Guy in Valdosta

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby crfriend » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:51 pm

SkirtsDad wrote:[... N]ot so easy to imagine [on "innocent until proven guilty"] when one of the three charges is a SORNA violation. Whichever the outcome, it must surely be damaging to our skirt wearing community.

I had to look the acronym up.

One thing (of many) that baffles me utterly about the USA is the fact that on any number of channels on the telly per day we can watch dozens upon dozens of murders being committed -- frequently on the part of characters supposedly playing police -- but yet if somebody shows a bit of perfectly human anatomy -- even accidentally -- a collective shriek immediately issues. The proper response is either laughter or a comment of, "Oh, please."

On the "sex offender" bit, if they're so dangerous to the general population why don't we execute them or imprison them for life. This asinine notion of "registration and notification" amounts to a life-sentence in practise, why not remove the chicanery and just lock 'em up or kill 'em (we're good at that here)? Is it, perhaps, because those in power are aware of precisely how screwed up things are here and potential international backlash?

On your last assertion, I have to sadly hang my head and agree with you. It's going to do no favours at all. All it's going to do is reinforce the notion in what passes for the public's mind that any guy who dares appear out of accepted garb is some sort of pervert -- which is something the lot of us are trying to fight.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10309
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Kilty » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:43 pm

It is a shame, but the news reports seem to indicate this was not the first time and his arrest was the culmination of 3 other incidents
Even though he was very talkative on the Shelby County case, he didn't say much when we asked him about the charge he's facing in Alabaster.

"WBRC FOX6 Reporter Josh Gauntt: Are there any pending cases against you that we should know about? In Shelby County?”

John Woodruff: "Well I'll tell you what our court systems are open to the public. They are public record.”

Gauntt: “The situation in Alabaster? The similar situation that supposedly happened late last year. Would you like to comment on that?”

Woodruff: “I'd refer you to my attorney on that.”

Gauntt: “Ok, would you say that..that situation was an accident too?”

Woodruff: “Again, I'm going to refer you to my attorney on that."

We’re still waiting to hear back from his attorney. After his arrest, we found a story out of southern Georgia where

Woodruff told a newspaper about his experiment in wearing skirts. He said he wanted to test social norms. He's now facing three indecent exposure charges in Alabama.


So he wasn't just throwing on a skirt in place of shorts and going out to do shopping or whatever like the majority of skirters here. Perhaps part of his "social experiment" after wearing a skirt
(he said people laughed at him initially) was to get back at them by exposing himself as he had no underwear on, which is unhygienic in itself if trying on a skirt or dress in a shop.

The news report at wlox continues

"Shelby Co/ investigators say John Woodruff tried on women's dresses at a local boutique then asked for help in removing them. Cops say when workers went to help him, he allegedly exposed himself."

The most help you need when taking off a dress is a little help with the zip, so this was deliberate. Won't help MIS but there's plenty of perverts in trousers who do similar acts and fall foul of the law. :cry:
Kilty
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:47 pm

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby crfriend » Tue May 01, 2018 12:06 am

kilty wrote:It is a shame, but the news reports seem to indicate this was not the first time and his arrest was the culmination of 3 other incidents
Even though he was very talkative on the Shelby County case, he didn't say much when we asked him about the charge he's facing in Alabaster.

Do not fall into the trap of believing everything that one reads in the US "press". Much of it is sensational and explicitly designed to attract readers/viewers and to drive advertising revenue. "Sex sells" is a mantra in the USA, and the "'news' media" is not immune to this. Recall, also, that flawed as it is, there still remains the tiniest shards of "innocent until proven guilty" in the legal system.
The most help you need when taking off a dress is a little help with the zip, so this was deliberate. Won't help MIS but there's plenty of perverts in trousers who do similar acts and fall foul of the law. :cry:

Indeed, and I will caution the reader once again not to read too much into this -- if for no other reason that we have no indication of the actual facts in the matter. The primary takeaways from this should be that we, here, are essentially uninformed on the matter and that we should withhold judgement on it until we are better informed.

IF -- and that's a whopping big IF -- he was conducting some sort of off-the-wall "experiment" then he is rotten at risk-management and doesn't understand the consequences that actions can precipitate. Perhaps the only thing that might possibly be considered valid here is that the presence of alphabet-soup following one's name is not an indicator of real-world intelligence or competence. We get to await the decision of the courts on that matter, which we'll likely never hear about because it won't sell adverts.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10309
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Kilty » Tue May 01, 2018 4:19 pm

crfriend wrote:
kilty wrote:It is a shame, but the news reports seem to indicate this was not the first time and his arrest was the culmination of 3 other incidents
Even though he was very talkative on the Shelby County case, he didn't say much when we asked him about the charge he's facing in Alabaster.

Do not fall into the trap of believing everything that one reads in the US "press". Much of it is sensational and explicitly designed to attract readers/viewers and to drive advertising revenue. "Sex sells" is a mantra in the USA, and the "'news' media" is not immune to this. Recall, also, that flawed as it is, there still remains the tiniest shards of "innocent until proven guilty" in the legal system.
The most help you need when taking off a dress is a little help with the zip, so this was deliberate. Won't help MIS but there's plenty of perverts in trousers who do similar acts and fall foul of the law. :cry:

Indeed, and I will caution the reader once again not to read too much into this -- if for no other reason that we have no indication of the actual facts in the matter. The primary takeaways from this should be that we, here, are essentially uninformed on the matter and that we should withhold judgement on it until we are better informed.

IF -- and that's a whopping big IF -- he was conducting some sort of off-the-wall "experiment" then he is rotten at risk-management and doesn't understand the consequences that actions can precipitate. Perhaps the only thing that might possibly be considered valid here is that the presence of alphabet-soup following one's name is not an indicator of real-world intelligence or competence. We get to await the decision of the courts on that matter, which we'll likely never hear about because it won't sell adverts.


I'm sure the US press is just as bad as the Daily Fail we have in the UK :roll: It was a shame as he looked smart in that skirt. If he was going about normal 'blokey' things that men do, whilst happening to wear a skirt, it would have been totally fine. The skirt was an excuse to behave the way he did. Guys in kilts are guilty of the same thing, but most of us wear them for heritage, the tartans and colours and look much better than in a suit :wink: we are still guys doing regular guy stuff despite our different dress. If he could't figure how to get the dress on, he shouldn't have bought it, let alone enticed a poor shop assistant into the cubicle to do as he did :evil:
Kilty
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:47 pm

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Freedomforall » Fri May 25, 2018 8:10 am

I just saw this shocking news. I wonder how much of the story is sensationalism. I did find something that concerns me. There was a news station that reported the incident. The station posted the link on Facebook. One of the comments was from a person claiming to be a clerk at a boutique. She says VC was in the store last year in a skirt looking for mini-skirts. This person claims to have called the police just because of the way VC was dressed. She also says the police took a report. This is alarming if it is true. There was no crime committed and therfore no report should have been filed.
User avatar
Freedomforall
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby crfriend » Fri May 25, 2018 9:44 am

Freedomforall wrote:This person claims to have called the police just because of the way VC was dressed. She also says the police took a report. This is alarming if it is true. There was no crime committed and therfore no report should have been filed.

This is not entirely surprising. Anybody can call the cops any time they feel like it, and the cops are mandated to take the report. In the old days, the "report" would have been filed in the station wastepaper-basket and that would have been that; nowadays, "procedure" frequently demands that charges be filed - whether or not a crime has been committed -- and the matter becomes "public record" from which it is impossible to get anything expunged. BTDT, have the scars.

Whilst the USA claims to adhere to the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" there's not a lot of meat to that assertion any longer -- and worse is that there is no such thing as legal innocence of things, only "not guilty". Too, perjury is not considered a criminal act any longer here -- or at least in some jurisdictions. The takeaway here is that anybody in the USA -- especially a man -- can be picked up at any time, for any random reason, be detained against his will, and have to prove himself "not guilty" in a court of law.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10309
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Sinned » Fri May 25, 2018 12:38 pm

For offences up to and including burglary the perception is that there needs to be no police presence and to email details of the incident which will then be given a crime reference number. I have had very little to do with the police so I cannot confirm whether it is true or not. It does seem to fit with the trend of the times though.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.
User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 3654
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Freedomforall » Fri May 25, 2018 3:52 pm

Carl the whole incident makes me angry and reminds me of why I hate living in the south. It also makes me glad I am not an officer anymore. Departments are mandating reports for almost every incident. Officers are afraid to not write reports for fear of disciplinary action from supervisors. The south is so full of narrow minds and rednecks.
User avatar
Freedomforall
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby crfriend » Fri May 25, 2018 3:54 pm

Freedomforall wrote:The south is so full of narrow minds and rednecks.

New England has more than their share as well.

Oh, well. In lieu of respect, fear works admirably in keeping the population under heel.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10309
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Freedomforall » Fri May 25, 2018 4:13 pm

Last year I was working with some guys from East Tennessee. I was wearing a beaded bracelet. One of the guys asked in his most southern accent, "What's 'at?". I told him it was a bracelet and he just said, "jewelry, hmmmm." What a moron!!
User avatar
Freedomforall
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby SkirtsDad » Fri May 25, 2018 5:02 pm

Freedomforall wrote:I just saw this shocking news. I wonder how much of the story is sensationalism. I did find something that concerns me. There was a news station that reported the incident. The station posted the link on Facebook. One of the comments was from a person claiming to be a clerk at a boutique. She says VC was in the store last year in a skirt looking for mini-skirts. This person claims to have called the police just because of the way VC was dressed. She also says the police took a report. This is alarming if it is true. There was no crime committed and therfore no report should have been filed.


Are you basing your idea that "no crime committed and therfore no report should have been filed" on purely that one comment, or are you privy to more information?

Yes, "if true" that she reported him purely for wearing a skirt then it would be disturbing, however there are limited details in that comment, and I for one, would not hasten to conclude anything from it.. Perhaps she recognised him by virtue of him wearing a skirt? We do not know, however, we do know that it is reported that Woodruff was previously found guilty of exposing himself and has a total of three charges against him for indecent exposure. Maybe she even prevented another crime being committed.
User avatar
SkirtsDad
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Freedomforall » Fri May 25, 2018 5:11 pm

The store was in Birmingham, Alabama. It does not appear that he has any charges in Alabama. The store is several hundred miles from where his charges were. The reporter posted the story and was laughing at him because he was wearing a skirt. The clerk commented on the reporters humor concerning the situation. She then made the comment about skirt wearing by men being freaky. The next comment was abouf him entering the store in a skirt. You could be right.
User avatar
Freedomforall
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Freedomforall » Fri May 25, 2018 6:44 pm

This is what I know for a fact. A police report is a reactive response rather than a proactive one. An officer takes a report and turns it in to his supervisor. The supervisor reviews it and sends it to data entry. It takes an average of 72 hours for this report to be entered into the police data system. during this time no police action is taken on the report. After 72 hours and the report has been entered it takes anywhere from a week to three weeks for the report to be assigned to a detective. Again during this time nothing is being done to follow up. The detective will be assigned the report after a period of up to three weeks. He then can take up to three more weeks to take action depending on how the report was prioritized. Reports are typically used as a C.Y.A. for departments. All this to say that police reports rarely if ever prevent crimes.
User avatar
Freedomforall
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby crfriend » Sat May 26, 2018 4:41 am

Freedomforall wrote:This is what I know for a fact. A police report is a reactive response rather than a proactive one. An officer takes a report and turns it in to his supervisor. The supervisor reviews it and sends it to data entry. It takes an average of 72 hours for this report to be entered into the police data system.

In these here parts a report can result in violent action against the accused in a matter of under 15 minutes. I am living -- fortunately -- proof of that. I am not amused. Not one bit. It could have gone the other way. Fortunately the local coppers weren't trigger-happy.
All this to say that police reports rarely if ever prevent crimes.

Yet they can destroy lives. Worse, they can destroy the lives of innocent people.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
 
Posts: 10309
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)

Re: Guy in Valdosta

Postby Daryl » Sat May 26, 2018 11:56 am

Freedomforall wrote:I just saw this shocking news. I wonder how much of the story is sensationalism. I did find something that concerns me. There was a news station that reported the incident. The station posted the link on Facebook. One of the comments was from a person claiming to be a clerk at a boutique. She says VC was in the store last year in a skirt looking for mini-skirts. This person claims to have called the police just because of the way VC was dressed. She also says the police took a report. This is alarming if it is true. There was no crime committed and therfore no report should have been filed.


Well, when someone calls the police, there is always an incident report, even if all it says is that the call was made and no problem was found. This is important. For example, if the same person makes enough nuisance calls, perhaps that person is in need of some corrective measure such as a warning about the public mischief laws.
Daryl...
User avatar
Daryl
Member Extraordinaire
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:25 am
Location: Toronto Canada

PreviousNext

Return to In the News / Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest