Hey, there! Log in / Register

Man with dildo in his pants sought for exposing himself and it to two girls at CambridgeSide mall

Cambridge Police Seeking to Identify Indecent Exposure Suspect

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:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

the man exposed himself with what was believed to be a sex toy

Sounds like one of those things that's technically legal.

up
Voting closed 19

I'm sure you know more than Cambridge police.

up
Voting closed 14

Not for nothing but up until recently wasn't Cambridge enforcing a non-existent law that banned candles in restaurants?

up
Voting closed 11

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.

up
Voting closed 33

They should have had archery classes.

up
Voting closed 9

.

up
Voting closed 16

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"?

up
Voting closed 12

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.

up
Voting closed 12

I'm asking about the existing legal system. I was very clear about this.

up
Voting closed 10

I'm guessing they are looking at annoying and accosting someone sexually:

MGL 272 s.53

Section 53. (a) Common night walkers, common street walkers, both male and female, persons who with offensive and disorderly acts or language accost or annoy another person, lewd, wanton and lascivious persons in speech or behavior, keepers of noisy and disorderly houses, and persons guilty of indecent exposure shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months, or by a fine of not more than $200, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(b) Disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace shall, for a first offense, be punished by a fine of not more than $150. For a second or subsequent offense, disorderly persons and disturbers of the peace shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than 6 months or by a fine of not more than $200 or by both such fine and imprisonment; provided, however, that an elementary or secondary school student shall not be adjudged a delinquent child for a violation of this subsection for such conduct within school buildings or on school grounds or in the course of school-related events.

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.

up
Voting closed 16

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)

up
Voting closed 15

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....

up
Voting closed 13

Pursuant to the Penal Code

up
Voting closed 10