Police Detain a Nudist...in his House?!

[Rya 0]

Okay, so I heard this crazy story on the news not that long ago, but a guy who was reported to the police for being nude. In his own house. The police broke down the front door, restrained him, and pointed guns at him. They charged him with "Indecent Exposure." Was all that really necessary?

 

This means two things to me. One, whoever reported the person, was way too close to that house. And two, we're no longer safe in our own homes.

[Noob Saibot 38]

Let me add to that....

 

Nude Guy Busted in Own Home?

 

Erick Williamson, the Springfield, Virginia man arrested earlier this year for being naked in his own home was convicted of indecent exposure on Friday. The judge sentenced him to 180 days in jail, but suspended the sentence.

 

I’m still not sure how the conviction holds up, given that the two alleged witnesses had to actually look into Williamson’s house to see Little Erick and the Williamson Twins. So you now have to make sure no one can see into your home in order to be naked in it? How vigilant must you be?

 

Also . . . WTF?

 

Williamson denied standing naked in his doorway or front window and said he had no intent to expose himself to anyone. But [Judge] O’Flaherty wasn’t buying it and likened Williamson to bank robber John Dillinger, who also “thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up.”

 

First, who the hell still invokes John Dillinger to make a point? Everyone knows that when you want a ridiculously inappropriate “they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong, either” analogy, you turn to the death camp guards in Nazi Germany. Methinks Judge O’Flaherty needs to get the latest Gilbert Outline for Bad Legal Metaphors addendum so as not to date himself in future rulings.

 

This whole story makes no sense to me. Virginia’s indecent exposure statute requires “an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present,” and obscene is defined as “that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

 

In addition, there was no jury for his trial, but he gets an appeal with a 7-member jury? This just seems a$$-backwards from the usual way (trials have juries, and appeals have panels of judges).

 

Is “indecent exposure” considered such a minor offense that you don’t even get a jury trial (here in Ohio “minor misdemeanors” have been ruled to not require jury trials, even though the Ohio constitution says that “[t]he right of trial by jury shall be inviolate”)?

[Marked 197]

I don't know about US courts, but when you get something like this in a statue "an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present", it is up to the interpretation of the judge to decide if the actions of the person fall within these words.

 

To illustrate an extreme example, what if his house was made of glass and everyone walking past could see inside? If he was naked where members of the public could easily see him (in his home or not) then I agree that he is breaking the law.

[Noob Saibot 38]

I don't know about US courts, but when you get something like this in a statue "an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present", it is up to the interpretation of the judge to decide if the actions of the person fall within these words.

 

To illustrate an extreme example, what if his house was made of glass and everyone walking past could see inside? If he was naked where members of the public could easily see him (in his home or not) then I agree that he is breaking the law.

 

But reports say the women or mother and child walked up to his window and looked in it. They where not standing from the street or sidewalk.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Kage Kazumi

[Joey 9]

This...is, um...I dunno...wow.

[joman195 9]

I heard something like this before where a guy woke up and went to get his coffee naked and his neighbor's wife(which was spying on him from his backyard and happens to be the wife of a policeman) calls the cops on him and he went to prison for it...

[Marked 197]

But reports say the women or mother and child walked up to his window and looked in it. They where not standing from the street or sidewalk.

Yeah, it is clearly unjust. However, the law is the law, right? Usually the word public place is also defined in the statue (is it possible to look that up?).

 

Do you think it can be argued that "any place where others are present" includes the action of the person in this case? Whether or not someones property is a public place depends on the definition of "public place", in some NZ statues it is defined as a place to which the public has access. If you can walk right onto a persons property, then you have access, right?

 

 

 

I think what happened shouldnt have been offense, im just offering a point of discussion :) though whether I think its just or not doesn't really matter if it is the law. The tax rate is unjust :P

[Enigma 10]

Let me add to that....

 

Nude Guy Busted in Own Home?

 

Erick Williamson, the Springfield, Virginia man arrested earlier this year for being naked in his own home was convicted of indecent exposure on Friday. The judge sentenced him to 180 days in jail, but suspended the sentence.

 

I’m still not sure how the conviction holds up, given that the two alleged witnesses had to actually look into Williamson’s house to see Little Erick and the Williamson Twins. So you now have to make sure no one can see into your home in order to be naked in it? How vigilant must you be?

 

Also . . . WTF?

 

 

 

First, who the hell still invokes John Dillinger to make a point? Everyone knows that when you want a ridiculously inappropriate “they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong, either” analogy, you turn to the death camp guards in Nazi Germany. Methinks Judge O’Flaherty needs to get the latest Gilbert Outline for Bad Legal Metaphors addendum so as not to date himself in future rulings.

 

This whole story makes no sense to me. Virginia’s indecent exposure statute requires “an obscene display or exposure of his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where others are present,” and obscene is defined as “that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”

 

In addition, there was no jury for his trial, but he gets an appeal with a 7-member jury? This just seems a$$-backwards from the usual way (trials have juries, and appeals have panels of judges).

 

Is “indecent exposure” considered such a minor offense that you don’t even get a jury trial (here in Ohio “minor misdemeanors” have been ruled to not require jury trials, even though the Ohio constitution says that “[t]he right of trial by jury shall be inviolate”)?

U.S Constitution Guarantees the right to Trial by Jury, for anything. If they wouldn't give him a jury when they asked, he could take them to supreme court, cause federal law overrides that of the state

 

Secondly, he could press charges on the witnesses for trespassing, if they had actually went up to his house

[Siverix 4]

this is one of the reasons why our basement is only halfway underground

[Jesse66126 4]

That's just disturbing. I hope there are no openings in my curtains when I'm changing in the morning. Can't even be naked in your own home any more. Pretty soon you won't even be about to jokingly threaten someone without someone else calling the cops.

[Rya 0]

@Kage Kazumi: Thanks for adding to that, I didn't know any other details. It just goes to show you how completely ridiculous this truly is!!

 

@Marked: I see your point there, but normally, windows are at a level where seeing him would have been impossible. And in this case, I'd be filing trespassing charges, and wondering why the mother would bring the child over there atop of that, as well as seeing that judge being fired.

[Zeriab 9]

I am sorry but this really made me laugh:

Williamson denied standing naked in his doorway or front window and said he had no intent to expose himself to anyone. But [Judge] O’Flaherty wasn’t buying it and likened Williamson to bank robber John Dillinger, who also “thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up.”

 

So if I deny murdering someone then according to this analogy I don't think there is anything wrong with murdering that someone.

I do hope it has been taken out of context and not that the judge is so prone to such simple logical fallacies.

 

 

 

 

There are some uncertaincies.

Could people get 'exposed' to the nudity from public areas? During legal trespassing? (Mailmen for example)

Or only in case of illegal trespassing.

For each case there are still many nuances to consider and the 'intent' of the parties involved as well how nudity scared the jurisdiction is also matters.

 

*hugs*

Edited October 9, 2010 by Zeriab