Xenia Prosecutor Ron Lewis said Miller was charged with menacing because he chased people in a few of the incidents. Lewis said in one case, Miller swam into the Little Miami River chasing after two women who were canoeing, and in another case Miller chased two juveniles who were coming back from an ice cream shop.
Lewis said the public indecency charges came because Miller partially exposed himself to some people while wearing the women's swimsuit. Lewis said Miller has a 2008 conviction for disorderly conduct that had nothing to do with the current situation. Sugarcreek Police Sgt. Mark White said Miller has lived on Washington Mill for about three years, and the disorderly conduct case was the police department's only previous contact with him.
Well, that changes things a bit. Why wasn't this information included in the WHIO-TV report?
Here's the video I posted yesterday. Notice that it makes no mention of what the charges were based on other than the fact that he was wearing a women's swimsuit:
Could they have possibly sensationalized this story any more? And isn't the actual reason this man was arrested, considering the story is about his arrest, pertinent information that should be included in the news report?
While the case's facts still seem a bit in the air (especially since Miller denies all the charges, as is his right), at least the Dayton Daily News article mentions the specific reasons he was arrested instead of implying that it was because he chose to wear a women's bathing suit.
Because that's kinda the opposite of indecent exposure, wearing a women's bathing suit instead of a man's. But this guy could have exposed himself (which, to me, isn't that big a deal, although I wasn't there) just as easily wearing a man's swimsuit, and the reason he was arrested wasn't because of the gender of the swimsuit he took off, but because he took off his swimsuit.
That all seems like relevant information to this story, and yet the WHIO-TV report left it out.