Thursday, October 22, 2009

Yeah, we obviously need more police for this...

Because we desperately need to be protected from naked people drinking coffee in their own homes:

(Oct. 21) A Virginia man was busted for indecent exposure after he was caught in the buff. In his own home. Alone.
Eric Williamson, 29, got up at 5:30 a.m. Monday and went to the kitchen to make some coffee. He was naked, but he was alone in the Springfield house, so he didn't think it mattered.


A woman and a 7-year-old boy were cutting through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path, according to WTTG-TV, Channel 5 in Washington. Through his front window, they saw Williamson having coffee in his birthday suit.

Fairfax County police showed up and arrested him. Williamson said he had no idea anyone could see him, but police said they believed he wanted to be seen by the public, said WTTG, a Fox station.

If convicted, Williamson could face one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. He plans to fight the charge.

"If I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen, it's natural. It's my kitchen," he told the station.

Police are now soliciting other people to come forward to say this dangerous man has been naked in his own home:

On Wednesday, investigators told FOX 5 they have reason to believe there may have been another incident in which someone saw Williamson naked in front of his window. They're asking anyone who may have seen Williamson in the nude through his windows to come forward, even if it was at a different time.

Police are especially concerned because the house is located across the street from a bus stop for school children. So on Wednesday, officers canvassed the neighborhood with fliers, asking anyone who may have been subject to an exposure to come forward.

This is my favorite line in the story from WTTG-TV:

Police wouldn't release the incident report or the name of the mother who filed the complaint. FOX 5 has learned she is a respected member of the community, and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer.

I know: soon somebody will comment, "What, you don't think it is appropriate for a police officer's wife to report a crime?"

To which I answer, "What's interesting here is that the Fairfax Police are now going all out to prove her allegations":

"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.

Really? And that probable cause consists of....

"We've heard there may have been other people who had a similar incident," said Mary Ann Jennings, a Fairfax County Police spokesperson.

On the other hand, the guys with whom he shared the house suspect that Mr. Williamson may now be facing both jail time and a sex offender registry because ... he was either drunk or hungover from a drinking bout the night before.

Here's my question for the police sending out handbills about Mr. Williamson throughout the community: If they don't turn up anything, and you end up either not prosecuting him or losing the case, then how do you plan to apologize and give him his good name back?

Presumption of innocence my naked (oops) ass.


kavips said...

The focus should be : don't cut through other people's yards...

Anonymous said...

Why wasnt the woman arrested as a peeping tom? He should file charges against her.

Anonymous said...

Why is this woman not brought up on trespassing charges?

Delaware Watch said...

So if he had been buck naked in his home in front of an unobstructed while children gathered across the street at the bus stop, you would have been OK w/ that? Don't the same holy liberty considerations obtain then as they apparently do for you when it's a wife of a police officer who witnesses his nakedness?

Steven H. Newton said...

I knew I could count on you, Dana.

The point of fact is that he wasn't buck naked on the front lawn, which is illegal (for reasons I am not sure I have ever completely understood).

He was buck naked in his house, and to see him the wife of the police officer had to be trespassing in his yard.

He must have put up a sign, "This way to the buck naked man," huh?

You have now staked out the admirable territory that what I do in my own house is only my business if peeping toms can't see it.

Your position, I therefore presume, is that the police were completely justified in this arrest, and also completely justified in spreading his name on fliers as a potential sexual predator around the neighborhood based on the eyewitness testimony of a woman who had no right to be on his property in the first place.

Delaware Watch said...

I worked in the court system for over 20 years and know as a matter of fact that flashers will use their open windows to flash others. Some even admit to it.

So I gather from what you've written that if this man stood buck naked in front of his open window while children gathered at the bus stop, then this man's--ahem--liberty considerations outweigh the trauma the children might experience. I suppose that his liberty considerations would prevail even if he stood in front of an open window masturbating. As long as he is in his domicile--right?

Has it long been a practice of Libertarians to advocate for the nudity rights of flashers and exhibitionists?

Anonymous said...

The issue isnt that he was standing directly infront of his window where a bus stop was and kids were gathered, he was in his house where a woman and kid walked through his property and looked in his window.

Instead of making up differing scenarios, stick to the facts as reported. He was in his kitchen, the woman and kid waslked through his yard (doesnt say if it was front, back, side, etc) and looked in his window. If i (a male) had reported this of a woman naked in her house I would be the one who was arrested.

Delaware Watch said...

"The issue isnt that he was standing directly infront of his window where a bus stop was and kids were gathered, he was in his house where a woman and kid walked through his property and looked in his window.

Instead of making up differing scenarios...."

If you want to say that circumstances, situations, and even motivations help to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action, then I agree totally. But you don't see that tone of moral relativism in Steve's post. Instead you see him argue the point on principle. A man is naked in his domicile and as long as he is in his domicile, no offense is committed. He could live in a glass house and walk about naked and as long as he is inside--well, that's his business. That seems to be Steve's position.

I'm just arguing/using reductio ad absurdum.

Steven H. Newton said...

A man is naked in his domicile and as long as he is in his domicile, no offense is committed. He could live in a glass house and walk about naked and as long as he is inside--well, that's his business. That seems to be Steve's position.

Very good. Now that you have taken out the stupid masturbation addition you used in a previous comment, you have my position.


I don't see anything inherently repellant or offensive about the human body. And I am fascinated about the double standard that appears to exist with male nudity. Would you also want a woman arrested whose bare breasts could be seen through her window, or would you require full frontal nudity?

Now let's reduce your argument to absurdity: it won't be a long trip.

Suppose a woman wearing a near-fleshed toned thong bikini that would be legal on nearly all public beaches in America were seen by our police officer wife who mistook her for naked?

The police are called but arrive after she has put on a robe to answer the door. Where is the burden of proof here? And should the woman be prosecuted based on the witness's perception that she was flouncing about naked (the SLUT!!!)?

In this issue I find the European approach, ironically, to be far more healthy. They don't worry about body parts, and people like flashers are pretty much laughed off as pathetic unless they actually DO something physically offensive or threatening.

Or how about we make it socially unacceptable to walk around looking in people's windows?

Delaware Watch said...

I happen to think that the man probably shouldn't be prosecuted in this case since his intention to commit a crime hasn't been established.

As far as your flesh toned body suit is concerned, of course there should be no prosecution because no crime has been committed. Mistaken perceptions is not a ground for prosecution. So I don't see where I have a problem in consistency.

You might wish we were like the Europeans, but the fact of the matter is we are not. Not now, at least. Hopefully someday.

When you've sat on the other side of a desk (as I have) listening to a child explain the trauma and fear he or she felt when flashed by a man expressing his liberty and freedom from prudishness, then get back to me. You'll know then that actual harm was done.

And, yes, the same should apply to women when they flash.

Steven H. Newton said...


You presume too much.

I spent two years in the military investigating child abuse and child abuse, both physical and sexual.

Don't play the "I have experience that trumps you" card unless (a) you know what my experience is; or (b) you really believe that it is not possible for people to draw different conclusions from the same experiences.

Delaware Watch said...

"Don't play the "I have experience that trumps you"

I'll tell you what: I won't play it if you don't.

And by the way, investigating child abuse isn't necessarily the same as investigating cases where strangers have flashed children. It was a nice try though.

Tyler Nixon said...

Oh my god, a human body!!! Avert ye eyes, sinners! Scream!! Run!!!

Yet another example of mindless retarded nanny-bots run amok...with their amen chorus here in full phony outrage.

Won't someone, PLEASE, think of the children!!!

Delaware Watch said...

"Won't someone, PLEASE, think of the children!!!"

Obviously, we know better than to count on you for that.

Chris Slavens said...

Wow, I'm just waiting for this lovely discussion to turn to "My big brother is bigger than yours!"

I also don't understand why the woman wasn't charged with trespassing.

Of course, instead of assuming that the man was embarrassed, we jump to the conclusion that he's some kind of predator. The uniformed gang members in blue strike again!

Anonymous said...

The woman wasnt charged becuase she is the wife of a police officer and she was outraged by it. Again, as I said before, if the roles were reversed and the man saw her in the window HE would have been arrested.