Hey, there! Log in / Register
Man with dildo in his pants sought for exposing himself and it to two girls at CambridgeSide mall
By adamg on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 6:46pm
Cambridge Police report they are looking for a guy for an incident at CambridgeSide Place on Sunday evening:
On Sunday, March 8 at approximately 6:09 p.m., a man believed to be in his 70s entered a CambridgeSide Place clothing store and later approached two young girls. After getting their attention, the man exposed himself with what was believed to be a sex toy. He exited the store at approximately 6:15 p.m. At the time of the incident, the white male suspect was wearing glasses, a black jacket, gray shirt, beige khaki pants and gray sneakers. He is slightly bald with gray hair.
If he looks familiar, contact the CPD family and social-justice section at 857-235-2457 or use one of several methods to send an anonymous tip.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
the man exposed himself with
Sounds like one of those things that's technically legal.
I'm sure you know more than
I'm sure you know more than Cambridge police.
Not for nothing but up until
Not for nothing but up until recently wasn't Cambridge enforcing a non-existent law that banned candles in restaurants?
Years ago, I and the other
Years ago, I and the other 5th grader girls had a pervert expose himself to us as we were out for a jog during gym class. It happened repeatedly so as a result then the girls' gym class was no longer permitted to exercise outdoors whereas the boys' gym class of course was: it's not funny, a$$hole.
They should have had archery
They should have had archery classes.
sounds like sexual assault
.
If he poked a flesh-colored
If he poked a flesh-colored realistic dildo out of his pants... maybe? "Moral" is a different question than "legal", and I'm actually kind of curious what the law would say about it.
But « the man exposed himself with what was believed to be a sex toy » is really ambiguous. Do they mean "along with"? Was the sex toy actually a dildo, or like... a fleshlight or something? Or are they actually saying "he stuck a dildo out of his pants and we believe that counts as him exposing himself"?
No man has the right to get
No man has the right to get his jollies by flashing a real or replica private part at children. Seek immediate professional help if this confuses you in any way.
You seem confused.
I'm asking about the existing legal system. I was very clear about this.
Well not the same as his actual toy (which is a crime)
I'm guessing they are looking at annoying and accosting someone sexually:
MGL 272 s.53
Lots of strange cases that go both ways on this one. In my opinion this man did in fact commit the crime of annoying and accosting.
I like that they were careful
to include BOTH common night walkers AND common street walkers, without prejudice to gender. They also included accosting and annoying, but notably failed to include "uttering" in the list of proscribed behaviors. (I know, I know, that's somewhere else in MGL)
The funny thing about some laws on the books....
Is that some are from the 1700s! (Disorderly conduct is). This one looks very similar.
Edit: this law looks like it has changed recently, as I know the old law had “the opposite sex” written into it. That has changed for obvious reasons....
He deserves a stiff sentence
Pursuant to the Penal Code