ACLU may take on cops' saggy pants policy

[Clamps]

Doesn't the ACLU have better things to do

FLINT, Mich., July 22 (UPI) -- The American Civil Liberties Union said it may file suit to challenge a Flint, Mich., police policy of charging wearers of saggy pants with indecent exposure.


The ACLU's Michigan chapter said it is seeking to speak to those targeted by the policy after Flint Police Chief David Dicks said he will not back down from his plan to charge those whose saggy pants expose too much underwear or bare bottoms with indecent exposure, the Detroit Free Press reported Tuesday.


"We are confident that young men in Flint will contact us now that the chief has announced that he won't budge," said Michael Steinberg, legal director of the Michigan ACLU. "If they do, we'll sue. We may have the dubious distinction of being the first saggy pants lawsuit in the country."
The ACLU said Monday was the deadline for Dicks to abandon the policy and they are now seeking to fight it.


However, Dicks said he will not be discouraged by the threat of an ACLU lawsuit. He said Flint police are "going to keep doing what we're doing."

[Pharm]

F*** the ACLU.

[GoddessDivine]

word

[EmperorChaos]

I say more power to the ACLU. What right do a bunch of self-serving lawmakers have to say that exposing one's boxers as one's pants are sagging is "indecent exposure".

Why is America so goddamned prudish?

[Nadine]

Wow...that's a waste of time and energy. dumb asses! Oh~well! Althought I must say that some guys can pull off the baggy (saggy...whatever) pants thing while others should be shot in their tracks for doing it. Just my opinion. I was trying to find the skit that Denis Leary did about underwear go inside the pants but it's in the middle of a coffee skit so I'm not gonna post it. If you guys want me to I will. But it's funny as hell!!! "That's the basic concept about underwear. It goes INSIDE the fuckin pants. Not here, not here, not here. INSIDE THE FUCKIN PANTS! That's why it's called UNDER-FUCKIN-WEAR!!" rofl

ALTHOUGH, if they do that, then they should do something about girls who wear their pants too low! At least with boxers, the guys ass is covered! With a girl, you see EVERYTHING....well, unless she's wearing "butt floss"...then you see a string. BUT STILL, boxers at least cover. Now if the BOXERS are riding too low, just shoot the dumb ass!

[EmperorChaos]

But it is another right that we'd be taking away from people.

It's a double-standard if you ask me. Men don't complain when a woman's thong, bra strap, panties, etc. are showing but because people in the "urban" style sag their pants they ban it?

How is that not sexism?

-=-=-

And well, I've got a reason to be upset about this myself. I don't "bust the sag". Well, not intentionally. My problem is that, even wearing a belt, I have trouble keeping my pants up because I don't like to wear them on the hips and I don't have much of an ass to hold them up otherwise. For me, it's a comfort issue. My boxers don't regularly show but there is a possibility.

But that's just a personal thing. Beyond personal problems, it really is discrimination, sexism, and a violation of civil rights, no matter how you slice it.

[Nadine]

True. I won't agrue with you there. I'd be screwed if I didn't have a belt. My problem is that in order for me to have pants that aren't tight in my thigh when I sit or move around, I have to get a size larger than my waist. Totally blows. So if I don't have a belt on, all I'd have to do is jump and OH SHIT!! LOL Only reason I know that is because I forgot to unzip my pants once when I was changing and they came off with ease. So yeah.....I highly doubt any one really wanted to know that.

[my.dragons.lady]

Yup, I think the phrasing allowed the ACLU to be inaccurately perceived as being the charge it is challenging.

There is this bit from nearly a year ago: Councilman To Ban Exposed Underwear

Personally, I don't care what anyone wears or doesn't except around my food. We accidentally eat enough bugs and things we don't want to know or think about without having to wonder if strange pubes floated on a breeze into our food or an exposed crevice.

There is just no good way to put that or this: A few days aog in a supermarket I saw a young guy in an aisle stocking dairy with his pants around his thighs. I can let that pass, but the problem above was the brown streak on the stretchy undies that lay flipped over the top of the back of his pants.

Now, and Bryan and Chris and Mike will all confirm this, I despise plumber's butt and for kicks they all do this, "hey mom, look". Then I look and sometimes it isn't but sometimes it IS an ass staring back at me. They think this is hilarious. They even take phone pictures and save them to surprise me with. Admittedly it's probably as funny to them as chasing someone around with a dead rat, which I have done. But, I have to say that brownstreak in that kid's undies should not be on a body stocking dairy in a store because he apparently lacked proper knowledge of socially acceptable hygiene. Mind you this was not a blip, it was a mini-mudslide.

[psychoDiablo]

hahaha. hey everyone knows you cant run with your pants down. i'd say, start chasing these hoodlums.

[Drogdar]

I didn't read the whole thread, but we had the same problem at my high school.

If you were "low riding" then you got a referral for "showing your underwear" and for being out of dress code. girls got into the same trouble, but teachers were a little more forgiving... actually now that I think of it. It was only the principals that wrote people up for it O_o

[cstoll]

Um, don't police and our court systems have better things to do?

You know, I bet if the headline said "Police charge wearers of 'saggy pants' with indecent exposure," the reaction here would be different.
Not "Fuck the ACLU" but "fuck the police."

Some people have a strange hatred of the ACLU based on stereotypes and misinformation. They can't handle the idea of a group doing both good and bad things. A complicated world--how shocking.