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

By: Cybergeezer

Cybergeezer — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:14:09 +0000

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

By: Slowburn

Slowburn — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:36:31 +0000

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.

By: J.E. Dyer

J.E. Dyer — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:47:41 +0000

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”?

By: Terp Mole

Terp Mole — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:23:19 +0000

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

By: bitsy

bitsy — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:16:49 +0000

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

By: Chris_Balsz

Chris_Balsz — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:35:39 +0000

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

By: xblade

xblade — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:13:56 +0000

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.

By: MaiDee

MaiDee — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:39:49 +0000

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).

By: splash883

splash883 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:10:23 +0000

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!

By: Greed

Greed — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:50:31 +0000

Here we go Hotel naked. Again i say weak case

By: Greed

Greed — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:47:28 +0000

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.

By: Hucklebuck

Hucklebuck — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:49:47 +0000

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.

By: Jens

Jens — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:47:30 +0000

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.

By: Greed

Greed — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:02:52 +0000

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.

By: Jerricho68

Jerricho68 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:59:26 +0000

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.

By: Firefly_76

Firefly_76 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:55:14 +0000

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.

By: VelvetElvis

VelvetElvis — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:18:40 +0000

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?”

By: pabarge

pabarge — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:05:35 +0000

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

By: Chris_Balsz

Chris_Balsz — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:55:37 +0000

Gives new meaning to the title “General Contractor”

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

By: Chris_Balsz

Chris_Balsz — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:46:21 +0000

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

By: mizflame98

mizflame98 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:37:19 +0000

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.

By: NavyMustang

NavyMustang — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:36:52 +0000

From the Code of Virginia:

“§ 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.

By: DINORight

DINORight — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:53:01 +0000

…

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???

By: Chris_Balsz

Chris_Balsz — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:48:55 +0000

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

By: riverrat10k

riverrat10k — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:41:50 +0000

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