To Poop or Not to Poop--That is the Question!

 § 61-8-9. Indecent exposure

(c) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (a) of this section by intentionally exposing himself or herself to another person and the exposure was done for the purpose of sexual gratification, is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars or confined in jail not more than twelve months, or both.  

1.  Notice the "and" in the law.  Intentionally exposing ones self to another person is not sufficient to convict someone of "indecent exposure."

2.  It requires that it be done with the purpose of of "sexual gratification".

3.  Some people do get a bang out of watching someone take a dump.  But, by and large, the majority of people consider watching someone take a dump to be disgusting.  That's why restrooms generally have "stalls" with a door and a lock on them.  The days of the three hole outhouses are gone.  I went to school on Cummings Creek where we had a two hole outhouse, but I can't remember ever going to that outhouse and sitting down beside someone else.  

4.  I personally find watching someone take a dump to be somewhat disgusting but I don't assume that because they are taking a dump that they are getting a sexual "buzz" from the knowledge that I am present at the time of the dump.

5.  And the law recognizes the question of purpose of taking a dump in public.  That is why the wise legislators put in the "and".

6.  Growing up on Beaver Creek,  I have seen cows, horses, and pigs take a dump.  I never thought they were getting a "buzz" by doing that.  I have seen people standing beside the road (with their back turned usually) taking a "leak".  As a man on fluid pills I have to pee at least 4 times each morning.  There have been times when I didn't make it in time to the restroom.  What person has not had a "crisis" when on the road or street?  My own father once peed in a grocery store aisle when he could not find a restroom.

7.  The court wants to put Ferrell in jail for a long time because he took a dump on the street near the old Dirt Bean where someone just happened to be watching.

8.  It's costing us $48 per day to keep him waiting just for a trial.  This is not counting the legal cost.  He has already cost the county thousands of dollars.

9.  The problem is that the law of "indecent exposure" requires that it not be merely an accident or a "crisis" excretion because he was not near a restroom.  (In fact, he was within feet of a restroom in the Dirtbean.  But Ferrell doesn't feel comfortable using that bathroom.}  For Ferrell, the nearest commode he could feel comfortable using was near the mini park or the Town Hall.

10  And when you gotta go, you gotta go!  Remember, that a mess in the pants is a bigger deal when you don't have extra pants or clean underwear.  Even worse when you don't have a home with a washing machine.  He didn't want to mess his pants.  (A rather human concern, just ask a baby if they like  poopy diapers.)

11.  So what he to do?  Even Hamlet must have been faced with this question at one time.  Did Ferrel know that someone was watching him at the time and that they might take affront at his public display?  No, he dropped his pants and took a dump!  

12.  That being done, he had at least broken half of the law.  But you can't hang a guy for half a crime, especially when our esteemed legislators said that exposing one's self to another person required that the "shower" must be getting a buzz off  the "showing".

13.  So did he commit the crime for which he has been accused and did he just commit "half" a crime?  Or maybe he was just taking a dump--something that most people do every day or so?

14.  Was Ferrell trying to gratify himself sexually when he took the dump or was he just trying to take a dump?

15.  Remember that it is not that Ferrel was "flashing" people.  He actually was taking a dump!  The police have taken fecal samples to determine if an excretion actually occurred.  

16.  Perhaps the forensic examination will determine that it wasn't even human fecal material but a mere dog turd.  And even if their sample proves to be human, was it Ferrell's?

17.  If the esteemed witnesses could see his anus, they certainly could have seen whether he was "excreting" at the time.  If he was "excreting" it seems that he needed to do so and was not merely exposing himself for "sexual gratification"  After all, most people can't poop on demand!

18. It's one thing to dangle your whizzer in front of an audience but to actually pee requires timing.  So it is with other excretion of a more substantial kind.  The timing is most questionable.

19.  So did Ferrell decide to take a dump by the Dirtbean because that's when the dumping urge came or was it a matter of intentional provocation.  Did he see the people in the Dirtbean and say to himself, "I am going to take a dump here so that I can get sexual gratification" by doing so OR DID HE JUST NEED TO TAKE A DUMP?

20  That's the $64,000 question.  (Ferrel's cost to the county is plus $50,000 already)  How did the witnesses come to the conclusion that Ferrell was merely gratifying himself sexually or merely taking a dump?

21.  It's an important point.  DID FERREL COMMIT A WHOLE CRIME OR A HALF-CRIME?  Should people be able to convict their peers for "half-a-crime?" 

22.  When I see an "and" in the law, I think of arithmetic and the concept of adding.  I assume that the latter part of the sentence is as important as the former part!

23.  I have been called to jury duty and I truly look forward to sitting on Ferrel's case.  I want to see how the law handles the "and" in the law.  If it can be shown by evidence or even legal argument, that he is guilty of a "whole-crime" I will convict him in a heart-beat!

24.  I want to see how a well-trained public defender who has passed the bar exam in WV is able to handle this silly issue before a jury.