything. My wife and her coworkers spoke up. Turns out her branch manager had never mentioned the whole thing to the higher ups like he said he did. And his advice of "they have to catch the guy in the act" to say anything was totally wrong. So, this week each one of the employees is meeting with the higher ups one on one. They are all quite angry at the branch manager and also feel pretty betrayed by him. I'm hoping something comes from it. But I kind of wonder if they will claim he just didn't understand the policy and gave bad advice. no harm no fowl.

Jason

 

[T.Lex]

Thanks for the update. But...

no harm no fowl.

Now I'm REALLY curious about what creeper d00d was in to! Yikes!

 

[JettaKnight]

I really regret searching for this, but...

 

[churchmouse]

Well a bit of an update. The guy was kicked out for a year. This past week was a big system wide meeting. The topic of sexual harassment came up and the presenter said that luckily there had been no reports of anything. My wife and her coworkers spoke up. Turns out her branch manager had never mentioned the whole thing to the higher ups like he said he did. And his advice of "they have to catch the guy in the act" to say anything was totally wrong. So, this week each one of the employees is meeting with the higher ups one on one. They are all quite angry at the branch manager and also feel pretty betrayed by him. I'm hoping something comes from it. But I kind of wonder if they will claim he just didn't understand the policy and gave bad advice. no harm no fowl.

Jason

He was fearful of opening up that Pandora's box. Coward.

 

[rw02kr43]

From when it sounds like, creeper dude was watching things that just fell short of being porn. Calgon ads, condom and lubricant ads etc. That got him going. Then the employees having to watch him kept him going.

 

[T.Lex]

He was fearful of opening up that Pandora's box.

Wait.

Is that a euphemism?

 

[KittySlayer]

no harm no fowl.

Now wait, I recall earlier in the thread a chicken got choked.

 

[actaeon277]

Well a bit of an update. The guy was kicked out for a year. This past week was a big system wide meeting. The topic of sexual harassment came up and the presenter said that luckily there had been no reports of anything. My wife and her coworkers spoke up. Turns out her branch manager had never mentioned the whole thing to the higher ups like he said he did. And his advice of "they have to catch the guy in the act" to say anything was totally wrong. So, this week each one of the employees is meeting with the higher ups one on one. They are all quite angry at the branch manager and also feel pretty betrayed by him. I'm hoping something comes from it. But I kind of wonder if they will claim he just didn't understand the policy and gave bad advice. no harm no fowl.

Jason

They should be angry. That manager could have caused them a bunch of trouble.

 

[HoughMade]

Now wait, I recall earlier in the thread a chicken got choked.

In a pubic library, no less.

 

[bobjones223]

I have been wondering why the keys at the Noblesville library kept sticking?


Sorry someone had to make a joke....this thread was way to serious for way too long on INGO!

But in all honesty...glad they crossed the first hurdle of getting him gone!