"HeyBub" wrote in message

Point is, if all you've got is someone on your property, you do not
simultaneously have an arrestable person.


That may be, but they have no right to complain if I'm naked and standing on
my head.

I don't understand why people get so hung up on seeing a naked body anyway.
There are may styles but only two types, You have one or the other, just
with variations of sag or beer belly in 90% of the cases.

On Oct 23, 11:23*am, Smitty Two wrote:
Outside in daylight, or inside during the night time, would there *be
any difference if the clueless coffee maker had his curtains open?

If this coffee maker *would of* been standing outside the window nobody
*would of* saw him. He *would of* been in the dark. Once he goes inside
with any light on anybody can see him if he has his curtains open.

I'm not saying that he *should of* been charged, but the replies that
state you're immune from prosecution just because you are inside your
own home is a ridiculous argument.

Not picking on this otherwise mostly literate poster, but when did the
word "have" start being spelled "of?" Seeing this more and more lately
and I don't recall it ever being an issue in the past.

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late

The poster is an illiterate moron. I mean really, "should of"? Yeah,
right. I've been seeing this for years I SO wish it were legal to kill
the grammatically incorrect. Seriously.

You know, Smitty. I of to hand it to you. If you of to of a
peeve, that's a good one. You really of a good point, there.
I of had it pointed out to me, some interseting quirks of
words. Sometimes you can tell the ofs from the of nots, by
how they, like, you know, like talk. Of a nice day.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news

Not picking on this otherwise mostly literate poster, but
when did the
word "have" start being spelled "of?" Seeing this more and
more lately
and I don't recall it ever being an issue in the past.

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone
sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late.

I bet you write inflamatory non sequitors like moldy bread
behind the refrigerator, for Gods sake!!!!!!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Stepfann King"
wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


I don't understand why people get so hung up on seeing a
naked body
anyway. There are may styles but only two types, You have
one or the
other, just with variations of sag or beer belly in 90% of
the cases.




I bet you tell this crap to all the little kids in your
neighborhood.

You mean "I do so wish...."

Bang!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"tmclone" wrote in message
news:a73c9920-f685-42c4-85ea-

The poster is an illiterate moron. I mean really, "should
of"? Yeah,
right. I've been seeing this for years I SO wish it were
legal to kill
the grammatically incorrect. Seriously.

terry wrote:
"Trespassing is not usually a criminal offense. In my state, you
have to take
additional steps to elevate civil trespass to a criminal level. You
can do
this by personally demanding the person leave or by posting
sufficient
'sinage' asserting same. ....... "

Interesting post! What kind of 'sin' were you suggesting?

"No Peeping"

"Stepfann King" wrote in message


I bet you tell this crap to all the little kids in your neighborhood.


You're a sad person to even think like that

tmclone wrote:
On Oct 23, 11:23 am, Smitty Two wrote:
Outside in daylight, or inside during the night time, would there be
any difference if the clueless coffee maker had his curtains open?
If this coffee maker *would of* been standing outside the window nobody
*would of* saw him. He *would of* been in the dark. Once he goes inside
with any light on anybody can see him if he has his curtains open.
I'm not saying that he *should of* been charged, but the replies that
state you're immune from prosecution just because you are inside your
own home is a ridiculous argument.
Not picking on this otherwise mostly literate poster, but when did the
word "have" start being spelled "of?" Seeing this more and more lately
and I don't recall it ever being an issue in the past.

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late

The poster is an illiterate moron. I mean really, "should of"? Yeah,
right. I've been seeing this for years I SO wish it were legal to kill
the grammatically incorrect. Seriously.

Bang...your shot! ;-)

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Point is, if all you've got is someone on your property, you do not
simultaneously have an arrestable person.

Right. But you can shoot him, preferably in the back, and claim he was
a, uh, what's your favorite euphemism, there ... oh, yeah: goblin.

Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Point is, if all you've got is someone on your property, you do not
simultaneously have an arrestable person.

Right. But you can shoot him, preferably in the back, and claim he was
a, uh, what's your favorite euphemism, there ... oh, yeah: goblin.

False as to facts not in evidence. "Goblin" is not my favorite. I have no
favorite. I use the following interchangeably:

Goblin
Gopher
Gremlin
Scrot
Squint
Smelly-Telly
Do-Bad
Cut-purse
Evil-Doer
Pharisical
Malefic
Incognitant
Wowser
Pokenose
Blow-hard
Goat-groper
Four-flusher
Pettifog
Pick-nit
Toadeater
and
Pill bug

You obviously used one of these:
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_aug20...ieRevolver.jpg

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"propman" wrote in message
...

The poster is an illiterate moron. I mean really, "should
of"? Yeah,
right. I've been seeing this for years I SO wish it were
legal to kill
the grammatically incorrect. Seriously.

Bang...your shot! ;-)

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:23:40 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:



Outside in daylight, or inside during the night time, would there be
any difference if the clueless coffee maker had his curtains open?

If this coffee maker *would of* been standing outside the window nobody
*would of* saw him. He *would of* been in the dark. Once he goes inside
with any light on anybody can see him if he has his curtains open.

I'm not saying that he *should of* been charged, but the replies that
state you're immune from prosecution just because you are inside your
own home is a ridiculous argument.

Not picking on this otherwise mostly literate poster, but when did the
word "have" start being spelled "of?" Seeing this more and more lately
and I don't recall it ever being an issue in the past.

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late.

Then that "of" gets further corrupted to "a" stuck on to the
preceding word.

"Sam E" wrote in message

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late.

Then that "of" gets further corrupted to "a" stuck on to the
preceding word.

He shudda known better

On Oct 24, 7:33*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Sam E" wrote in message

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late.

Then that "of" *gets further corrupted to "a" stuck on to the
preceding word.

He shudda known better

Improper. Correct is "He shudda knowed better"

Harry K

Oren wrote:
"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."

Not a homeowner. His employer rented the house for employees. He'd
been fired Friday. His roommates said he drank Sunday night. When they
left for work at 5 AM Monday, he was walking around wearing only a
construction hat.

The incident happened at 8:40 AM, not 5:30. He said he'd been up for
hours packing to leave. The woman said she saw him standing in the open
doorway of the carport. She moved quickly to the sidewalk. When she
glanced at the front of the house, he was standing in a large window.

Police got a warrant.

Williams lied about the time. At 5:30 AM you don't expect people to
walk past your house, and they can see much of the interior if your
curtains aren't drawn. At 8:40, people outside are visible, and a
person inside has to go to a door or window to be seen.

E Z Peaces wrote:
Oren wrote:
"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."

Not a homeowner. His employer rented the house for employees. He'd
been fired Friday. His roommates said he drank Sunday night. When they
left for work at 5 AM Monday, he was walking around wearing only a
construction hat.

The incident happened at 8:40 AM, not 5:30. He said he'd been up for
hours packing to leave. The woman said she saw him standing in the open
doorway of the carport. She moved quickly to the sidewalk. When she
glanced at the front of the house, he was standing in a large window.

Police got a warrant.

Williams lied about the time. At 5:30 AM you don't expect people to
walk past your house, and they can see much of the interior if your
curtains aren't drawn. At 8:40, people outside are visible, and a
person inside has to go to a door or window to be seen.


Have any references for this information? It pretty much changes
everything, and he probably should have been arrested (but not for a
felony, IMHO)

Bob

"E Z Peaces" wrote in message
Not a homeowner. His employer rented the house for employees. He'd been
fired Friday. His roommates said he drank Sunday night. When they left
for work at 5 AM Monday, he was walking around wearing only a construction
hat.

That sounds rather strange itself.



The incident happened at 8:40 AM, not 5:30. He said he'd been up for
hours packing to leave. The woman said she saw him standing in the open
doorway of the carport. She moved quickly to the sidewalk. When she
glanced at the front of the house, he was standing in a large window.

Where was she that she had to move to the sidewalk? If on his property, she
had no business being there at all.


Police got a warrant.

Williams lied about the time. At 5:30 AM you don't expect people to walk
past your house, and they can see much of the interior if your curtains
aren't drawn. At 8:40, people outside are visible, and a person inside
has to go to a door or window to be seen.

This may or may not change things. If the original sighting was accidental,
no harm, IMO, but he may have then intentionally exposed himself. My guess
is we will never know for sure. Sounds like a combination of someone being
too damned nosy combined with someone that went a step further just to
antagonize or shock.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:26:12 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Oct 24, 7:33*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Sam E" wrote in message

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late.

Then that "of" *gets further corrupted to "a" stuck on to the
preceding word.

He shudda known better

Improper. Correct is "He shudda knowed better"

Harry K

I "knowed" it. I "telled him not to do dit", but he "do dit it any
who".

zxcvbob wrote:
E Z Peaces wrote:
Oren wrote:
"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."

Not a homeowner. His employer rented the house for employees. He'd
been fired Friday. His roommates said he drank Sunday night. When
they left for work at 5 AM Monday, he was walking around wearing only
a construction hat.

The incident happened at 8:40 AM, not 5:30. He said he'd been up for
hours packing to leave. The woman said she saw him standing in the
open doorway of the carport. She moved quickly to the sidewalk. When
she glanced at the front of the house, he was standing in a large window.

Police got a warrant.

Williams lied about the time. At 5:30 AM you don't expect people to
walk past your house, and they can see much of the interior if your
curtains aren't drawn. At 8:40, people outside are visible, and a
person inside has to go to a door or window to be seen.


Have any references for this information? It pretty much changes
everything, and he probably should have been arrested (but not for a
felony, IMHO)

Bob
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/loca...offee_upda te
http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?...79810&catid=35
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/s...47067&catid=82

"tmclone" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 11:23 am, Smitty Two wrote:
Outside in daylight, or inside during the night time, would there be
any difference if the clueless coffee maker had his curtains open?

If this coffee maker *would of* been standing outside the window nobody
*would of* saw him. He *would of* been in the dark. Once he goes inside
with any light on anybody can see him if he has his curtains open.

I'm not saying that he *should of* been charged, but the replies that
state you're immune from prosecution just because you are inside your
own home is a ridiculous argument.

Not picking on this otherwise mostly literate poster, but when did the
word "have" start being spelled "of?" Seeing this more and more lately
and I don't recall it ever being an issue in the past.

Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late

The poster is an illiterate moron. I mean really, "should of"? Yeah,
right. I've been seeing this for years I SO wish it were legal to kill
the grammatically incorrect. Seriously.

You are an adult. Cope. If you can't listen to the conversation here, and
keep up without insisting everyone be perfect as you want them to be, then
please just opt out. No one will be interested in what you have to say. I
know I'm not, and will not be seeing anything you post in the future.

Bye.

"Stepfann King" wrote in message
...
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"HeyBub" wrote in message

Point is, if all you've got is someone on your property, you do not
simultaneously have an arrestable person.


That may be, but they have no right to complain if I'm naked and
standing on my head.

I don't understand why people get so hung up on seeing a naked body
anyway. There are may styles but only two types, You have one or the
other, just with variations of sag or beer belly in 90% of the cases.




I bet you tell this crap to all the little kids in your neighborhood.

You earn a one strike you're out plonk on that one, my friend.

On 23 Oct 2009 21:14:45 GMT, Stepfann King
wrote:

I bet you tell this crap to all the little kids in your neighborhood.

I take it you're a lurker, and now have provided your first sentence
in this group.

Frankly, you are full of crap, and should fall off your ladder.

I went first and fell today. Missed a step or three.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I hope the cops pay dearly for this one. So should the nosey neighbor.
Doesn't this make you think that the USA is going to hell in a handcarft?

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:37:10 -0700, Oren wrote:

"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."


video:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/...8241256068372/


Well the guy was convicted:

"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 Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting
Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions
about what's OK when you're in your own home."

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/nva-...ecent-exposure

I guess just having a hard hat on is not a good defense.

Oren wrote the following:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:37:10 -0700, Oren wrote:


"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."


video:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/...8241256068372/



Well the guy was convicted:

"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 Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting
Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions
about what's OK when you're in your own home."

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/nva-...ecent-exposure

I guess just having a hard hat on is not a good defense.


This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his own home.
The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
person inside his home..

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"willshak" wrote in message
m...
Oren wrote the following:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:37:10 -0700, Oren wrote:


"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."


video:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/...8241256068372/



Well the guy was convicted:

"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 Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting
Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions
about what's OK when you're in your own home."

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/nva-...ecent-exposure

I guess just having a hard hat on is not a good defense.


This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his own home.
The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
person inside his home..

--

Bill

The reports I read clearly showed the man was an exhibitionist, and that he
exposed himself when children were present. The guy was clearly showing
himself, and this was no case of someone just getting a look through a
window.

Part of the testimony:

A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school
along a trail that runs by Williamson's home.

She heard a loud rattle, looked to her left and saw Williamson standing
naked, full frontal, in a side doorway.

"He gave me eye contact," Dean said, but otherwise made no gestures toward
her or her son.

In article ,
willshak wrote:



This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his own home.
The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
person inside his home..

The article said he rec'd no fine and no jail time, just a suspended
sentence. If he appeals, he could end up getting sent to jail for a
year. If I were him, I'd count my blessings, swallow my righteous
indignation, and STFU.

willshak wrote:
Oren wrote the following:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:37:10 -0700, Oren wrote:


"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."


video:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/...8241256068372/




Well the guy was convicted:

"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 Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting
Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions
about what's OK when you're in your own home."

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/nva-...ecent-exposure


I guess just having a hard hat on is not a good defense.


This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his own home.
The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
person inside his home..


Privacy might include drawing the drapes to prevent visual access...the
jerk was standing in front of a picture window on one occasion, in an
open doorway on another. There are noise ordinances, too, but that also
involves the extension of unpleasantness from the home to the public.

In article ,
willshak wrote:

This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his own home.
They have also said, repeatedly, that there is no expectation of
privacy in public places. They have also stated multiple times, that
there is no privacy interest involved in what can be seen from a public
area. Thus, anything from the sidewalk is not private (although in case
maybe it should be.
My favorite follow-up in this one is the photographer who tried to
convince the judge that it was not a privacy issue because the ladder he
used to look over the wall was on the sidewalk. The judge was less than
amused.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

In article ,
willshak wrote:



This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his own home.
The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
person inside his home..

The article said he rec'd no fine and no jail time, just a suspended
sentence. If he appeals, he could end up getting sent to jail for a
year. If I were him, I'd count my blessings, swallow my righteous
indignation, and STFU.

Especially since he COULD have been required to sign up for the
sex offender list. That would have caused him all sorts problems.

--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"

wrote:


Privacy might include drawing the drapes to prevent visual
access...the jerk was standing in front of a picture window on one
occasion, in an open doorway on another. There are noise ordinances,
too, but that also involves the extension of unpleasantness from the
home to the public.

A better idea would be to just not be a peeping tom, and not stare into
people's windows and doors. Seriously, whatever happened to minding your
own damn business in this country?

Jon

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Privacy might include drawing the drapes to prevent visual
access...the jerk was standing in front of a picture window on one
occasion, in an open doorway on another. There are noise ordinances,
too, but that also involves the extension of unpleasantness from the
home to the public.

A better idea would be to just not be a peeping tom, and not stare into
people's windows and doors. Seriously, whatever happened to minding your
own damn business in this country?

Jon

Damn right. When we're walking through our neighborhoods, we should stare
straight down at the sidewalk. Not look side to side. Not even to cross
the street. Maybe we should start making those things they made for horses
that cut off their peripheral vision. Maybe glasses with those tiny slits
like they wear in the Arctic.

Yeah, that ought to do it. Then people can be as perverse as they are.

Steve

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Privacy might include drawing the drapes to prevent visual
access...the jerk was standing in front of a picture window on one
occasion, in an open doorway on another. There are noise ordinances,
too, but that also involves the extension of unpleasantness from the
home to the public.

A better idea would be to just not be a peeping tom, and not stare into
people's windows and doors. Seriously, whatever happened to minding your
own damn business in this country?

Jon

Well, since this is a new computer, and I haven't killfiled your sorry ass
on this one yet,

PLONK.

What was the mother of the seven year old doing walking down the street with
her son? Teaching him to be a peeping Tom?

Steve

Jon Danniken wrote:
wrote:
Privacy might include drawing the drapes to prevent visual
access...the jerk was standing in front of a picture window on one
occasion, in an open doorway on another. There are noise ordinances,
too, but that also involves the extension of unpleasantness from the
home to the public.

A better idea would be to just not be a peeping tom, and not stare into
people's windows and doors. Seriously, whatever happened to minding your
own damn business in this country?

Jon



The issue isn't "accidental" exposure - the guy was in a picture window
and made noise to draw attention. Odd that a number of people made
similar complaints ....jeesh, if I "accidentally" saw a neighbor naked
in their window, I would not be calling the cops for fear of seeming
like a looney )

How often does one stand naked in the window, singing loudly enough for
passing drivers to take notice?

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
willshak wrote:

This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his own home.
They have also said, repeatedly, that there is no expectation of
privacy in public places. They have also stated multiple times, that
there is no privacy interest involved in what can be seen from a public
area. Thus, anything from the sidewalk is not private (although in case
maybe it should be.
My favorite follow-up in this one is the photographer who tried to
convince the judge that it was not a privacy issue because the ladder he
used to look over the wall was on the sidewalk. The judge was less than
amused.


There was the little old lady who complained to the police
about a naked couple frolicking about their yard. When the
police showed up and said they couldn't see the couple, the
little old lady handed them her binoculars.

TDD

Steve B wrote the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
m...

Oren wrote the following:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:37:10 -0700, Oren wrote:



"SPRINGFIELD, Va., Oct. 20 (UPI) -- A Virginia man said he is fighting
the indecent exposure charge brought against him after he was spotted
making coffee naked in his kitchen."

"..."Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home
and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was
outside looking in at me," Williamson said."


video:

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/...8241256068372/


Well the guy was convicted:

"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 Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting
Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions
about what's OK when you're in your own home."

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/nva-...ecent-exposure

I guess just having a hard hat on is not a good defense.


This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy in his own home.
The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
person inside his home..

--

Bill


The reports I read clearly showed the man was an exhibitionist, and that he
exposed himself when children were present. The guy was clearly showing
himself, and this was no case of someone just getting a look through a
window.

Part of the testimony:

A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school
along a trail that runs by Williamson's home.

She heard a loud rattle, looked to her left and saw Williamson standing
naked, full frontal, in a side doorway.

"He gave me eye contact," Dean said, but otherwise made no gestures toward
her or her son.

Ii only tread the first part, where it said this was 05:30 AM.
Hang him.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

How often does one stand naked in the window, singing loudly enough for
passing drivers to take notice?

I believe that all of us can remember the times we have been naked in a
"public" place, even if it was to take a shower by a creek deep in the woods
while camping. Well, not all of us, but most of us. I certainly know that
when I am naked, I fully arrange the situation ahead of time so that I don't
accidentally flash anyone. And in those situations where I am suddenly
aware that I am in view by accident, I end the situation quickly.

This man did just the opposite, arranging things, and doing things to
attract attention.

I predict that he will follow this obsession, but the next time, the judge
will hit him with the full Monty. He's like a child molester. He won't
change.

Steve

As with so many things. More information comes available,
later, and the situation is seen in a different light. My
original opinion was that the woman and child had crossed
his yard, and were trespassing at early AM. This further
writing suggests the fellow was exhibitionist.

I wonder how many times a day this (lack of information;
learn more later) happens to me? More than I know, I'd dare
to guess.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"willshak" wrote in message
m...

A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old
son to school
along a trail that runs by Williamson's home.

She heard a loud rattle, looked to her left and saw
Williamson standing
naked, full frontal, in a side doorway.

"He gave me eye contact," Dean said, but otherwise made no
gestures toward
her or her son.

Ii only tread the first part, where it said this was 05:30
AM.
Hang him.


--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

willshak wrote:


Ii only tread the first part, where it said this was 05:30 AM.
Hang him.

That was later corrected. IIRC, the time was closer to 8:30 or 9:00 whent
he kid was going to school. As for hanging him, reports are that he was
hung. At least enough to be willing to show off.

If he was exposing himself and attracing attention, that is wrong, but if it
was accidental, different story. We'll probably never know for sure.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
willshak wrote:

Ii only tread the first part, where it said this was 05:30 AM.
Hang him.

That was later corrected. IIRC, the time was closer to 8:30 or 9:00 whent
he kid was going to school. As for hanging him, reports are that he was
hung. At least enough to be willing to show off.

If he was exposing himself and attracing attention, that is wrong, but if it
was accidental, different story. We'll probably never know for sure.


I wouldn't dare walk around naked, people would call the zoo and report
an escaped ape. Those tranquilizer darts hurt like hell.

TDD