ransvestia

The chief's approach is remarkably common sensical, even though he'll take more action than towns #1, 2 or 3, when I told him about my TV friend, roaming his town in public, he said my friend was doing nothing illegal But when the chief discovers such a situation, he always wants to find out what the person's real reason is for dressing and the real reason might turn out to be a police

matter.

For example, some TVs take clothing off clotheslines, because they're too chicken to buy it at the store. That's larceny and his force would surely prosecute for such actions.

Other TVs accost people (sometimes females, sometimes males) for reasons of their own, and that must be prosecuted.

So I assured him that my friend just wants to be left alone, had plenty of clothes, and if he wants more, he'll enjoy buying them. The chief commented, "I wouldn't prosecute him for that, or even stop him To the standard questions, he replied:

1. If his officer "reads" a TV in public, he would take no action.

2. If a citizen reports a "man in dresses," the officer will tell the complainer that no law is being broken.

3. But if an officer finds the license reads "John Doe" when the driver looks more like "Mary Roe," nothing the driver could say on the spot will stop us from bringing him to the station, to find out why he's dressed this way. As soon as the driver can identify himself for sure, he'll be released with no charges placed (and presumably no "big deal" about the TV's eccentricity).

He explained, "In these days of higher court decisions that are more and more permissive, the message is clear that trying to prosecute such matters are a waste of time, even if I wanted to (which I don't)."

This was no passive, namby-pamby, trying to avoid a confrontation -he's a two-fisted leader who deals aggressively with tough situations. But his views on TVism were summarized in closing, with a friendly smile and a shrug: "I don't understand such things (as TVism), but who am I to tell your friend he can't do (his thing)."