"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/

On Oct 21, 4:37*pm, 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/...-making-coffee...


Damn right he needs to fight it. The right of nakedness at home is
sacred. The peeping tom needs to be arrested.

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/



Which reminds me.....

http://home.comcast.net/~jwisnia18/jeff/LOST/

Jeff

--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:02:27 -0400, jeff_wisnia
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."


video:

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



Which reminds me.....

http://home.comcast.net/~jwisnia18/jeff/LOST/

Jeff

Warn me next time! I need an eye rinse, now.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
"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/


Holy ****, I guess I better wear a robe when I next make coffee.

Old Justin Wilson skit:

Woman calls to report flasher.
Police come, but can only see head, neck, and shoulders.
Woman to responding officers, "Stand on this chair, and you will get a
better view".

Someone spying in on someone innocuously making coffee in the buff and
calling the police? Sounds like they need to question her instead. Or she
needs to get a life.

Steve

SteveB wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
...
"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/


Holy ****, I guess I better wear a robe when I next make coffee.

Old Justin Wilson skit:

Woman calls to report flasher.
Police come, but can only see head, neck, and shoulders.
Woman to responding officers, "Stand on this chair, and you will get a
better view".

Someone spying in on someone innocuously making coffee in the buff and
calling the police? Sounds like they need to question her instead. Or she
needs to get a life.

Kinda like the story about some farmer complaining about skinny dippers at a
rock concert back in the 70's. Under further questioning, he revealed that he
had to use binoculars to see them.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:43:15 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
"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/


Holy ****, I guess I better wear a robe when I next make coffee.


Yep! She could faint, fall and bump her head or even go into a comma.
Cover up!

Old Justin Wilson skit:

Woman calls to report flasher.
Police come, but can only see head, neck, and shoulders.
Woman to responding officers, "Stand on this chair, and you will get a
better view".


I miss the guy and his "crack me a dozen"

Someone spying in on someone innocuously making coffee in the buff and
calling the police? Sounds like they need to question her instead. Or she
needs to get a life.

Steve


Sounds like she was on his property.

I watched an interview of the guy today. He put his PJ's on, went to
bed for a nap and the police walked into his house, into his bedroom,
called him a "pervert" and so on. Supposedly, he never heard a knock,
but only cops in his bedroom.

"Oren" wrote in message

I watched an interview of the guy today. He put his PJ's on, went to
bed for a nap and the police walked into his house, into his bedroom,
called him a "pervert" and so on. Supposedly, he never heard a knock,
but only cops in his bedroom.

I hope the cops pay dearly for this one. So should the nosey neighbor.

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/

So:
* How did the cops get in?
* Why did the cops get in?
* Did they have an arrest warrant?

Virginia Code 19.2-81
"... officers may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits any
crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has reasonable
grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in his
presence."

I would see dollar signs but the fool admitted on national TV he was naked.

He should have claimed he was wearing flesh-colored pajamas or a thong.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Oren" wrote in message

I watched an interview of the guy today. He put his PJ's on, went to
bed for a nap and the police walked into his house, into his bedroom,
called him a "pervert" and so on. Supposedly, he never heard a knock,
but only cops in his bedroom.

I hope the cops pay dearly for this one. So should the nosey neighbor.

Not to worry. By the time it gets to trial, Obama will have changed the
law.

Errrrrrrrrrrr............... Constitution, I mean................

Steve ;-)

"HeyBub" wrote in message

Virginia Code 19.2-81
"... officers may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits any
crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has reasonable
grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in
his presence."

I would see dollar signs but the fool admitted on national TV he was
naked.

He should have claimed he was wearing flesh-colored pajamas or a thong.


But is being naked in your own house a felony?

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:30:50 -0500, "HeyBub"
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."


video:

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

So:
* How did the cops get in?
* Why did the cops get in?
* Did they have an arrest warrant?

Virginia Code 19.2-81
"... officers may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits any
crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has reasonable
grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in his
presence."

I would see dollar signs but the fool admitted on national TV he was naked.

He should have claimed he was wearing flesh-colored pajamas or a thong.


Why claim anything? No need to defend himself for being naked. This
guy was in his own house. Watch for coming interviews. Somebody
screwed the pooch.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:08:53 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message

Virginia Code 19.2-81
"... officers may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits any
crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has reasonable
grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed a felony not in
his presence."

I would see dollar signs but the fool admitted on national TV he was
naked.

He should have claimed he was wearing flesh-colored pajamas or a thong.


But is being naked in your own house a felony?


No! In this case it is a Misdemeanor.

The reason you need the "presence of the officer".

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:43:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Oren" wrote in message

I watched an interview of the guy today. He put his PJ's on, went to
bed for a nap and the police walked into his house, into his bedroom,
called him a "pervert" and so on. Supposedly, he never heard a knock,
but only cops in his bedroom.

I hope the cops pay dearly for this one. So should the nosey neighbor.

Not to worry. By the time it gets to trial, Obama will have changed the
law.

Errrrrrrrrrrr............... Constitution, I mean................

Steve ;-)



Steve,

-----------

"Not on our watch!"

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the
American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful
enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of
emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that
asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus
turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form
of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign
troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or
to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the
American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the
people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their
government for a redress of grievances.



http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:08:53 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message

Virginia Code 19.2-81
"... officers may arrest, without a warrant, any person who commits
any crime in the presence of the officer and any person whom he has
reasonable grounds or probable cause to suspect of having committed
a felony not in his presence."

I would see dollar signs but the fool admitted on national TV he was
naked.

He should have claimed he was wearing flesh-colored pajamas or a
thong.


But is being naked in your own house a felony?


No! In this case it is a Misdemeanor.

The reason you need the "presence of the officer".

He was charged with a 3rd degree felony.

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."

Why was anyone looking in his windows at him? The perverts should be
arrested...

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:43:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
om...

"Oren" wrote in message

I watched an interview of the guy today. He put his PJ's on, went to
bed for a nap and the police walked into his house, into his bedroom,
called him a "pervert" and so on. Supposedly, he never heard a knock,
but only cops in his bedroom.

I hope the cops pay dearly for this one. So should the nosey neighbor.

Not to worry. By the time it gets to trial, Obama will have changed the
law.

Errrrrrrrrrrr............... Constitution, I mean................

Steve ;-)



Steve,

-----------

"Not on our watch!"

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the
American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful
enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of
emergency" on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that
asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus
turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form
of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign
troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or
to "maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the
American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the
people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their
government for a redress of grievances.



http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

Saw that on the front page of the RJ when in Vegas last Sunday. Very
interesting, and I am getting information about joining, even though I have
no paid experience with LE or military. It's high time that someone form
this group. I see that the neonazi and skinheads are suspiciously quiet
.......................

Steve

"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."

There was a woman and a kid cutting through his yard who saw him through
the window. I got the impression from reading one article that she
believed he was deliberately displaying himself once he saw them. To me,
the lesson to be learned from that would be: keep out of other people's
yards -- but she called the cops.

We had a pro hockey player years ago here plead guilty to indecent
exposure after a neighbor told the cops he had a longtime habit of doing
things around his home/property in ways that were sure to show off his
naughty bits. Such as walking outside to the garage wearing only a
shirt. He'd manually lift the garage door, the shirt would ride up, and
everyone would get a good view. The cops began watching him and caught
him at it. But he was doing that stuff outside, not inside.

On Oct 22, 1:57*pm, Hell Toupee wrote:

There was a woman and a kid cutting through his yard who saw him through
the window. I got the impression from reading one article that she
believed he was deliberately displaying himself once he saw them. To me,
the lesson to be learned from that would be: keep out of other people's
yards -- but she called the cops.

We had a pro hockey player years ago here plead guilty to indecent
exposure after a neighbor told the cops he had a longtime habit of doing
things around his home/property in ways that were sure to show off his
naughty bits. Such as walking outside to the garage wearing only a
shirt. He'd manually lift the garage door, the shirt would ride up, and
everyone would get a good view. The cops began watching him and caught
him at it. But he was doing that stuff outside, not inside.

And so what if he was "deliberately displaying himself". He was INSIDE
his house. It sounds like only a trespasser would have been able to
see him, so it sounds like they got what they deserved. My house is
far off the road and I can barely see my neighbors. For anyone to see
into my windows from the sides or the back of the house they have to
be standing on my enclosed deck. Anyone who can see me making coffee
will get arrested when I call the police to report a trespasser. The
cop sounds like an idiot.

We had a pro hockey player years ago here plead guilty to indecent
exposure after a neighbor told the cops he had a longtime habit of doing
things around his home/property in ways that were sure to show off his
naughty bits. Such as walking outside to the garage wearing only a
shirt. He'd manually lift the garage door, the shirt would ride up, and
everyone would get a good view. The cops began watching him and caught
him at it. But he was doing that stuff outside, not inside.

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.

In article ,
wrote:


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.
Depends on where. Going back the other way, paparazzi etc., can only
legally take pictures of what they can see on the sidewalk (literally
the sidewalk, so they can't get a ladder to put on the sidewalk to take
pics over the fence). That should work the other way, too. Sounds from
at least one of the articles that the c/p wasn't on a public area. THAT
is when it gets ridiculous the other way.

--
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"

jeff_wisnia 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."


video:

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




Which reminds me.....

http://home.comcast.net/~jwisnia18/jeff/LOST/

Jeff


That's odd, the Hippie chicks I knew were not into tattoos.
Tramp Stamps and the like manifested in a later generation.

TDD

tmclone wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:57 pm, Hell Toupee wrote:

There was a woman and a kid cutting through his yard who saw him
through the window. I got the impression from reading one article
that she believed he was deliberately displaying himself once he saw
them. To me, the lesson to be learned from that would be: keep out
of other people's yards -- but she called the cops.

We had a pro hockey player years ago here plead guilty to indecent
exposure after a neighbor told the cops he had a longtime habit of
doing things around his home/property in ways that were sure to show
off his naughty bits. Such as walking outside to the garage wearing
only a shirt. He'd manually lift the garage door, the shirt would
ride up, and everyone would get a good view. The cops began watching
him and caught him at it. But he was doing that stuff outside, not
inside.

And so what if he was "deliberately displaying himself". He was INSIDE
his house. It sounds like only a trespasser would have been able to
see him, so it sounds like they got what they deserved. My house is
far off the road and I can barely see my neighbors. For anyone to see
into my windows from the sides or the back of the house they have to
be standing on my enclosed deck. Anyone who can see me making coffee
will get arrested when I call the police to report a trespasser. The
cop sounds like an idiot.

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. Even then, there are numerous categories of people
who, by definition, cannot be a criminal trespasser (and, hence, cannot be
arrested). Some a

* A child who has no criminal capability
* A peace officer with a valid warrant
* A fireman, paramedic, electrical lineman, or other person involved in
exigent circumstances
* A mere civil trespasser
* A person-person (used to be mailman), meter reader, or the like

Oren wrote:
(snip)

Steve ;-)



Steve,

-----------

"Not on our watch!"

OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the
American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful
enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of
emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that
asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus
turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form
of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign
troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or
to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the
American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the
people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their
government for a redress of grievances.


The PTB love organizations like that. They give them a nice convenient
list of who to round up first. If such organizations didn't exist, the
PTB would just have to pay somebody to start one.

Now, the ones that keep their mouths shut and stay invisible- those are
the ones that keep the PTB up at nights, sweating. Don't know who they
are, can't pick them out of a crowd, etc. And if the PTB ever get
annoying enough, the silent ones are the ones they will never see coming.

HeyBub 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. Even then, there are numerous categories of people
who, by definition, cannot be a criminal trespasser (and, hence, cannot be
arrested). Some a

* A child who has no criminal capability
* A peace officer with a valid warrant
* A fireman, paramedic, electrical lineman, or other person involved in
exigent circumstances
* A mere civil trespasser
* A person-person (used to be mailman), meter reader, or the like



No, but trespassing and peeking in the windows at the nekkid
occupants is a criminal offense. If that window faced away from the
sidewalk so that the homeowner had a reasonable expectation that he
couldn't be seen, the cops arrested the wrong person.

IANAL,
Bob

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:05:17 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

tmclone wrote:
On Oct 22, 1:57 pm, Hell Toupee wrote:

There was a woman and a kid cutting through his yard who saw him
through the window. I got the impression from reading one article
that she believed he was deliberately displaying himself once he saw
them. To me, the lesson to be learned from that would be: keep out
of other people's yards -- but she called the cops.

We had a pro hockey player years ago here plead guilty to indecent
exposure after a neighbor told the cops he had a longtime habit of
doing things around his home/property in ways that were sure to show
off his naughty bits. Such as walking outside to the garage wearing
only a shirt. He'd manually lift the garage door, the shirt would
ride up, and everyone would get a good view. The cops began watching
him and caught him at it. But he was doing that stuff outside, not
inside.

And so what if he was "deliberately displaying himself". He was INSIDE
his house. It sounds like only a trespasser would have been able to
see him, so it sounds like they got what they deserved. My house is
far off the road and I can barely see my neighbors. For anyone to see
into my windows from the sides or the back of the house they have to
be standing on my enclosed deck. Anyone who can see me making coffee
will get arrested when I call the police to report a trespasser. The
cop sounds like an idiot.

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. Even then, there are numerous categories of people
who, by definition, cannot be a criminal trespasser (and, hence, cannot be
arrested). Some a

* A child who has no criminal capability
* A peace officer with a valid warrant
* A fireman, paramedic, electrical lineman, or other person involved in
exigent circumstances
* A mere civil trespasser
* A person-person (used to be mailman), meter reader, or the like


However, a trespasser that peers into your windows is a peeping tom
and can be arrested for that.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:32:55 -0400, wrote:

However, a trespasser that peers into your windows is a peeping tom
and can be arrested for that.

Like this guy:

pic

http://auctions.myselfdefenseblog.co...eeping-tom.jpg

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:50:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


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.
Depends on where. Going back the other way, paparazzi etc., can only
legally take pictures of what they can see on the sidewalk (literally
the sidewalk, so they can't get a ladder to put on the sidewalk to take
pics over the fence). That should work the other way, too. Sounds from
at least one of the articles that the c/p wasn't on a public area. THAT
is when it gets ridiculous the other way.

The paparazzi argument is ridiculous too. Anyone can see through a
window. Even if they are not on a ladder. Even if they are on the
street.

On Oct 22, 9:44*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:50:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

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.
* Depends on where. Going back the other way, paparazzi etc., can only
legally take pictures of what they can see on the sidewalk (literally
the sidewalk, so they can't get a ladder to put on the sidewalk to take
pics over the fence). *That should work the other way, too. Sounds from
at least one of the articles that the c/p wasn't on a public area. THAT
is when it gets ridiculous the other way.

The paparazzi argument is ridiculous too. Anyone can see through a
window. *Even if they are not on a ladder. Even if they are on the
street.

Umm, NOT if they HAVE to be trespassing to see in the windows. It is
simply NOT POSSIBLE to see into ANY of the first floor windows on the
back of my house UNLESS you are standing INSIDE my fenced/enclosed
deck, meaning you climbed the fence or broke into my garage and came
out the back door onto the deck. Also, I have over 100 yards deep of
back yard which drops down through woods to a stream. The neighbors in
the back have a similar yard. So, even if the neighbors stood at the
back of their property, they could not possibly even see my house,
much less into the windows. I have curtains on all (few) windows which
can be seen though by non-trespassers. My kitchen has no curtains
whatsoever, since NO ONE can see through those windows UNLESS they are
trespassing and I like to get all the sun I can get from the southern
exposure.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:07:03 -0700 (PDT), tmclone
wrote:

On Oct 22, 9:44*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:50:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

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.
* Depends on where. Going back the other way, paparazzi etc., can only
legally take pictures of what they can see on the sidewalk (literally
the sidewalk, so they can't get a ladder to put on the sidewalk to take
pics over the fence). *That should work the other way, too. Sounds from
at least one of the articles that the c/p wasn't on a public area. THAT
is when it gets ridiculous the other way.

The paparazzi argument is ridiculous too. Anyone can see through a
window. *Even if they are not on a ladder. Even if they are on the
street.

Umm, NOT if they HAVE to be trespassing to see in the windows. It is
simply NOT POSSIBLE to see into ANY of the first floor windows on the
back of my house UNLESS you are standing INSIDE my fenced/enclosed
deck, meaning you climbed the fence or broke into my garage and came
out the back door onto the deck. Also, I have over 100 yards deep of
back yard which drops down through woods to a stream. The neighbors in
the back have a similar yard. So, even if the neighbors stood at the
back of their property, they could not possibly even see my house,
much less into the windows. I have curtains on all (few) windows which
can be seen though by non-trespassers. My kitchen has no curtains
whatsoever, since NO ONE can see through those windows UNLESS they are
trespassing and I like to get all the sun I can get from the southern
exposure.

We aren't talking about your house or your windows.

Did you watch the video? The mans house has floor level windows.
Anyone can easily see inside his house at night if he doesn't close
the curtains.

tmclone wrote:


The paparazzi argument is ridiculous too. Anyone can see through a
window. Even if they are not on a ladder. Even if they are on the
street.

Umm, NOT if they HAVE to be trespassing to see in the windows. It is
simply NOT POSSIBLE to see into ANY of the first floor windows on the
back of my house UNLESS you are standing INSIDE my fenced/enclosed
deck, meaning you climbed the fence or broke into my garage and came
out the back door onto the deck. Also, I have over 100 yards deep of
back yard which drops down through woods to a stream. The neighbors in
the back have a similar yard. So, even if the neighbors stood at the
back of their property, they could not possibly even see my house,
much less into the windows. I have curtains on all (few) windows which
can be seen though by non-trespassers. My kitchen has no curtains
whatsoever, since NO ONE can see through those windows UNLESS they are
trespassing and I like to get all the sun I can get from the southern
exposure.

I think you'd agree that if I am in a place where I'm legally entitled to
be, I should not be subjected to nudity against my will. On the other hand,
some places I could legally go may subject me to that outrage and, if I go
there, I take that risk upon myself.

Now what if I'm reading the electric meter at your place?

It could go either way.

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:50:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


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.
Depends on where. Going back the other way, paparazzi etc., can only
legally take pictures of what they can see on the sidewalk (literally
the sidewalk, so they can't get a ladder to put on the sidewalk to take
pics over the fence). That should work the other way, too. Sounds from
at least one of the articles that the c/p wasn't on a public area. THAT
is when it gets ridiculous the other way.

The paparazzi argument is ridiculous too. Anyone can see through a
window. Even if they are not on a ladder. Even if they are on the
street.

Which is pretty much my point. IF you can see it from the street
or sidewalk (think public place) then there is a lower expectation of
privacy and it is fair game. But some tried to suggest that if there was
a wall or some other obstruction at the sidewalk, they could look over
it as long as they stayed on the sidewalk. The courts guffawed and then
said "no"./

--
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"

They even said they were "cutting through his yard". And
5:30 Am isn't exactly the time you expect to have people in
your yard.

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


"RickH" wrote in message
...
On Oct 21, 4:37 pm, 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/...-making-coffee...


Damn right he needs to fight it. The right of nakedness at
home is
sacred. The peeping tom needs to be arrested.

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.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Oren wrote:
(snip)

Steve ;-)


Steve,

-----------

"Not on our watch!" OATH KEEPERS: ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY 1. We will NOT
obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the
American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful
enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of
emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that
asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus
turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form
of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign
troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or
to “maintain control."

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the
American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the
people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their
government for a redress of grievances.

The PTB love organizations like that. They give them a nice convenient
list of who to round up first. If such organizations didn't exist, the PTB
would just have to pay somebody to start one.

Now, the ones that keep their mouths shut and stay invisible- those are
the ones that keep the PTB up at nights, sweating. Don't know who they
are, can't pick them out of a crowd, etc. And if the PTB ever get annoying
enough, the silent ones are the ones they will never see coming.

Very wise advice. Thank you.

Steve

"Van Chocstraw" wrote in message
news
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/

Nudist families run around the house naked all the time. what's the big
deal? There should be NO LAWS against nudity, second hand nudity is not
bad for your health and causes no ill effects.

Sounds to me like we need more laws against people looking into our windows.

Steve

On Oct 23, 7:32*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
tmclone wrote:

The paparazzi argument is ridiculous too. Anyone can see through a
window. Even if they are not on a ladder. Even if they are on the
street.

Umm, NOT if they HAVE to be trespassing to see in the windows. It is
simply NOT POSSIBLE to see into ANY of the first floor windows on the
back of my house UNLESS you are standing INSIDE my fenced/enclosed
deck, meaning you climbed the fence or broke into my garage and came
out the back door onto the deck. Also, I have over 100 yards deep of
back yard which drops down through woods to a stream. The neighbors in
the back have a similar yard. So, even if the neighbors stood at the
back of their property, they could not possibly even see my house,
much less into the windows. I have curtains on all (few) windows which
can be seen though by non-trespassers. My kitchen has no curtains
whatsoever, since NO ONE can see through those windows UNLESS they are
trespassing and I like to get all the sun I can get from the southern
exposure.

I think you'd agree that if I am in a place where I'm legally entitled to
be, I should not be subjected to nudity against my will. On the other hand,
some places I could legally go may subject me to that outrage and, if I go
there, I take that risk upon myself.

Now what if I'm reading the electric meter at your place?

It could go either way.- Hide quoted text -

Well, let's see. The electric meter is on the side of the house where
there are no downstairs windows which are not completely enclosed by a
deck with an 8' fence. And you mention "legally entitled to be", but
how on earth does "cutting through" someone's yard translate to the
legal right to be there. She was trespassing on his property. She
should have been arrested, not him.

Yep! She could faint, fall and *bump her head or even go into a comma.
..
Or maybe even a full stop. Period.

"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?

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.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html