Dumb outrage of the day: Man arrested for being naked in own home

posted at 9:16 pm on October 21, 2009 by Allahpundit

Yeah, yeah, we’re all kings of our castles, but try standing in front of a plate-glass window in your home and admiring the angle of your dangle why people walk by outside and see what happens. This is a fun story because it lets strong believers in property rights exercise their outrage muscle, but what the Foxies don’t tell you is that the facts are actually in dispute.

The woman who reported to police that a man in a Springfield home exposed himself to her and her son has a different story than what Eric Williamson has told to local media.

The woman told police it was 8:40 a.m. when she was walking her son to school along a path between houses. She said they first spotted Williamson naked in an open door in the car port of his home.

She also told police that Williamson then walked across the house to a large window, facing the way she was walking.

More:

A Fairfax County Police spokesman said officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe he wanted to be seen naked by the public.

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.

Here’s the question: If he knows he can be seen by passersby (i.e. if he was seen by someone before and was made aware of it) and continues to make no effort to either cover up or close the drapes, is that enough to infer that he wants to be seen?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

GnuBreed on October 21, 2009 at 11:01 PM

ah…memories of my yout…;)

jerrytbg on October 21, 2009 at 11:04 PM

Here’s the question: If he knows he can be seen by passersby (i.e. if he was seen by someone before and was made aware of it) and continues to make no effort to either cover up or close the drapes, is that enough to infer that he wants to be seen?

You’re asking this moron to get philosophical.

His neighbors just want him to put on some clothes or shut the blinds.

Case closed.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Stop peeping in the guy’s windows. Problem solved.

And, no, I don’t care what all the other arguments are. No one’s forcing anyone to stare through his windows. If you see something you don’t want to see by accident, that’s how you know you should be more careful to respect his privacy in the future.

Kohath on October 21, 2009 at 11:13 PM

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Your argument only applies if he was aware, had prior knowledge, that he could be seen from the path in daylight.

jerrytbg on October 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM

Your argument only applies if he was aware, had prior knowledge, that he could be seen from the path in daylight.

jerrytbg on October 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM

WRONG!

My argument has to do with common sense and decency.

One look at this douchebag’s photo tells me he is in short supply of both.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM

on the charge that carries a one-year jail term and a $2,000 fine

wow…. a year in Jail for making coffee in the buff??? In your own HOUSE?

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:24 PM

They should prosecute that perverted woman for spying on and stalking the man. Better yet stone her.

Jerricho68 on October 21, 2009 at 11:25 PM

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM

Ah… he must be a douche bag because he has long hair???

Uh… my hair is longer than his…

I do believe that is a classic case of Prejudice you have there….

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Cooking breakfast in the nude can be dangerous. That bacon pops everywhere.

Jerricho68 on October 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Cooking breakfast in the nude can be dangerous. That bacon pops everywhere.

Jerricho68 on October 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM

I don’t recommend ironing either…

SkinnerVic on October 21, 2009 at 11:29 PM

I do believe that is a classic case of Prejudice you have there….

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM

You can’t judge sense and character from a mugshot? Even if you look twice?

exception on October 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM

You can’t judge sense and character from a mugshot? Even if you look twice?

exception on October 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Isn’t that the very basis of prejudice? Judging by appearances?

I don’t change my character, morals, or beliefs based on whether I have my hair long, or short… or have grown my beard out (as I now have).

For you to prejudge him on appearance tells me more about YOU, than about HIM.

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Ah… he must be a douche bag because he has long hair???

Uh… my hair is longer than his…

I do believe that is a classic case of Prejudice you have there….

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM

I’m judging a book by it’s cover.

Now I’ve read the book.

I’m not surpised by the ending.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM

I’m judging a book by it’s cover.

Now I’ve read the book.

I’m not surpised by the ending.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Really? he’s been found guilty? or are you projecting?

Yep… classic prejudice.

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:35 PM

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:32 PM

I was kidding. Not only was he going by looks, but from the way the guy looks in a mugshot. It’s hard to look good in a mugshot.

exception on October 21, 2009 at 11:36 PM

You can’t judge sense and character from a mugshot? Even if you look twice?

exception on October 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM

Sorry if I misunderstood… is there a /sark tag there? Not sure how to read this one on a second reading…

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:37 PM

I was kidding. Not only was he going by looks, but from the way the guy looks in a mugshot. It’s hard to look good in a mugshot.

exception on October 21, 2009 at 11:36 PM

LOL… yep… misunderstood… thanks…

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:37 PM

The guy looks like a hippie version of Tommy Lee Jones.

beachgirlusa on October 21, 2009 at 11:39 PM

Where can I donate to the Allah Pundit defense fund? Maybe his band mates could reform Molly Hatchet for a benefit concert for his legal defense fund.
Methinks if he wanted to be seen that he would have been making coffee in the lezbo hag’s kitchen. They should convict her of stalking trespassing and being a peeping tom.

Jerricho68 on October 21, 2009 at 11:39 PM

What ticks me off is – had a MAN looked in a WOMAN’s window – it would also be the MAN who would go to jail.

This country has real issues.

LSBeene on October 21, 2009 at 11:45 PM

This is B.S. What school bus picks up at 5:30 P.M.?

Jerricho68 on October 21, 2009 at 11:46 PM

and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer.

Ah… makes perfect sense now…

Romeo13 on October 21, 2009 at 11:53 PM

LSBeene on October 21, 2009 at 11:45 PM

No doubt. And if this peeping woman liked what she saw, it would have been considered cute.

exception on October 21, 2009 at 11:54 PM

when she was walking her son to school along a path between houses.

All I can think of is trespassing.

I have a window in my shower, I sometimes have to keep it cracked so my whole bathroom doesn’t become a steam box, if my neighbors look out their window they may be able to see in.

In my eyes I should be able to get them in trouble for peeping, being as I’m in my house with my daily routine.

I’m judging a book by it’s cover.

Now I’ve read the book.

I’m not surpised by the ending.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM

You know who had long hair? JESUS. lol

Rbastid on October 21, 2009 at 11:56 PM

I’m judging a book by it’s cover.

Now I’ve read the book.

I’m not surpised by the ending.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:33 PM
You know who had long hair? JESUS. lol

Rbastid on October 21, 2009 at 11:56 PM

LOL… yep… Long haired guy… has serious problems with the religious authorities… hangs out with a prostitute… gets physical with some bankers… throws a HUGE party with Bread and Wine… and then gets arrested by the Law!

Romeo13 on October 22, 2009 at 12:01 AM

This is B.S. What school bus picks up at 5:30 A.M.?

Jerricho68 on October 22, 2009 at 12:02 AM

Here’s the question: If he knows he can be seen by passersby (i.e. if he was seen by someone before and was made aware of it) and continues to make no effort to either cover up or close the drapes, is that enough to infer that he wants to be seen?

Well, sort of, I guess. But not for the reasons you may think. It mostly just means I’m tired of you cutting across my lawn at 5:30a. Here’s your toll.

MarkABinVA on October 22, 2009 at 12:14 AM

Elementary school in Fairfax starts at 9:00. When the hag trespassed on the mans property and peeped at him while contributing to the delinquency of her minor son it was 5:30. You do not need 3 and a half hours to get to school in Fairfax.

Jerricho68 on October 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM

I have no blinds on my windows. They face into my backyard. If I should happen to be nude, and if my backyard neighbor should happen to be able to see in from a certain angle, at a certain time of day, from a certain window, well, more power to them. They’ll see me here, at my computer, in the nude, on Hotair.

keep the change on October 22, 2009 at 12:31 AM

If someone sees me through a window, naked in my own house, and lives to tell about it I deserve to go to jail.

I live in Florida and it is settled law that if someone is on my property they be fair game. Hoorah!

jarhead0311 on October 22, 2009 at 12:37 AM

Sickos abound. Private is one thing. Putting it out there for all and sundry is another.

lexhamfox on October 21, 2009 at 9:54 PM

Doesn’t this happen all the time at ‘gay pride’ parades? Funny that no one makes a fuss about that especially considering that they are doing it in public areas.

docdave on October 21, 2009 at 10:04 PM

I disagree. Gay Pride parades and Folsom street fairs are events which people attend. You even go across a barrier to get into them. There is an element of forewarning/notice about what is going on. I know if I attend a St Patrick’s Day parade in the US I am going to have to look at terrorist supporting scumbags some point in the procession. I can’t feign outrage or shock… I know it is is likely. hat doesn;t stop me going… I go knowing what to expect. Same goes for Gay Pride or other events like Folsom Street or the Love Parade where you are going to have risque behavaior and dress. Having something going on outside your home or place of work in the normal course of events is antoher thing.

lexhamfox on October 22, 2009 at 1:08 AM

hehehe

Ugly on October 22, 2009 at 1:12 AM

Wants to be seen? The guy’s in his own damn house. He can walk around as naked as he wants inside it. If he wants to stand in front of the windows, that’s HIS damn house, his prerogative. If he wants to stand naked in the doorway, that’s HIS damn house. When he steps out into the yard, that’s another kettle of fish. Meantime, the woman should remember her son has a dick; she should have looked away and told the kid not to look. That she saw him move to the window tells us that SHE was looking! She invaded his privacy.

SilentWatcher on October 22, 2009 at 1:13 AM

If you KNOWINGLY are naked in front of a window viewable to the public, your INTENTIONALLY committed public lewdness. Go to jail. Nobody wants to see your junk.

tx2654 on October 22, 2009 at 1:14 AM

I used to live in the City of Fairfax. Fairfax County is only .2% less looney liberal than the city is.

I am not surprised at this. Truth be told, it was worth a headline only if the cop had told the female to buzz off. That would have been so un-Fairfax, I would have spewed my coffee.

platypus on October 22, 2009 at 1:30 AM

If I smoke a bowl of marijuana in my apartment living room, with open shades making me clearly visible to passersby, a cop can enter my house and cite or arrest me for that law violation. In legal terms, no search has been performed on my house. Therefore, no potential violation of the Fourth Amendment has occurred (i.e. freedom from unreasonable search or seizure). This example falls under the “plain look and/or feel” exception. If illegal activity is obvious to the look or the touch from outside the premises of private property, Fourth Amendment protections are waived.

The same principle applies here. The defendant’s activity of appearing in the nude has traveled outside the home, and therefore is no longer protected by any right to privacy. He clearly has waived that right by making himself visible to passersby.

I’m as strong a believer in private property and privacy rights as they come, but I take no issue with citing this individual.

Hawkins1701 on October 22, 2009 at 1:41 AM

Radley Balko is all over this one… Apparently the dude is a little squirrely, and criusing around his house naked was just one of his many accentricities. He’s supposedly been kicked out of that house, this incident being a last straw of sorts.

Also, the woman was on HIS property looking in his window when she saw him! It wasn’t like Mr. Weird-Beard was flagging her down…

liquidflorian on October 22, 2009 at 1:51 AM

All I can say from here in Colorado is, thank GOD this has taken a little air out of the Balloon Boy story for a little while…

Captain Scarlet on October 22, 2009 at 2:49 AM

How did they catch him?

You’d think he would just not answer the door with the cops showed up and go hide.

Spathi on October 22, 2009 at 6:33 AM

I don’t get it…

It seems like the police would have actually had to have seen him doing it rather than some lady reporting it.

Spathi on October 22, 2009 at 6:36 AM

Everyone has been in junior high or high school before so people know what to do when the police show up.

Lock the doors, be quiet, and go hide so they can’t see you.

Spathi on October 22, 2009 at 6:37 AM

hmm..didnt I see a story awhile back about a woman who walks naked outside? She lived in Oregon? maybe it was on the Factor,I cant remember, but why is that ok? No one arrested her.

I dont care how freaky he looks..he is in his own house!

becki51758 on October 22, 2009 at 7:34 AM

One look at this douchebag’s photo tells me he is in short supply of both.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM

And one look at what you posted tells me you are the douchebag.

doriangrey on October 22, 2009 at 7:43 AM

Tonight on an all new FRIENDS, Ugly Naked Guy get arrested.

DOOF on October 22, 2009 at 8:02 AM

If he knows he can be seen by passersby (i.e. if he was seen by someone before and was made aware of it) and continues to make no effort to either cover up or close the drapes, is that enough to infer that he wants to be seen?

By that logic, fat people who insist on wearing spandex garments in public should be immediately arrested.

Fairfax County has more than its fair share of over-eager cops and soccer moms intent on finding problems where none exist.

highhopes on October 22, 2009 at 8:02 AM

Puritanism is alive and well, I see.

Everyone must now have a burkha ready to put on before getting out from under the covers of your bed to prevent any chance of a random passerby weeing you in the buff through a window when getting out of bed.

Full body covering must be worn while showering, if the bathroom has a window.

It is YOUR responsibility to prevent any chance of a peeper from seeing anything untoward when looking through your windows.

/I wish I could claim sarcasm on this.

NavyspyII on October 22, 2009 at 8:14 AM

Yeah, yeah, we’re all kings of our castles, but try standing in front of a plate-glass window in your home and admiring the angle of your dangle

Old Chinese’s proverb say, “Man who proudly admires dangle in glass house loses pride when sent to big house where backside admired by others.”

Rod on October 22, 2009 at 8:20 AM

And I bet this lady was able to give police an accurate, pinpoint, down to the most minut detail of the deadly dongle dangling before her!

pilamaye on October 21, 2009 at 10:09 PM

“There was a mole on his…his…his…tallywacker. If we could just have a line-up…”

Phil-351 on October 22, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Some people evidently have reading comprehension problems. It was at 8:30am, the mom and kid were on a path legally used by the public to walk to school (which started at 9:00am), and the guy drank coffee naked in a full length front window with the curtains open to flaunt his junk to people going to the school.

AngusMc on October 22, 2009 at 8:48 AM

Outside of klieg lights flashing and loud speakers blaring “HEY CHECK ME OUT” and the guy standing with his face pressed to a plate glass door with his “flaming beauty” stiff with pride, people have the right to privacy in their own homes free from nosy snoops trespassing at 5:00 AM.

First it’s an invasion of privacy for nakedness. Next police will be breaking down the door for future banned literature such as ‘Culture of Corruption’.

MaiDee on October 22, 2009 at 8:59 AM

The guys a perp, arrest him…then tell him to pull the drapes or install one way windows.
Like a billboard, you may own it, but you can’t put whatever you want, because line of sight, normal line of sight can’t be limited.
Libertarians argument; he could paint “F*ck You” on the side of his house, and you would say, “just don’t read it”…

right2bright on October 22, 2009 at 9:14 AM

One look at this douchebag’s photo tells me he is in short supply of both.

David2.0 on October 21, 2009 at 11:23 PM

maybe you are the douchebag…

max1 on October 22, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Old Chinese’s proverb say, “Man who proudly admires dangle in glass house loses pride when sent to big house where backside admired by others.”

Rod on October 22, 2009 at 8:20 AM

HHAAAA BWAHAAA HA HA!

max1 on October 22, 2009 at 9:20 AM

Did they fumigate the squad car for bugs afterward?

Jeff from WI on October 22, 2009 at 9:24 AM

I answered the door naked once. It was three Jehovah’s Witlesses. Haven’t seen them since.

riverrat10k on October 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Now, what if they got 911 tapes and it turns out she reported a stray bear looting a home?

Chris_Balsz on October 22, 2009 at 9:48 AM


but what the Foxies don’t tell you….

Why use the word Foxies? The reporting channel, WTOP, is a CBS channel in the DC area. They are not “Fox”-channel or FoxNews related.

Implying Fox is reporting this…or just trying to be clever???

DINORight on October 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM

From the Code of Virginia:

Ҥ 18.2-387. Indecent exposure.

Every person who intentionally makes 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, or procures another to so expose himself, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. No person shall be deemed to be in violation of this section for breastfeeding a child in any public place or any place where others are present.

Code 1950, § 18.1-236; 1960, c. 233; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1994, c. 398.)”

The critical part of the statute is intent. The way I read it one can be found guilty of violating this statute if they intentionally expose themselves to another they know to be present.

The way I see it, the prosecutor will have a hell of a time proving this guy violated this law. His story sounds very credible.

NavyMustang on October 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Has anyone ever thought to knock on the man’s door and tell him that he can be seen from the street when he’s walking around in his birthday suit? At least give the man a chance to rectify the problem before siccing the cops on him.

mizflame98 on October 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM

How might one go about procuring another to so expose himself?

Chris_Balsz on October 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Gives new meaning to the title “General Contractor”

“oh you know, doin’ odd jobs, helping guys out around the house”

Chris_Balsz on October 22, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Hey look. It’s one of the Cavemen from the GEICO commercials.

pabarge on October 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

OK, am I the only one who is noticing the imbed for the flasher video has an ad directly below asking “Is this the transparency President Obama promised?”

VelvetElvis on October 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Elementary school in Fairfax starts at 9:00. When the hag trespassed on the mans property and peeped at him while contributing to the delinquency of her minor son it was 5:30. You do not need 3 and a half hours to get to school in Fairfax.

Jerricho68 on October 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Let’s not jump to conclusions without all the facts. So far, I’m on the side of the property owner here, but she may have been taking her son to a school program that runs outside school hours. There are lots of those at the schools for working parents.

Firefly_76 on October 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM

How might one go about procuring another to so expose himself?

Chris_Balsz on October 22, 2009 at 10:46 AM

No doubt one of the jobs saved or created by the stimulus program.

Jerricho68 on October 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I wonder a 5 in the morn. it would be dark outside, no? Turn the lights on in your house when its dark out. Can you now see whats outside? Most likely no. Did he even know she was there? At times i walk around my house in the buff when nobodies home. With the opposite rule, Bright outside = hard to see in a dark house. Plus i have curtains and that helps.

Greed on October 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM

I’m frankly a little amazed that several commenters have implied that intention matters. That smacks of thought-crime. I think the only pertinent information regards whether or not he was inside the house or standing out in the open carport.

Jens on October 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Putting aside that this guy is probabaly an idiot, since when is there a duty to avoid doing legal things in your home that might offend passersby? Will the next one be a complaint about being able to see people smoking in their homes? Eyes front, Oh, Easily Offended.

Hucklebuck on October 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM

8.30 am why do we have 5 am in some comments? (me also) a typo read and repeated? anyhow – Well i say prove it. I cant walk up to a cop and say that guy was jerking off on the train an hour ago they would just look at you. I think its weak case. Oh just remembered what about the story of the hotel next the elevated park in NY. It was in the headlines here. Why were all those people not arrested. They did allot more than make coffee.

Greed on October 22, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Here we go Hotel naked. Again i say weak case

Greed on October 22, 2009 at 1:50 PM

I saw this on the local news a couple of days ago. Evidently, the woman and her kid were cutting through this guy’s yard when they saw him. My take is this: stay to the public sidewalks and stay away from shortcuts. It’s the guy’s own home for cryin’ out loud!

splash883 on October 22, 2009 at 2:10 PM

If Williamson were black, there would already be 50 lawsuits against the Fairfax County Police. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be scrreaming themselves hoarse. Obama would hold a special news conference saying the police acted “stupidly”. CNN and MSNBC would conclude that the Constitution had been “raped” by police brutality and Williamson would show scars where the police had beaten him. The Peeping Tom (Tomasina) would have been arrested for both trespass and sexual deviancy ( ogling).

MaiDee on October 22, 2009 at 2:39 PM

My argument has to do with common sense and decency.

One look at this douchebag’s photo tells me he is in short supply of both.

David2.0

Interesting….they’re arresting people for being naked in their own home, yet somehow you conclude he’s the indecent one.

xblade on October 22, 2009 at 3:13 PM

If you’re chugging a pot of coffee and then sleeping through a police raid, it’s time to switch to Yuban.

Chris_Balsz on October 22, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Yikes. Just the headshot of this guy is traumatizing. I can’t imagine what seeing him nude must have done to that poor kid.

bitsy on October 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Guess we need sting operations for naked miles at University of Michigan, Indiana, etc.

Terp Mole on October 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Ah, law and order. Anyone else remember the old days when all you knew about this stuff was a few words in the newspaper about yesterday’s arrests, under some heading like “Police Blotter”?

J.E. Dyer on October 22, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Given that he had been advised that he had previously been seen nude by a legal passerby, and he was standing in front of a window indicate to me that he was intentionally exposing himself.

Slowburn on October 22, 2009 at 8:36 PM

Yea! The voyeur was a cop’s kid who thought the naked body was female, and got busted!

Cybergeezer on October 22, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2