Mark Beckner. Douchebag.
Beckner is exactly the kind of petty little douche that becomes a cop because he got beat up too much as a kid. Rod Farva and Salvatore “dude” Rivieri come to mind. Beckner represents exactly the kind of cop that should be stripped of his badge, covered in shit and bees, and then rolled off a cliff in a shopping cart. Why? Because when people don’t respect his authoritah, he decides that it is time to use draconian sex offender laws to get his way.
Beckner’s previous claim to fame was running the JonBenet Ramsey case. Bang up job you did there, Beckner.
Now, as police chief, he’s ready to put a stop to a rampant sex offense that is about to ruin Boulder — its annual Naked Halloween Pumpkin Streaking Event.
Yes, on Halloween in Boulder, Colorado, people put running shoes on their feet, Jack O’Lanterns on their heads, and they run through the streets. For nearly ten years, people have engaged in this tradition. They brave the cold, and run through the streets as onlookers throw candy. Beckner calls it a “free-for-all.” (source) Beckner decided, personally, that this kind of thing needs to come to an end. According to the Wall Street Journal, Beckner planned to “station more than 40 officers on the traditional four-block route… , with two SWAT teams patrolling nearby. All [with] orders to arrest gourd-topped streakers as sex offenders.” (source)
Ooh! Chief Beckner! Can I have a job at the Boulder PD?
C.R.S. 18-7-302: states: “A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person. In other words, if it isn’t bothering anyone, nor is it likely to do so, the nudity isn’t illegal. This event starts at 11:00 PM, when the kids are all home in bed, and the Naked Pumpkin Run route is lined with throngs of cheering fans who are there specifically to see the spectacle, how could any reasonable person think that this was “likely to cause affront or alarm?”
Police acknowledge they have not been flooded with pumpkin-run-related complaints, but say that’s beside the point. A throng of naked people with jack-o-lanterns on their heads is, by definition, an alarming sight, Chief Beckner says. Therefore, it’s illegal. (source)
*beep*
Thats the sound of my petty-little-authoritarian detector / bullshit detector going off.
Well, how about this? Lets try and give Beckner the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe the Naked Pumpkin Run isn’t illegal, but the public is outraged and the guy has to do something.
*beep*
There it goes again.
Citizens aren’t complaining. But, what about the politicians? Maybe Beckner just doesn’t want the city elders getting their panties in a twist?
*beep*
At a recent forum for city council candidates, all 10 participants said they disapproved of the threatened crackdown.
Even Mayor Matt Appelbaum, who supports the police, admits to a tinge of worry that arresting Halloween streakers will tarnish Boulder’s reputation as, well, Boulder.
“I’m a little old for it, but it could be pretty cool to be running around with a pumpkin on your head and not much else,” says the 57-year-old mayor. (source)
Nevertheless, Mark Beckner wants to arrest people (using SWAT teams, no less) for an offense which, if it leads to a conviction, will require those people to register as sex offenders. Most of our sex offender laws are absurd. Laws are never good if they are named after dead children or passed due to the cries of grieving parents. Last month, Rogier van Bakel
Respect Beckner's authoritah or you will be on the sex offender list!
This story teaches us two things: 1) It reaffirms Rogier’s point that its time to scrap our sex offender laws. They are a dragnet that sweeps up way too many people for way too petty offenses. 2) It shows us that when we hire law enforcement officers with tiny penis syndrome, where their heads get red with rage that the damn citizens don’t just do as they are fucking told then that personality defect can lead to disastrous legal results.
Beckner, you’re a douche and the asshat of the week. By the way, how’s that JonBenet Ramsey case coming along?
By Email
By RSS Feed
November 2, 2009 at 11:03 pm |
This had me laughing out loud.
So nice to stop through on a Monday evening and get a dose of the Legal Satyricon!
November 2, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
Slow. Clap.
November 3, 2009 at 12:10 am |
Boulder is a classic moon-bat college town, but at least the police chief is one of the few city officials who doesn’t have his head up his butt. The law is on the books and the chief is charged with enforcing it. He can not just pick and choose which laws he’d like to enforce.
Halloween belongs to the kids. Letting it become co-opted by a bunch of naked, developmentally- arrested– and, no doubt, intoxicated– imbeciles is as short-sighted as it is pathetic. Let those clowns go do that stuff in the privacy of there own homes. As for taking sex offender laws of the books, authorities just found six bodies on the property of a registered sex offender in Ohio. Got any more bright ideas, LS? Do you even think before you write this drivel?
November 3, 2009 at 9:06 am |
Obviously your reading comprehension skills require some improvement. Go back, read the article again, and then reconsider your “the law is on the books and the chief is charged with enforcing it” statement.
November 3, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
Are you quite sure that it’s not your reading comprehension skills that are lacking?
It’s against Colorado’s state law to expose yourself if it is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person. Are you seriously suggesting that a mass of naked people (even at 11pm) is not likely to affront or alarm a single person?
You seem to imply that it is a stretch for a city police chief to enforce state laws (without a corresponding municipal ordinance) – it isn’t. Most crimes are based on state laws. The police chief appears to be within his rights to enforce this law.
Having said that, I completely agree that forcing these people to register as sex offenders seems pretty draconian. The “sex offender” label ought to apply to child molestors and rapists – not a bunch of people engaging in a relatively harmless prank.
November 3, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
I don’t think that the statute means that if a person could hypothetically feel affront or alarm that the statute has been violated. Even at a nude beach or a nudist camp, someone could hypothetically be so offended.
In this situation, how could you even SEE anyone, unless you pushed to the front of the crowd?
And if you got the impression that I thought it was “a stretch for a city police chief to enforce state laws (without a corresponding municipal ordinance)” then my writing was unclear, or you misunderstood. Any fool knows that local police can enforce state law.
November 3, 2009 at 7:18 pm |
If the statute isn’t speaking in hypotheticals, why does it say someone is “likely” to feel affront or alarm instead of saying someone “actually” feels affront or alarm?
I don’t necessarily agree with the aggressive stance the Chief is taking, but based on the information presented his stance appears to be legally grounded.
November 3, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
To interpret the statute provision regarding “affront” in the way you suggest basically says you can never be naked where someone can see you. If that was the intended result of the statute, it should (or would) have been written differently.
In other words, if running at 11:00 p.m. on Halloween is likely to cause affront, when is it not likely to cause affront?
November 3, 2009 at 7:30 pm |
I don’t think my interpretation requires a “never be naked where someone can see you” result. The statute’s purpose appears to be to limit public nudity; and to avoid punishing people whose nudity was not “likely to cause affront.” (Gym locker rooms and remote areas of state parks that lack restrooms come to mind as possibly permissible locations).
However, I do not think it is unreasonable to read the statute as prohobiting nudity on public streets.
November 4, 2009 at 9:21 am |
If the statute’s purpose was to prohibit public nudity, then the legislature should have written it to simply prohibit public nudity. The language of the statute makes it clear that the reason for the statute is to permit nudity that ain’t botherin’ nobody. A gym locker room is not “in public,” any more than this display is likely to cause “affront or alarm.”
In this case, it is clear that the only person it is bothering is Mark Beckner. Employing the statute is bad enough, but for threatening those who do not respect his authoritah with being listed as sex offenders for life, he should be fired.
November 4, 2009 at 9:57 am |
As I said before, the purpose of the statute appears to be to “limit” not “prohibit” public nudity. The statute is worded in a way to give people a free pass if their nudity isn’t “likely to cause affront.”
You feel that the streakers aren’t likely to cause affront. I disagree. Regardless, it sounds like we agree that the punishment is excessive.
November 4, 2009 at 1:06 pm |
Word
November 3, 2009 at 5:40 pm |
I agree with Marco, and you might want to look at the last clause of the statute which reads:
“in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person”
if there aren’t any complaints, then the exposure is not causing affront to any individuals. Therefore, streaking is not against the law until you put a cop there who will support his boss and say he was “affronted”.
November 3, 2009 at 1:09 am |
That photo with caption should be mailed to his nieghbors.
November 3, 2009 at 10:25 am |
It ended up being canceled. What a douchebag.
November 3, 2009 at 10:59 am |
[...] in the heck do these have to do with each other? Surf to the Legal Satyricon and find [...]
November 3, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
not enough tar and feathers to go around….
November 3, 2009 at 7:03 pm |
This wasn’t even the only ridiculousness Beckner was involved in this Halloween. They received a letter from the ACLU after trying to prevent people from showing up downtown in costumes on Halloween: Story and letter here
November 4, 2009 at 9:16 am |
The Police Chief is well within his rights. It’s simplistic to believe that no one is bothered by streakers running in the streets; the fact that said streets are lined with supporters doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of opponents staying at home.
November 4, 2009 at 9:18 am |
You mean to say that there are plenty of people who would have braved the cold to stand on the street at 11 PM, but they decided to stay home because there will be nude people with pumpkins on their heads?
This argument fails for the following reasons:
1) If they are at home, then they aren’t offended by the nudity, they are offended by the mere thought of the nudity.
2) The kind of person who would be offended by this is not the kind of person who is outside of their home at 11PM, unless it is to masturbate outside a little boy’s window. You’ve got to be sexually imbalanced for this to offend you.
November 4, 2009 at 10:17 am |
You know, I just realized who you are. You’re representing Isaac Eiland-Hall against Glenn Beck, right? I’m a big fan of your work in that case; however, I think you’re being a bit absolutist right now, what with calling the Police Chief a fascist.
As you stated, C.R.S. 18-7-302 reads, “A person commits indecent exposure if he knowingly exposes his genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but if a single person (“any person”) in the presence of the streakers is offended, said streakers can be arrested and charged with indecent exposure.
The Police Chief is a person. If he (1) shows up on that street, (2) witnesses the streaking, and (3) is offended, would he not be allowed to charge the individuals in question with indecent exposure even though all the conditions of C.R.S. 18-7-302 have seemingly been met?
November 4, 2009 at 10:52 am |
Hmm, you are saying it is a crime if the police chief shows up. That may be true.
Still, I would think the main goal of a police chief would be to reduce crime (by not attending) rather than to increase crime (by attending).
November 4, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
Not a terrible argument… but in every case I haver seen, you need someone aside from the petty little authoritarian hall monitor douchebag to be offended.
Well, scratch that… in Flori-duh, they amended the statute so that only the cop needs to feel offended. I somehow doubt that Colorado is run by the same peckerwood idiot types as Flori-duh.
I think that if the police chief showed up, off duty perhaps… but even then, if you go somewhere looking to be offended then I can’t see how the law should protect your sensibilities, which you offended all on your lonesome. No?
November 4, 2009 at 10:17 am |
let’s consider the statute in its more broad interpretation: it doesn’t matter whether someone is affronted or alarmed at the nudity, but instead the law protects those who may not be aware of the event and find themselves walking into a parade of pumpkin-headed streakers — the alarm they COULD feel! beckner’s losing sleep over this thought; he has boulder residents to protect and can’t let old ladies out at 11p be exposed to this nudity. i realize the statute is not likely to be interpreted this way and the chance of those grandmas being affronted by public nudity is slim, but still, let’s give beckner the benefit of the doubt. he’s beside himself with the thought of this occurring.
there can be many ways to solve a single problem. so, why did he decide to remedy the issue with striking a hard line with the participants and threatening them all with sex offender status? the event seems incredibly popular and from what i’ve read it has the support of much of the town. further, it should be clear to everyone that sex offender laws were not created to punish runners entertaining crowds through an absurd race, but instead to punish adults from entertaining themselves by molesting children. so, rather than trying to find a way to protect everyone’s interests, no matter how ridiculous we may think his interest was, beckner puts the kibosh on naked pumpkin running by using a law that was not intended to be used in the way he used it. if his conscience was getting the best of him, he could have just as easily asked the event organizers to have the race take another route, at another time. provide more police security, more notice. and if the race organizers didn’t oblige, he could have then lobbied the legislature to amend the law or create another one altogether.
now, arresting runners as sex offenders? this is where beckner’s real intent is, eh, exposed. there’s nothing to misinterpret here: sex offenders do not encompass pumpkin-headed racers who are being cheered — not reviled — by their community. give beckner the benefit of the doubt: maybe he really thought sex offender laws intend to punish not only pedophiles, but community-supported streakers. he should lose his job. the police chief ought to know better.
no doubt he did, which i believe is far worse. it’s a complete misuse of power.
November 4, 2009 at 6:00 pm |
I think all of those sticking up for the police chief are either (i) law students or lawyers with too much time to analyze this thing to death, or (ii) apologists for what seems to be a clear overreach by this bureaucrat. This event has gone on for 10 years without incident. Trying to twist the words of the statute to include hypothetical alarm is nonsense. The bottom line, from past experience, is that people in this community did not mind the event.
I agree with the author – this guy is a chode.
November 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm |
classic rant, marc. my buddy really liked the Super Troopers reference. i’m surprised how many people are sticking up for this douche. i’ve always heard that boulder is supposed to be one of the most liberal towns in the u.s. outside of cambridge and berkely, so i can’t imagine anyone there gives a fuck about this. too bad you don’t have any video of prior year’s runs. they should all just do it outside the cop’s jurisdiction.
December 11, 2009 at 8:08 am |
If nobody has noticed yet, Colorado IS run by the same type peckerhead douchebag POLICE as Florida! They’ll violate your rights in plain view, then anyone who even questions what is going on is suddenly under arrest too. Boulder police corruption must end
December 11, 2009 at 8:18 am |
The Boulder CROOKS IN BLUE should be thoroughly secretly investigated by a third party or federal agency, who collects enough evidence on these criminal morons to fire, embarrass, then punish them all with prison for ALL OF their serious crimes committed!
December 14, 2009 at 7:55 am |
We all know that the Boulder Police would become way too aroused at the Naked Pumpkin Run and might just then go out and commit a sex crime like the one they helped cover up involving little Jon Benet. Especially Officer Pamela Gignac total piggity swine.
December 14, 2009 at 8:14 am |
ANYBODY living in Boulder knows we have the greatest number of ethically, morally, intellectually, & physically challenged cops in the entire states. I was robbed of my labeled prescription medication by Officers Michael West, Edward Quayle & Sgt Lefebre.