Alleged public wanker arrested in Clemons

University Police arrest Anthony Daniel Landram, 28, after two UVA students and a library employee observe a male who appeared to be masturbating while viewing what appeared to be pornography on a laptop around 8:10pm April 21 on the fourth floor of Clemons Library, according to a release.

Landram is charged with one count of obscene sexual display, a Class 1 misdemeanor. He was released on an unsecured bond and is scheduled to appear in Albemarle County General District Court on April 28.


Deleted by moderator.

I hope he doesn't get off too easily.

Not the first time something like that has happened in this library ,unfortunately. Then there was the bizarre happenings back in 1986 in Alderman Library where some guy would snip locks of hair from female students studying in carrels.
What is it with creeps and libraries?

Dat da same face I have when sum1 walk in on ya boi. I b angry mane

so creeps and libraries go together as there was also an incident in a library 25 years ago?

clemontines - zinger of the day. Good job. Lol.

According to another news source, he was charged under Virginia Code 18.2-387.1, which says he had the intent of other people seeing what he was doing.

In my opinion, he should have been charged under 18.2-387.

Man, Gasbag, if you were only a cop no mistakes would ever be made!!

"where some guy would snip locks of hair from female students studying in carrels."

Jack the Snipper, he was dubbed.

Mr/Mrs/Miss Gasbag blah blah, I agree.

Under the code section he was charged, he might have a defense. All he has to do is claim he had no intentions in wanting people to see him doing his deed.

18.2-387 covers the man who has to go to the bathroom badly, and somebody sees him doing so.

18.2-387.1 says the intent to be be seen has to be there.

I really should have accepted a magistrate's position when it was offered to me. But I had no interest whatsoever in working 12 hour shifts.


Read the statutes carefully... 387 requires actual exposure... 387.1 does not. That may be the reason for the specific charge selected.

18.2-387 says intentional obscene display.... OR.... exposure of himself. "Intentional obscene display" would apply to the man who walks in the mall in nothing but a trench coat and flashes other people. Or a man who masturbates in public even. "Exposure of himself" would apply to a man urinating in public and hoping nobody will see him.

18.2-387.1 says the person has intent that others will see him masturbating or engaging in actual or explicitly simulated acts of masturbation. A defense to 18.2-387.1 would be testimony by the defendant that the defendant had no intention in others seeing what he was doing.

You do raise a valid issue here I suppose.... who saw what, if anything.

For the sport of it, and if we go one step further, the first sentence of 18.2-237 doesn't even apply to females. Have you ever noticed that? It should read "his/her person".

What about the guys who stand on the street and "hold" themselves as they talk trash...

Are they in violation of anything?

I was pointing out that there have been similar incidents to this one in various libraries, In fact, recall one in Clemons some years back where a guy exposed himself and was masturbating in front of some female students. Told the police "it was because he liked the girls." And believe there was an incident involving a child at the Gordon Avenue library awhile back too.
And speaking of public urination, once saw a guy lower his pants and take a leak on the central place of the Downtown Mall in broad daylight with people nearby!
Doesnt necessarily mean someone like that should be in jail. But it could mean that the policy of releasing mentally ill or diminished capacity people onto the streets witth no support system was a very unwise decision.

You will go blind and grow hair on your palms!!! You fool.

Man, that guy looks old for 28. I wonder if it's all the masturbation?

I've met this guy on many occasions as he's worked a few places around town over the last 4-5 years and has been a customer at retail locations I've worked. Not to at all defend what he did, but it should be mentioned that he's without a doubt mentally handicapped and clearly suffers diminished social skills that can go along with it.

Sounds like he should run for city council or county supervisors, Context...He is certainly qualified. I will accept your comment as an official endorsement, and start the petition immediately to get him on the ballot. He will fit right in with the rest of them.