Cap'n Refsmmat Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 You know, slowing down and communicating properly would probably make this thread go a lot more easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Depends where you live. If they're trespassing, I have absolutely no sympathy. Well duh. But what if it is children across the street (not trespassing) waiting for the bus? Which is stated directly in the articles. That's the standpoint I'm arguing from. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Because this was being spun into a national story, and the idea you can't be naked in your own house-- we wanted to come forward and say in this case our officers believed there was probable cause the law had been violated," said Jennings. The complaint came from an unidentified woman who was walking with a 7-year-old boy. A Fairfax County Police spokesperson said officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe he wanted to be seen naked by the public. "We've heard there may have been other people who had a similar incident," said Mary Ann Jennings, a Fairfax County Police spokesperson. That is where I'm arguing from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 For the record, even if it is your private property, you can't go outside in your front yard and play with yourself in front of the kids waiting for their school bus. I am sure no one is making that claim. Second, I don't think anyone is saying you can stand in your front window and do the same in front of kids getting on the bus, but what is a little ambiguous and worth clarification. I don't know where it falls legally but I would personally consider it at least "proper social etiquette" to be aware that if people in high traffic public areas can see you naked at ground level, the courteous thing to do is put on clothes or draw the curtains. What I find annoying is 99.9% of the time it's just some dude that hasn't put clothes on who may not care if they are seen but isn't trying to be seen - and they get treated by the same laws that deal with sex offenses. Some guy in the window playing with himself staring at kids getting on the bus would be understandably disturbing to the kids and would need to be addressed by police. However, the only reason a kid would be disturbed by some absentminded fellow making coffee who didn't realize someone was cutting through his backyard is if mommy broke down on the spot and began cursing the sobbing crying about how cruel fate and that demon-man robbed her poor snowflake of ever having a normal life. There's a nude beach where I live and people bring their kids there with no fuss. Hell, it's technically a public beach that just happens to be secluded, that no puritans happen to care about. Naked != sexual. It's an important distinction. Technically if that woman lived here and happened down to the water there and found a whole bunch of naked people everyone could be arrested - it's a city paid public park/beach after all! Maybe even sued for all the years of therapy her traumatized youngster would have to endure. Anyway, I can't wait for the next article about some burglar suing his victim who came out of their bedroom naked while he was trying to teach his kid the family business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Well duh. But what if it is children across the street (not trespassing) waiting for the bus? Which is stated directly in the articles. The article does not ever state that children waiting across the street for the bus saw him naked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 The article does not ever state that children waiting across the street for the bus saw him naked. But it doesn't not not say that. Actually all it said was there was a bus stop across the street from his house. Sorry for the error. Cheers, Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhat I find annoying is 99.9% of the time it's just some dude that hasn't put clothes on who may not care if they are seen but isn't trying to be seen - and they get treated by the same laws that deal with sex offenses. Well I'm talking about that 0.1% that happens on occasion, and gets ignored because of the other 99.9% of cases instills biases in people, and doesn't get taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Well duh. But what if it is children across the street (not trespassing) waiting for the bus? Which is stated directly in the articles. That's the standpoint I'm arguing from. In the video, they showed the area and it looked pretty far to the bus-stop. I think the kids would need binoculars. On the other hand, the place where the woman was supposed to be didn't look like his property (in that it didn't appear fenced off or anything). Where are people getting the info that she was trespassing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 In the video, they showed the area and it looked pretty far to the bus-stop. I think the kids would need binoculars. On the other hand, the place where the woman was supposed to be didn't look like his property (in that it didn't appear fenced off or anything). Where are people getting the info that she was trespassing? http://news.aol.com/article/eric-williams-charged-with-indecent/730688 At about 1:05 into the video it says they were "cutting a path through his yard" when they happened to look back up and over at his house, and saw him through his window. The reporter says the description is pieced together from police information and Eric's statements, so it may not be 100% accurate but it's not just Eric's version. It also describes the event as 5:30am, and also describes it as dark out. If you have lights on in your house and it's dark out, it's pretty much impossible to know if someone is right out there. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWell I'm talking about that 0.1% that happens on occasion, and gets ignored because of the other 99.9% of cases instills biases in people, and doesn't get taken seriously. Considering how jumpy and prudish we are as a nation, that really doesn't happen - what does happen is sometimes there is not enough evidence to prosecute due, and it boils down to he-said/she-said like many sexual assault cases. It would be nice to put more guilty people away for sexual assault crimes. That's still no excuse to charge one as the other though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 from the videos it looks like he has a relatively big yard, and the woman and her kid got very close to the house, meaning if they had stuck to where they were supposed to be they wouldn't have seen a thing(no pun intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 What's it saying Snytho-sis, when almost everyone here agrees that he has the right to do whatever non-harmful thing on his property that freakin' wants? And notice how it WAS dark out, and they WERE trespassing on his property. Kids today see more sexual stuff on 8:00 shows than what that "heathen pervert" was doing by walking around his own kitchen. You have no case whatsoever, Syntho-sis. And that was a good point (to whoever brought it up) that minor, unintentional "sex offenses" are out in the same category as rapists and child molesters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 But it doesn't not not say that. Actually all it said was there was a bus stop across the street from his house. Sorry for the error. actually is the part that bugs me. The article stated a bus stop across the street from his house. My assumption was that because they were cutting through the yard, a good chance they weren't in his front yard, thereby decreasing chances he'd have been seen by the kids across the street however, if he continually forgets to close his blinds and walk around naked and the kids across the street DO see, their bad for looking, his bad for walking, that's why I say fine him and do not compensate the "victims" if he keeps doing it, then you can look at further punishment. If not, we should get the heck out of someone's privacy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 What's it saying Snytho-sis, when almost everyone here agrees that he has the right to do whatever non-harmful thing on his property that freakin' wants? And notice how it WAS dark out, and they WERE trespassing on his property. Kids today see more sexual stuff on 8:00 shows than what that "heathen pervert" was doing by walking around his own kitchen. You have no case whatsoever, Syntho-sis. And that was a good point (to whoever brought it up) that minor, unintentional "sex offenses" are out in the same category as rapists and child molesters. Well let's just wait and see how this case develops before we start making dogmatic assertions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedactually is the part that bugs me. The article stated a bus stop across the street from his house. My assumption was that because they were cutting through the yard, a good chance they weren't in his front yard, thereby decreasing chances he'd have been seen by the kids across the street however, if he continually forgets to close his blinds and walk around naked and the kids across the street DO see, their bad for looking, his bad for walking, that's why I say fine him and do not compensate the "victims" if he keeps doing it, then you can look at further punishment. If not, we should get the heck out of someone's privacy? Well see, it would also be nice if FOX news had provided some more details, seems like they always give just enough to stir up controversy. For the record, I never said I thought the 'victims' should be compensated. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAlso the video states that it was in fact thru his front yard that they crossed. On a path, with the front windows of the house perpendicular to them. A lawyer in the video also stated that in order for it to be a crime the police would have to prove that he did it intentionally. Doesn't matter if he was on his private property or not, if he did do it intentionally (knew they were there), then he will be punished. That's not what I'm saying, that's what the laws say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Doesn't matter if he was on his private property or not, if he did do it intentionally (knew they were there), then he will be punished. It was dark out when the event occurred. Watch the video again, and tell me what you can see through the window from the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 What the hell? How are there 62 posts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 hahahaha Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt was dark out when the event occurred. Watch the video again, and tell me what you can see through the window from the inside. Yup I can see through the window from the inside, can't you? I think he most likely had a surveillance system setup on his property specifically for something like this. Most likely he had an alarm device that gave him a 2 minute head-start on anyone who crossed the 'path of love' as he calls it. Case closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Yup I can see through the window from the inside, can't you? not when it is dark out. which is when the incident occured. I think he most likely had a surveillance system setup on his property specifically for something like this. Most likely he had an alarm device that gave him a 2 minute head-start on anyone who crossed the 'path of love' as he calls it. Case closed evidence for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 not when it is dark out. which is when the incident occured. It's possible with infrared goggles, which he most likely has stashed in his coffee pot. evidence for this? Evidence against it? Don't pin the burden of proof on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 It's possible with infrared goggles, which he most likely has stashed in his coffee pot. glass is opaque to infrared light. Evidence against it? Don't pin the burden of proof on me. you are making the claim, the burden of proof lies on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Well see, it would also be nice if FOX news had provided some more details, seems like they always give just enough to stir up controversy. For the record, I never said I thought the 'victims' should be compensated. agreed and conceded. It's possible with infrared goggles, which he most likely has stashed in his coffee pot. any man reaching his goal of making coffee naked would definitely have passed the dream of owning infrared goggles. I can agree to this, but I would have much cooler uses for IR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 glass is opaque to infrared light. you are making the claim, the burden of proof lies on you. At this point every post I make on this thread is entirely satirical. I can't believe we kept this nonsense going as long as we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Evidence against it? Don't pin the burden of proof on me. You do realize, you claimed that most likely he had surveillance and infrared goggles, while I don't have hard statistics on dedicated "flashers" who try to get seen from inside their homes I am pretty sure this level of setup would be fairly rare. Don't you think the simplest explanation - that he couldn't see out when they passed through his yard and it was unintentional - would be the most likely? I think they have a razor for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 If only the worst thing a child ever saw was a naked adult how much easier it would be to raise a child. I honestly do not see why seeing a naked adult is a bad thing. Blood and gore is a nightly thing on the news not to mention supposedly entertainment TV shows. I would much rather my children see nudity and sex than death and destruction. At the very least they will eventually see and deal with sex and nudity but death and destruction they could live with out, I know i could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syntho-sis Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 You do realize, you claimed that most likely he had surveillance and infrared goggles, while I don't have hard statistics on dedicated "flashers" who try to get seen from inside their homes I am pretty sure this level of setup would be fairly rare. Don't you think the simplest explanation - that he couldn't see out when they passed through his yard and it was unintentional - would be the most likely? I think they have a razor for that. If only Occam's razor applied to every aspect of life: see women Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 So, an unidentified woman, probably trespassing, reports seeing a guy naked in his own house, and the police arrest him. Anyone who wants to can do the same, report that they saw some person naked in their own house. Only I suggest you use a pay phone. Anyhow, if enough people do this the police will really have no choice but to ignore such silly reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainPanic Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 So, assuming I'd live in that same country and county, how does all this affect me taking a shower? Should I really buff up my locks on the bathroom door and buy a non-transparent shower curtain just in case somebody breaks into my house? And another important question: did the guy get some time to dress himself before he was taken to jail? Or did the judge sentence him for 20 years in solitary confinement for appearing naked in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Someone please explain to me, why it is okay for a grown man to habitually expose his naked body to children?Because there is nothing wrong with nudity except in the paranoid recesses of minds that are more uptight than a constipated antelope's arse. I routinely walk around my house naked. If the doorbell rings I will ensure I am suitable clothed, but if someone chooses to be on my property and sees me in living room, drawing room, study, or kitchen naked then, if it is a problem, it is their problem not mine. Can you explain to me what it is about nudity that terrifies you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now