Man sues for $1 over right to wear skirt in public

[crfriend]

[...]For my tastes, the skirt was too short. That may have been one reason the 'cop' tried to stop him.

Is there any guarantee of the accuracy or veracity of the video clip? I'll admit to not having seen it (I'm on the "wrong end" of a garden-hose 'net connection), but am quite naturally suspicious of such things because they're so easy to fake. As far as the shortness of the skirt goes, and what's "appropriate" or not, I might invoke the spectre of Ally McBeal (fictional character). Shall we discuss "short" again? So long as Mr. Kerr had his "private bits" covered, that's good enough.

On the other hand, when asked why he was wearing a skirt, I think Mr. Kerr should have given an answer instead of walking away.

This may have been an incidence of somebody "looking for a fight", but in general, under US law, all one is required to give a police officer is one's name and address (as in "name , rank, and serial number") -- other than that, the "right to remain silent" is firmly ensconced in US law.

Whether the officer physically touching Mr. Kerr constituted battery is open to speculation; I'd posit that it did not due to the "special" status of police in the US. However, I view the conceptual basis of Mr. Kerr's suit valid. We shall see how it plays out in the court system -- and it may take decades.

Too bad the NOPD will not comment or allow the 'officer' to respond with his side of the
story. Once both 'sides' of the incident are known, the better to make a judgement call as to who was right and who was wrong.

That's standard procedure -- and it should be adhered to more often than it usually is in the US! Neither "side" should be commenting publically on the matter prior to adjudication. Once the judge has "made the call", then the disagreements can begin -- but not before.

[Uncle Al]

Neither "side" should be commenting publically on the matter prior
to adjudication. Once the judge has "made the call", then the
disagreements can begin -- but not before.

From what I could tell in the video, which was a broadcast on the local
Channel 10 News program, this is beginning to get 'tried' in the public.

In my opinion, the best solution would be to have the 'officer' issue an
appology, settle this out of court, and be done with it!
Otherwise this could drag on for a couple of years. Who needs that
kind of grief? I sure don't! As a photographer, his skirt wearing is also
his trademark for his job/profession.

The Skirted Photographer.
We don't skirt around an issue, we get the proofs and prints.

(Sorry-couldn't resist! )

Uncle Al
Duncanville, TX

[tooslowprius]

I think some people didn't understand what I was doing in that quote. That quote was the response that i posted on the actual newspaper site!

[Milfmog]

[...]For my tastes, the skirt was too short. That may have been one reason the 'cop' tried to stop him.

< Snip > As far as the shortness of the skirt goes, and what's "appropriate" or not, I might invoke the spectre of Ally McBeal (fictional character). Shall we discuss "short" again? So long as Mr. Kerr had his "private bits" covered, that's good enough.

I'm with Carl here, if the skirt would have been acceptable on a woman and covered the essentials, then it should be acceptable on a man, anything else is discrimination.

I do not know which of the skirts shown in the video clip you are referring to as "too short", but will observe that my shortest skirts are as short as anything shown (but you won't find me sitting in public while wearing them nor riding a motorcycle). Further than that, I do not accept that "taste" should have an impact on how an officer of the law conducts himself. If there is a published dress code for the courts it should be enforced politely, if there is not, then the general rule of what can be worn legally on the street is all that should be applied.

On the other hand, when asked why he was wearing a skirt, I think Mr. Kerr should have given an answer instead of walking away.

Agreed. While accepting the right to silence it is simply rude not to reply, even if only to say that you are not going to answer the question. Police officers are people too and have the same range of emotions as the rest of us and somebody walking away, ignoring a question is bound to cause some irritation. If the guy then did not stop in response to the policeman's second attempt to speak to him then placing a hand on his shoulder to ensure that he knew he was the person being spoken to may very well have been entirely reasonable.

< Snip > However, I view the conceptual basis of Mr. Kerr's suit valid.

Agreed.

Have fun,


Ian.

[Since1982]

I have one comment about this>>

Ian said: if the skirt would have been acceptable on a woman and covered the essentials, then it should be acceptable on a man, anything else is discrimination.

That definitely depends on the physical essentials of the man. A man's "essentials" can often be seen or be assumed to be visible, whereas a woman's nearly non-essentials is hardly ever a concern.