I have no issue with nudity and think America is unusually uptight about it.

I have no issue with nudity and think America is unusually uptight about it.

 

I do have an issue with nudity under some circumstances. Like fat people or ugly people.

I do have an issue with nudity under some circumstances. Like fat people or ugly people.

 

Hmmm, is it because really fat people can hide their genitals with no clothes or that ugly is so subjective?

In case none of this has come out; The man 'Eric Williamson' is a 29yo, with a 5yo child of his own. He is counter suing for damages from the police, but could spend up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, under Virgina law...Good Luck, Eric...

 

A spokesman for Fairfax county cops said Williamson was arrested because cops believed he wanted to be seen naked by the public.

 

The 29-year-old faces up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine if convicted. He's fighting the charge and seeking damages from police. [/Quote]

 

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/specials/weirdflorida/blog/2009/10/working_not_local_man_arrested.html

He was found not guilty.

Guilty of being naked at home;

 

As Erick Williamson sees it, being naked is liberating, and if passers-by get an eyeful while he’s standing in front of a picture window, that’s not his problem.

 

A Virginia judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions about what’s okay when you’re in your own home. [/Quote]

 

http://www.dailychilli.com/news/1400-guilty-of-being-naked-at-home

 

Was that through appeal? That would surprise me from the evidence, his lawyer would appeal...

 

 

Apparently he was found guilty 12/19/09, of indecent exposure, no fine or jail time. The details from the trial were substantially different, than first presented. There were apparently two different woman involved (witnesses), saying he distracted them (drew attention) and his "house mate" testified he had been running around the house naked, the same morning and warning him.

At the appeal, the court failed to find intent.

 

imRFmC7HejU

At the appeal, the court failed to find intent.[/Quote]

 

ydoaPs; Intent to 'indecent exposure', would be hard to explain, much less prove. Guess they wanted to clear his record, especially having a child custody case pending (figured there was possibly something else involved). He also now has recourse for damages, since his job was lost. I bet there is a liable suit already planned, against whom, I'm not sure, but cops entering his home, guns drawn and the loss of his job and lawyer fees, add up to a good case.

 

Thanks for update...