District Security Officer Prohibited Me from Breastfeeding at DMV, Accusing Me of Indecent Exposure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody on this thread justifies the indecent exposure comment, though many are skeptical about whether or not it was actually made. But even if it were made, it would not grant to OP a right to bf there that she did not have to begin with. So what right was violated? The right to have all security guards never make a mistake in her presence?

The expectation that the guards would obey DC law. Strikes me as a pretty low bar to clear.

Are you the "people are stupid" poster, just trying to convince me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody on this thread justifies the indecent exposure comment, though many are skeptical about whether or not it was actually made. But even if it were made, it would not grant to OP a right to bf there that she did not have to begin with. So what right was violated? The right to have all security guards never make a mistake in her presence?

The expectation that the guards would obey DC law. Strikes me as a pretty low bar to clear.

Are you the "people are stupid" poster, just trying to convince me?

Huh? Do you think it's stupid to expect a guard to be aware of the nuances of indecent exposure law? Or is the stupidity the number of posters who think that once you've committed the sin of floor-sitting, everything else is fair game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another pro-BF mom here who thinks OP was way out of line and is using the issue of breastfeeding to deflect attention away from her bad behavior. Boooooo hissssssss, OP.

So the DC Council meant to pass a law saying that it is legal to bf in public only if you're continually polite?

The guards didn't call the op out on rudeness or loitering. They called her out on feeding her baby.

Again, those are not the facts of the situation.

The guards called her out for sitting on the floor of the hallway. No one shouted down a hall "hey, cover up that boob down there! that's indecent exposure!"

Did you read the original post, on p. 1 of this thread? Or even the title of the thread?

Indeed I did. I offered one of the first dispassionate analyses of the OP's story. The sequence seemed to be guards from down the hall told her to get up off the floor. She said she would but failed to comply. Then when was instructed to a third time, got up and made a fuss about the fact that she as breastfeeding. Then she started calling lawyers.

The incident was about floor-sitting, not breastfeeding, and wasn't about breastfeeding until the OP started making a stink about it. She says the guards accused her of indecent exposure. Which, *if it is true* is unfortunate, but it doesn't change the fact that she should not have a right to be breastfeeding on the floor of a hallway. I reiterate: did not have the *right* to do that, for all the breastfeeding law says is a mom has a right to bf anywhere she has a right to be *with her child.* Since she didn't have a right to be sitting in the hall in the first place, the bf law doesn't apply. Full stop, end of story, stop debating this nonsense now.

[Anonymous]

Oh yes, dispute the op's account and then the problem goes away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody on this thread justifies the indecent exposure comment, though many are skeptical about whether or not it was actually made. But even if it were made, it would not grant to OP a right to bf there that she did not have to begin with. So what right was violated? The right to have all security guards never make a mistake in her presence?

The expectation that the guards would obey DC law. Strikes me as a pretty low bar to clear.

Are you the "people are stupid" poster, just trying to convince me?

Huh? Do you think it's stupid to expect a guard to be aware of the nuances of indecent exposure law? Or is the stupidity the number of posters who think that once you've committed the sin of floor-sitting, everything else is fair game?

Stupid = believing the right to breastfeeding in public means anywhere she wants without regard for other laws, regulations, or common sense. If OP had just whipped it out in the waiting room, where she did have a right to be, nobody would have said a word to her.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that the guard accused her of indecent exposure, contrary to DC law. Laws are meant to protect us all--you don't need to pass a charm test first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the guard accused her of indecent exposure, contrary to DC law. Laws are meant to protect us all--you don't need to pass a charm test first.

Let's say a woman is about to kill somebody. A cop says "hey, put that gun down! And, stick your boob back in your shirt, that's indecent exposure." Woman is arrested for attempted murder. Does she get off the charges because the cop wrongly accused her of indecent exposure? No.

If the guard accused her of indecent exposure, that would have been wrong. I agree 100%. That doesn't make OP's actions (flagrantly disobeying loitering laws) any *more* acceptable. This is about loitering, not breastfeeding. OP is in the wrong. If the guard accused her of indecent exposure, she's in the wrong, too - but that still doesn't mean OP had the right to do what she was doing.

[Anonymous]

And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

No, because we have only the OP's story that this happened and she has changed her story so many times that nothing she says has any credibility. OP is nothing but a troublemaker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many really stupid people on this thread. Why is it so hard to understand that the right to breastfeed doesn't bleed into places you otherwise wouldn't have a right to be? It's such an easy concept to grasp that I'm just astounded that people aren't getting it.
1. OP didn't have a right to be in that hallway. At all. Doing anything. She couldn't have been on a laptop paying the fine for her traffic violation, even though that would have been in DC's direct interest. Got it? She couldn't be in the hallway hanging out.
2. Therefore, it logically follows that she can't be in that hallway __________________[fill in the blank. OK, in this case breastfeeding.]

Also, it's just so utterly disgusting to sit on the floor of the DMV hallway and do anything, no less feed your child. OP is just gross to boot.

So "indecent exposure" = "loitering," and DC law applies only in places that aren't gross.

No, loitering = loitering. And DC laws apply in places such as the hallway of the DMV, which in my opinion also happens to be gross. But thanks for pointing out your stupidity. Come on, keep up. It's really not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Not "poor decision"--contrary to DC law. Laws are not there to protect people that you think are nice. They're for everyone.

And if you're going to dismiss the exposure part of the OP's story, why not change it further and have her turn into a dragon and tear down walls with her claws? After all, fiction is fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Not "poor decision"--contrary to DC law. Laws are not there to protect people that you think are nice. They're for everyone.

And if you're going to dismiss the exposure part of the OP's story, why not change it further and have her turn into a dragon and tear down walls with her claws? After all, fiction is fiction.

Please provide a reference to the DC law that makes it illegal to incorrectly accuse someone of indecent exposure. When they told her she couldn't breastfeed there, they were correct, based on the loitering issue. The alleged comment about indecent exposure would have been incorrect, but not illegal, as it was just a stray comment, not the reason she couldn't breastfeed there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Did you have some sort of scarring, traumatic experience in your past with a loiterer? Because you seem really, really hung up on the fact that the OP was *gasp* standing where she wasn't supposed to, and have somehow concluded that, because she didn't hop to and salute as soon as she was told to move, she lost all right to protection under DC laws. Did a loiterer take your ice cream cone or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Did you have some sort of scarring, traumatic experience in your past with a loiterer? Because you seem really, really hung up on the fact that the OP was *gasp* standing where she wasn't supposed to, and have somehow concluded that, because she didn't hop to and salute as soon as she was told to move, she lost all right to protection under DC laws. Did a loiterer take your ice cream cone or something?

Not the PP you're quoting but wondering why you still can't see that this had nothing to do with laws regarding breastfeeding and everything to do with laws regarding public safety. OP had no legal right to be standing, sitting or BFing in the hallway. I don't know why you think ice cream has anything to do with this but am very glad to see that you finally recognize OP was loitering.