- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Society
Cocoa, Florida Bans Baggy Pants, Accused of Possible Racial Profiling
The Cocoa, Florida city council recently passed a law banning saggy pants in public, but some people are accusing the small town of possible racial profiling.
The city council banned pants that expose underwear or skin more than three inches below the waistline on streets, sidewalks and other city property.
If a police officer judges the clothing to violate the law, then the offender will fined $25 for the first offense, $75 for a third and $100 for every time after that.
Critics say that the law, which goes into effect in January, gives police the right to increase their stop and frisk people based solely on their clothing, which could lead to racial profiling.
Alberta Wilson, president of the Central Brevard Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) told FloridaToday.Com: "This is nothing more than a vehicle for further harassment of young people. I don’t like the saggy pants anymore than you do, however, I respect people’s Constitutional rights."
"As disgusting as it may be, that is his civil right to do so. I'm worried about enforcement, I fear a police officer getting some resistance and resorting to some means and doing bodily harm to a child."
Cocoa Police Chief Mark Klayman told ClickOrlando.Com that the new law would allow police broader power: "This would give the police officers the probable-cause stop. Just like you if you stop a car with a taillight out, it can lead to other charges."
You May Also Want to Read
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Each of the major
Each of the major manufacturers like White's, Garrett, Tesoro, Bounty Hunter, Minelab and Fisher make and have made metal detectors specifically suited better for certain types of treasure hunting.Maybe you came across an old metal detector in the garage or at a yard sale.I see him every now and then and he still hunts.Get the best, most versatile machine your budget will allow and then go have some fun!
metal detectors for sale
It is good to see that cocoa
It is good to see that cocoa repealed this legislation.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130108/NEWS01/130108025/Cocoa-officially-repeals-ordinance-banning-saggy-pants
Micro-managing peoples lives like this is just dumb.
What if they just walk around
What if they just walk around in underwear - is that illegal too? Boxer shorts look like shorts ... You could also extend this to FAT people wearing shorts that let their butt-cheeks and layers of flab hang out for all to see.
There is no law against being stupid or disgusting, as long as private parts are not exposed.
..................................................
Only by exploring the logical extremes of an argument can we find a reasoned perspective.
SOMETHING has to be done to
SOMETHING has to be done to stop these homosexuals! It's obviously an easy way for them to identify one another.
@Buffet: It is not
@Buffet: It is not "obviously" any such thing. Nor are they, as a group, and because of the way they're wearing their pants, "homosexuals." There are, of course, persons among them who are members of the LGBT community, just as there are persons who sit in church and school board meetings with you, and who stand in line with you at the grocery store, who are members of the LGBT community.
How they wear their pants, however, have nothing to do with it. Do not take the assertion that the saggy pants style originated in prison as a means of letting others know that the saggy pants wearer wants sex. Whether or not that's true, it's a logical fallacy to extend to the public streets what saggy pants wearing means in prison. Any prison guard -- or even volunteer prison chaplain who actually knows what s/hes talking about -- will attest that sexual "norms" in prison usually STAY in prison... they're entirely different cultures.
Please read my comprehensive piece on the entire subject here: http://bit.ly/VlF7ir
As for your "SOMETHING has to be done to stop these homosexuals!": gimmee a break... and give it a rest.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.
I guess all that leaves
I guess all that leaves little doubt as to which way you swing Twinkletoes?
@Buffer: I would say that
@Buffer: I would say that which way I "swing" is none of your business, except that I'm a straight male who's fairly well-known online as having long been a supporter of the LGBT community; and a fighter for its rights.
SEE ALSO: http://tinyurl.com/deselms-prop-8-speech
That you honestly believe there's an insult in what you wrote, including your pejorative use of "Twinkletoes," speaks volumes about you. If you only knew how ignorant and red-necked it makes you look.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.
Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22,
Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 30:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 1:7
Seems like at one point Rock
Seems like at one point Rock and Roll offended the sensibilities of a large portion of people. So did Elvis' gyrating style of moving when he sang. Heavy-set men whose pants drop to show their crack - another not-so-favorite thing although I'm aware of no proposed law to stop that. Bikinis, mini-skirts, halter tops, speedos. Women in pants. Women in clothing that shows more than their hands and faces.
I don't enjoy looking at people dressed with their pants halfway down their hineys either, but I believe outlawing it is not any more reasonable than outlawing the above would have been. Every generation finds ways to rebel. I read the other day where people are surgically modifying their bodies (body-mod) to stand out and in many cases to rebel, because now so many people, even down to many grandmas, have tattoos and piercings. (Google image search the word Body-mod. I was amazed.)
There are a lot worse things in our society to deal with than dragging, sagging, baggy pants.
I don't necessarily see this
I don't necessarily see this as someone's constitutional right. Back a few decades, this would be considered "lewd & lascivious" or "public indecency" - which it is. I don't understand why communities don't enforce these laws - if they still exist. (If they don't still exist, they should.)
I don't think there is a constitutional right to public indecency. And this is indecent. Why would I want to look at someone's underwear when I don't know them from Adam? Some of these kids wear their pants down to their groin, and outer pants right down to their knees. I mean, why even bother, then, to wear clothes at all? Is that a person's constitutional right, too? There's some people out in San Francisco that want to know, because they think it's their constitutional right to walk around nude - whenever and wherever they wish. Should we agree that is their constitutional right?
Then there's the sanitary factor. These kids could have lice or even some disease. Wherever they sit, with only their thin underwear or in some cases, just bare flesh - they could leave possible germs, parasites/eggs, etc., for the next unsuspecting person to pick up. I think it's also a public health issue.
Finally, why on God's green earth these kids would want to emulate prison behavior that's basically an advertisement that says, "Open for business. Come and get it!" It boggles my mind. This is how men in prison, who are willing to, ahem, you know....advertise their "willingness." Would someone please explain that one to me?
But really, these guys walk around holding their crotch, or their pants, and the way they waddle, it looks like they've pooped their pants. So, no, it's not attractive.
Every time I see a kid with their pants down around their knees, I tell them to "Pull your britches up - you know you're advertising for "butt sex", don't you?" I've said something to my neighbors and their friends so often that they start pulling their pants up when they see me coming!
So, yeah, I'd support a bill like this. It's not attractive. It's not sanitary. It's not a social more that most people would condone. It's definitely not sexy, which I think is what they're going for. Wow. They sure flunked on that one.
A woman showing her ankles
A woman showing her ankles could be called indecent.
Anyone wearing colors other than black and white could be called indecent.
One of the earliest uses of makeup was for prostitutes to cover up the pock marks of certain venereal diseases, so eye shadow and lipstick are indecent.
Some people would consider a woman allowing her face to be seen to be indecent.
T-shirts are a form of underwear...indecent to be seen in public I guess.
Jewelry...indecent.
Bare (shaven) face...indecent. Get your beards going guys.
Every form of clothing and/or adornment in existence is or has been considered indecent by someone. Then again lack of clothing is also considered indecent. Are you suggesting that we all hide in our homes refusing to come out because no matter what we do we will be considered to be indecent and should be fined or arrested ?
Those boxer shorts that offend you so much cover as much or more than a swimsuit or cargo shorts.
Actually the single most indecent thing here is your hypocrisy. You have admitted to approaching children and bringing up the topic of anal sex. Is that how you set an example of decency ?
Actually, the tougher members
Actually, the tougher members of society will maintian the standard more than a law will.
I recall, in my single day, hanging out with my other biker buddies and making jokes about the guys with baggy pants, blasting them for their parents not teaching them how to dress properly. We used to get some dirty looks, but not a single one of them had the testicles to say anything to a bunch of bikers. Kind of the same reason that Peta never tried making a protest during Daytona Bike Week or Sturgis.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
Would they have banned this
Would they have banned this if the fashion was for women to show their undies?
Fashion is fashion, it looks bad but that is no reason to ban it, and the fashion will pass in a few months or a year.
It won't be long before someone claims their first amendment rights have been violated, and sues.
As far as I can remember,
As far as I can remember, this "fashion" has been in style for at least 15 years.
@FSC WROTE: Would they have
@FSC WROTE: Would they have banned this if the fashion was for women to show their undies? ... It won't be long before someone claims their first amendment rights have been violated, and sues.
MY RESPONSE: The ordinance covers both males and females, wearing either saggy pants or saggy skirts.
SEE: http://bit.ly/VlF7ir
But, you're right: It won't be long before it's challenged in court. The woman who runs the local NAACP chapter promised as much in her comment to the city council during the meeting at which the ordinance was approved.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.
That's why I resent the
That's why I resent the scummy boys wearing this style. Because of them, now it's forbidden for the girls as well.
I'm a lefty, by any measure:
I'm a lefty, by any measure: A socio-politically and theologically very liberal/progressive. And so you'd think I'd be jumping right in with those who say it's bad; making the "racial profiling" argument; worrying about the civil rights of those -- white or black, actually; but, obivously, mostly black, in this particular instance -- who wear baggy pants in the manner described in both the ordinance and this article's illustration.
So I guess it's my age (56, at this writing) that, at least in part, has me thinking that maybe (and I stress that word, 'cause I'm still pondering it) this is a GOOD law.
Hm. Weird. I'm surprising myself with this reaction. And the reason, of course, is that these sorts of situations are never black and white (no pun intended... I mean binary, not making a racial reference). There's always no end of subtlety and nuance to these kinds of situations... some of which really matters.
Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about this. I've always hated, I confess, that kids dress this way... no matter WHAT color their skin. And I'm having trouble seeing how anyone's civil rights are being violated by an ordinance, and reasonable enforcement thereof, which puts a stop to it. As I think about it, though, there might be a valid First Amendment argument that could be made... and someone will, no doubt, make it. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out.
I also don't think that anyone -- at least not anyone who's law abiding -- could possibly get hurt because a police officer stops them about it. Police officers stop people all the time about things, and they never get hurt simply because of that unless they become disorderly, or take a swing at the cop, or run, etc. And when THAT happens, then, as far as I'm concerned, they deserve whatever physicality from the police that befalls them as long as said physicality is only what's necessary to stop them, and not one thing more; and as long as it's not what the law and police policy and procedure defines as "brutality."
At least superficially, it feels, to me -- and, again, I'm still processing all this, so I reserve the right to change my mind, here -- a bit like the African American community is saying that everyone else in the larger and more pluralistic community should tolerate the way many of its young people dress, even if, for whatever reason, it offends said larger community's sensibilities. It might seem like that should not be a good enough reason for the enactment of such laws, but the Supreme Court has long held that "community standards" matter. Only when said standards facially (and that's the operative word: "prima facie" in both latin and law) violate someone's constitutional rights that are either expressly stated in law, or subsequently interpreted by the Courts, may such laws be struck down solely on that basis. If larger community standards, then, are that dressing this way offends its sensibilities; and if said larger community is willing to legislate against it in a manner which isn't prima facie unconstitutional, and will withstand constitutional scrutiny by the courts, then that, rightly or wrongly, is the way this country works.
Obviously, the fact that most of said larger community is white injects into the situation the uncomfortable racial aspect...
...but... I dunno... maybe if most of those who dressed that way weren't pimps, drug dealers, gang members and/or misogynistic hip-hop "artists" who idolize bling, subjugate women and call them "hoes," then maybe it would be a little easier for said larger community community to tolerate...
...and maybe if most pimps, drug dealers, gang members and misogynisitc hip-hop "artists" who idolize bling, subjugate women and call them "hoes" weren't black, then it wouldn't feel to the African American community so much like it's racial profiling.
Like I said: nuance.
But, like I also said, I'm still pondering it.
ADDENDUM: And now I have more fully pondered it, and have written the following...
http://bit.ly/VlF7ir
...entitled, "Cocoa, Florida has outlawed the wearing of saggy pants and, to my initial surprise, I was almost okay with it; turns out it's complicated"
Enjoy!
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.
Can you provide a link to a
Can you provide a link to a credible source of statistics showing that most of the people who wear baggy pants are, "pimps, drug dealers, gang members and/or misogynistic hip-hop artists ?"
Hey, Gregg, Greg from
Hey, Gregg, Greg from Seattle. I actually liked and agreed with what you said. As a parent, and as being 57 myself, i don't like the baggy pants. I had to deal with it myself with my youngest. We as parents, hwever, used several methods to disway him, including peer pressure. Didn't take long before he changed his mind. It worked! :) However, this law is bad simply because it attempts to legislate bad behavior/bad dress. That's a clear cut violation of the constitution. It's been tried before with other issues, didn't work, courts said the same thing they will here...it's a violaction of the constitution, and likely will throw it out. I suspect they (the ACLU and any other attorney willing to take on the case) are just waiting for the first person to be arrested and charged perhaps with another violation that might be a felony that resulted because of the initial violation of this law. Just won't pass muster in court with the first challenge. But i would be, as i said, with my own kid, right in the middle of not being happy, as i was back then, and as a parent, express my dislike of showing his underwear (my son never exposed skin..and, btw, most kids don't, underwear is a different story :). Thanks.
@Seattledad: Thanks for your
@Seattledad: Thanks for your shout-out and comment. It's amazing how potent peer pressure can be, isn't it? Trumps laws, rules, prohibitions, punishment... pretty impressive. Sadly, though, it can also lead good kids down bad roads. Controlled peer pressure, though, can work. Sounds like you figured it out, in any case!
One of the commenters beneath my article on this over on Newsvine (linked to near the bottom of my post to which you replied) said he knew Cocoa and said it had lots of strip clubs, prostitution, and thugs; and that maybe the city should focus on THOSE problems and not saggy pants (though he remarked that police should prefer them since it makes it harder to run).
Interesting points, I'd say; and one of the people who commented at the council meeting made that point, too: That Cocoa had enough to worry about without worrying about saggy pants on young black men.
As for the ACLU waiting for the first arrest, I got the impression, from the NAACP woman, that they're gonna' challenge it even before that. Remember that if a law is prima facie unconstitutional (and her position is that this one is), then it may be challenged immediately after passage, even before anyone can show actual harm. I got the sense, from her, that their challenge is imminent, regardless whether it's even first enforced.
But if it's used as probable cause for stopping someone, and then a more serious charge results, then, yes, right there will be where the challenge would begin, regardless. No attorney who saw a chance to have the more serious charge dismissed, because that on which probable cause to stop and search in the first place was facially unconstitutional, would not take a shot at that challenge. And, like you, I think he'd win. This ordinance simply won't withstand constitutional scrutiny, as I think the courts will rule within a couple of years.
It's also possible that the next city council could repeal it. That's actually a quite good possibility if the woman who commented against the ordinance, who's running for mayor, wins. It'll also be interesting to watch that.
Anyway, thanks for the reply! Nice to hear from another Greg, even if yours is missing a "g" (just kidding; actually, yours is the correct spelling for a first name; my mom insisted on the second "g" to make that point that that was my name, and that it wasn't short for "Gregory" and so, now, and for the rest of my life, I'm one of those people with a last name -- and a method of shorthand -- as a first name... sigh... oh, well).
Peace.
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.
Hey, Gregg, thanks, my
Hey, Gregg, thanks, my friend, for your points and compliments, you also make great points. Interesting to be watching which way this turns. :)