Nude homeowner arrested
Oren
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/2009/10/20/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-naked/UPI-98241256068372/
RickH
Damn right he needs to fight it. The right of nakedness at home is
sacred. The peeping tom needs to be arrested.
jeff_wisnia
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.
Oren
<jwi...@dumpthisconversent.net> 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/2009/10/20/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-naked/UPI-98241256068372/
>>
>
>
>Which reminds me.....
>
>http://home.comcast.net/~jwisnia18/jeff/LOST/
>
>Jeff
Warn me next time! I need an eye rinse, now.
SteveB
"Oren" <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:chvud55kc7rasu808...@4ax.com...
Holy shit, 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
Bob F
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.
Oren
wrote:
>
>"Oren" <Or...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:chvud55kc7rasu808...@4ax.com...
>> "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/2009/10/20/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-naked/UPI-98241256068372/
>>
>
>Holy shit, 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.
Ed Pawlowski
> 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.
HeyBub
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.
SteveB
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:MoqdnfV5JuRwI0LX...@giganews.com...
Not to worry. By the time it gets to trial, Obama will have changed the
law.
Errrrrrrrrrrr............... Constitution, I mean................
Steve ;-)
Ed Pawlowski
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> 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?
Oren
wrote:
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.
Oren
wrote:
No! In this case it is a Misdemeanor.
The reason you need the "presence of the officer".
Oren
wrote:
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.
HeyBub
He was charged with a 3rd degree felony.
Jules
> "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...
Van Chocstraw
deal? There should be NO LAWS against nudity, second hand nudity is not
bad for your health and causes no ill effects.
SteveB
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
Hell Toupee
> 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.
tmclone
> 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.
tn...@mucks.net
>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.
Kurt Ullman
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"
The Daring Dufas
> 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/2009/10/20/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-naked/UPI-98241256068372/
>>
>>
>
>
> 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
HeyBub
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 are:
* 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
aemeijers
(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
>
> 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
> 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.
>
>
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.
zxcvbob
> 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 are:
>
> * 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
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
However, a trespasser that peers into your windows is a peeping tom
and can be arrested for that.
Oren
>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.com/blogpics/peeping-tom.jpg
tn...@mucks.net
wrote:
>In article <9tb1e5t2i8d5n1ggt...@4ax.com>, tn...@mucks.net
>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.
tmclone
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:50:39 -0400, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <9tb1e5t2i8d5n1ggtvev8j87ocs56oj...@4ax.com>, t...@mucks.net
> >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.
tn...@mucks.net
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.
HeyBub
>>
>> 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.
Kurt Ullman
wrote:
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"./
Stormin Mormon
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" <pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:17c65ac9-e288-4be3...@p20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 4:37 pm, Oren <O...@127.0.0.1> 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/2009/10/20/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee...
Damn right he needs to fight it. The right of nakedness at
home is
sacred. The peeping tom needs to be arrested.
Smitty Two
>
> Outside in daylight, or inside during the night time, would there be
> any difference if the clueless coffee maker had his curtains open?
>
> *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.
>
> 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.
SteveB
"aemeijers" <aeme...@att.net> wrote in message
news:t9GdneNVb57Ffn3X...@giganews.com...
> 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
SteveB
"Van Chocstraw" <boobooil...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:o7mdnXZ8cu6x733X...@giganews.com...
Sounds to me like we need more laws against people looking into our windows.
Steve
tmclone
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.
terry
.
Or maybe even a full stop. Period.
terry
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
Interesting post! What kind of 'sin' were you suggesting?
HeyBub
>
> 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.
Cutting through your yard is probably done all the time. By the meter
readers, the mailman, perhaps the cops in pursuit of a goblin, children
playing, people in red suits, on horseback, chasing a fox, a hot-air balloon
landing prematurely, whatever.
Start with the premise that one can't be arrested unless he commits a
criminal act.
Now what are the requirements for mere presence on your property to become
criminal trespass in your jurisdiction? Since you're posting from that
horrid Google Groups Clown College, I can't look it up for you, but it
usually takes more than just being on someone's property to trigger the
criminal trespass offense.
In my state, the person on someone else's land must first be TOLD to leave
or there must be prominent signs posted asserting NO ENTRY PERMITTED. In
some jurisdictions, the presence of a fence to exclude intruders is
sufficient evidence of intent to prevent entry and subverting the fence
triggers the statute. In all states, it must be shown that the intruder
INTENDED to commit the criminal offense of trespass (of course intent can be
inferred by the circumstances).
Point is, if all you've got is someone on your property, you do not
simultaneously have an arrestable person.
tn...@mucks.net
>> 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.
Ed Pawlowski
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Point is, if all you've got is someone on your property, you do not
> simultaneously have an arrestable person.
>
That may be, but they have no right to complain if I'm naked and standing on
my head.
I don't understand why people get so hung up on seeing a naked body anyway.
There are may styles but only two types, You have one or the other, just
with variations of sag or beer belly in 90% of the cases.
tmclone
The poster is an illiterate moron. I mean really, "should of"? Yeah,
right. I've been seeing this for years I SO wish it were legal to kill
the grammatically incorrect. Seriously.
Stormin Mormon
peeve, that's a good one. You really of a good point, there.
I of had it pointed out to me, some interseting quirks of
words. Sometimes you can tell the ofs from the of nots, by
how they, like, you know, like talk. Of a nice day.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Smitty Two" <prest...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:prestwhich-2902F...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com...
Stormin Mormon
behind the refrigerator, for Gods sake!!!!!!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Stepfann King" <steffa...@hated.byOT.troll.posters.net>
wrote in message
news:0127dd32$0$25836$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in
news:-rednQ0LQ_5ih3_X...@giganews.com:
>
> I don't understand why people get so hung up on seeing a
> naked body
> anyway. There are may styles but only two types, You have
> one or the
> other, just with variations of sag or beer belly in 90% of
> the cases.
>
>
>
I bet you tell this crap to all the little kids in your
neighborhood.
Stormin Mormon
Bang!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"tmclone" <tmc...@searchmachine.com> wrote in message
news:a73c9920-f685-42c4-85ea-
HeyBub
"No Peeping"
Ed Pawlowski
You're a sad person to even think like that
propman
Bang...your shot! ;-)
Smitty Two
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Point is, if all you've got is someone on your property, you do not
> simultaneously have an arrestable person.
Right. But you can shoot him, preferably in the back, and claim he was
a, uh, what's your favorite euphemism, there ... oh, yeah: goblin.
HeyBub
False as to facts not in evidence. "Goblin" is not my favorite. I have no
favorite. I use the following interchangeably:
Goblin
Gopher
Gremlin
Scrot
Squint
Smelly-Telly
Do-Bad
Cut-purse
Evil-Doer
Pharisical
Malefic
Incognitant
Wowser
Pokenose
Blow-hard
Goat-groper
Four-flusher
Pettifog
Pick-nit
Toadeater
and
Pill bug
Stormin Mormon
http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_aug2004/NewfieRevolver.jpg
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"propman" <pro...@nowhere.ca> wrote in message
news:hbtvrn$cdb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Sam E
Then that "of" gets further corrupted to "a" stuck on to the
preceding word.
Ed Pawlowski
"Sam E" <no.e...@all.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>>Yeah, I know the roots of the mistake, but is everyone sleepwalking
>>these days? This one is becoming my favorite peeve of late.
>
> Then that "of" gets further corrupted to "a" stuck on to the
> preceding word.
He shudda known better
Harry K
> "Sam E" <no.em...@all.invalid> wrote in message
Improper. Correct is "He shudda knowed better"
Harry K
E Z Peaces
> "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."
>
been fired Friday. His roommates said he drank Sunday night. When they
left for work at 5 AM Monday, he was walking around wearing only a
construction hat.
The incident happened at 8:40 AM, not 5:30. He said he'd been up for
hours packing to leave. The woman said she saw him standing in the open
doorway of the carport. She moved quickly to the sidewalk. When she
glanced at the front of the house, he was standing in a large window.
Police got a warrant.
Williams lied about the time. At 5:30 AM you don't expect people to
walk past your house, and they can see much of the interior if your
curtains aren't drawn. At 8:40, people outside are visible, and a
person inside has to go to a door or window to be seen.
zxcvbob
Have any references for this information? It pretty much changes
everything, and he probably should have been arrested (but not for a
felony, IMHO)
Bob
Ed Pawlowski
"E Z Peaces" <ca...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Not a homeowner. His employer rented the house for employees. He'd been
> fired Friday. His roommates said he drank Sunday night. When they left
> for work at 5 AM Monday, he was walking around wearing only a construction
> hat.
That sounds rather strange itself.
>
> The incident happened at 8:40 AM, not 5:30. He said he'd been up for
> hours packing to leave. The woman said she saw him standing in the open
> doorway of the carport. She moved quickly to the sidewalk. When she
> glanced at the front of the house, he was standing in a large window.
Where was she that she had to move to the sidewalk? If on his property, she
had no business being there at all.
>
> Police got a warrant.
>
> Williams lied about the time. At 5:30 AM you don't expect people to walk
> past your house, and they can see much of the interior if your curtains
> aren't drawn. At 8:40, people outside are visible, and a person inside
> has to go to a door or window to be seen.
This may or may not change things. If the original sighting was accidental,
no harm, IMO, but he may have then intentionally exposed himself. My guess
is we will never know for sure. Sounds like a combination of someone being
too damned nosy combined with someone that went a step further just to
antagonize or shock.
Oren
I "knowed" it. I "telled him not to do dit", but he "do dit it any
who".
E Z Peaces
SteveB
You are an adult. Cope. If you can't listen to the conversation here, and
keep up without insisting everyone be perfect as you want them to be, then
please just opt out. No one will be interested in what you have to say. I
know I'm not, and will not be seeing anything you post in the future.
Bye.
SteveB
> "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in
> news:-rednQ0LQ_5ih3_X...@giganews.com:
>
>>
You earn a one strike you're out plonk on that one, my friend.
Oren
<steffa...@hated.byOT.troll.posters.net> wrote:
>I bet you tell this crap to all the little kids in your neighborhood.
I take it you're a lurker, and now have provided your first sentence
in this group.
Frankly, you are full of crap, and should fall off your ladder.
I went first and fell today. Missed a step or three.
Doug Brown
news:MoqdnfV5JuRwI0LX...@giganews.com...
>
> I hope the cops pay dearly for this one. So should the nosey neighbor.
Doesn't this make you think that the USA is going to hell in a handcarft?
Oren
>"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/2009/10/20/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-naked/UPI-98241256068372/
Well the guy was convicted:
"As Erick Williamson sees it, being naked is liberating, and if
passers-by get an eyeful while he's standing in front of a picture
window, that's not his problem.
A Fairfax County judge saw it a little differently Friday, convicting
Williamson of indecent exposure in a case that has raised questions
about what's OK when you're in your own home."
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/12/nva-man-convicted-inhome-indecent-exposure
I guess just having a hard hat on is not a good defense.
willshak
This is a reversible conviction.
According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
of privacy in his own home.
The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
person inside his home..
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Steve B
"willshak" <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jYSdnaWmjo95ha3W...@supernews.com...
The reports I read clearly showed the man was an exhibitionist, and that he
exposed himself when children were present. The guy was clearly showing
himself, and this was no case of someone just getting a look through a
window.
Part of the testimony:
A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school
along a trail that runs by Williamson's home.
She heard a loud rattle, looked to her left and saw Williamson standing
naked, full frontal, in a side doorway.
"He gave me eye contact," Dean said, but otherwise made no gestures toward
her or her son.
Smitty Two
willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> This is a reversible conviction.
> According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
> of privacy in his own home.
> The person complaining is more guilty of eavesdropping than the naked
> person inside his home..
The article said he rec'd no fine and no jail time, just a suspended
sentence. If he appeals, he could end up getting sent to jail for a
year. If I were him, I'd count my blessings, swallow my righteous
indignation, and STFU.
nor...@earthlink.net
Privacy might include drawing the drapes to prevent visual access...the
jerk was standing in front of a picture window on one occasion, in an
open doorway on another. There are noise ordinances, too, but that also
involves the extension of unpleasantness from the home to the public.
Kurt Ullman
> This is a reversible conviction.
> According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
> of privacy in his own home.
They have also said, repeatedly, that there is no expectation of
privacy in public places. They have also stated multiple times, that
there is no privacy interest involved in what can be seen from a public
area. Thus, anything from the sidewalk is not private (although in case
maybe it should be.
My favorite follow-up in this one is the photographer who tried to
convince the judge that it was not a privacy issue because the ladder he
used to look over the wall was on the sidewalk. The judge was less than
amused.
--
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"
Kurt Ullman
<prestwhich-35800...@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>,
Smitty Two <prest...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Especially since he COULD have been required to sign up for the
sex offender list. That would have caused him all sorts problems.
Jon Danniken
>>
>
> Privacy might include drawing the drapes to prevent visual
> access...the jerk was standing in front of a picture window on one
> occasion, in an open doorway on another. There are noise ordinances,
> too, but that also involves the extension of unpleasantness from the
> home to the public.
A better idea would be to just not be a peeping tom, and not stare into
people's windows and doors. Seriously, whatever happened to minding your
own damn business in this country?
Jon
Steve B
"Jon Danniken" <jondanS...@yaSPAMhoo.com> wrote in message
news:7pc6g6...@mid.individual.net...
Damn right. When we're walking through our neighborhoods, we should stare
straight down at the sidewalk. Not look side to side. Not even to cross
the street. Maybe we should start making those things they made for horses
that cut off their peripheral vision. Maybe glasses with those tiny slits
like they wear in the Arctic.
Yeah, that ought to do it. Then people can be as perverse as they are.
Steve
Steve B
"Jon Danniken" <jondanS...@yaSPAMhoo.com> wrote in message
news:7pc6g6...@mid.individual.net...
Well, since this is a new computer, and I haven't killfiled your sorry ass
on this one yet,
PLONK.
What was the mother of the seven year old doing walking down the street with
her son? Teaching him to be a peeping Tom?
Steve
nor...@earthlink.net
The issue isn't "accidental" exposure - the guy was in a picture window
and made noise to draw attention. Odd that a number of people made
similar complaints ....jeesh, if I "accidentally" saw a neighbor naked
in their window, I would not be calling the cops for fear of seeming
like a looney :o)
How often does one stand naked in the window, singing loudly enough for
passing drivers to take notice?
The Daring Dufas
> In article <jYSdnaWmjo95ha3W...@supernews.com>,
> willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a reversible conviction.
>> According to the US Constitution, a person has a reasonable expectation
>> of privacy in his own home.
> They have also said, repeatedly, that there is no expectation of
> privacy in public places. They have also stated multiple times, that
> there is no privacy interest involved in what can be seen from a public
> area. Thus, anything from the sidewalk is not private (although in case
> maybe it should be.
> My favorite follow-up in this one is the photographer who tried to
> convince the judge that it was not a privacy issue because the ladder he
> used to look over the wall was on the sidewalk. The judge was less than
> amused.
>
There was the little old lady who complained to the police
about a naked couple frolicking about their yard. When the
police showed up and said they couldn't see the couple, the
little old lady handed them her binoculars.
TDD
willshak
Ii only tread the first part, where it said this was 05:30 AM.
Hang him.
Steve B
> passing drivers to take notice?
I believe that all of us can remember the times we have been naked in a
"public" place, even if it was to take a shower by a creek deep in the woods
while camping. Well, not all of us, but most of us. I certainly know that
when I am naked, I fully arrange the situation ahead of time so that I don't
accidentally flash anyone. And in those situations where I am suddenly
aware that I am in view by accident, I end the situation quickly.
This man did just the opposite, arranging things, and doing things to
attract attention.
I predict that he will follow this obsession, but the next time, the judge
will hit him with the full Monty. He's like a child molester. He won't
change.
Steve
Stormin Mormon
later, and the situation is seen in a different light. My
original opinion was that the woman and child had crossed
his yard, and were trespassing at early AM. This further
writing suggests the fellow was exhibitionist.
I wonder how many times a day this (lack of information;
learn more later) happens to me? More than I know, I'd dare
to guess.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"willshak" <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7a6dnYKlneX7oazW...@supernews.com...
Ed Pawlowski
>
> Ii only tread the first part, where it said this was 05:30 AM.
> Hang him.
That was later corrected. IIRC, the time was closer to 8:30 or 9:00 whent
he kid was going to school. As for hanging him, reports are that he was
hung. At least enough to be willing to show off.
If he was exposing himself and attracing attention, that is wrong, but if it
was accidental, different story. We'll probably never know for sure.
The Daring Dufas
I wouldn't dare walk around naked, people would call the zoo and report
an escaped ape. Those tranquilizer darts hurt like hell.
TDD
Stormin Mormon
environmentalists started throwing buckets of water on me,
and tried to drag me back to the ocean.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"The Daring Dufas" <the-dari...@peckerhead.net> wrote
in message news:hgsl9o$g5g$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
The Daring Dufas
> I resemble the one about sunning on the beach. These
> environmentalists started throwing buckets of water on me,
> and tried to drag me back to the ocean.
>
Oh yea, you look like a seal.
TDD
Mark
then there is the old Rodney Dangerfield joke.... he can't get no
respect..
He went to the nude beach one day, he walked up to the beach, the life
guard took one look at him and told him that the next time he shows up
here, he can use the handicapped parking.
Mark
Oren
wrote:
>then there is the old Rodney Dangerfield joke.... he can't get no
>respect..
>
>He went to the nude beach one day, he walked up to the beach, the life
>guard took one look at him and told him that the next time he shows up
>here, he can use the handicapped parking.
>
>Mark
"My wife made me a pork chop sandwich." She left the bone in it.
Can't get no respect!
"The house caught on fire." Wife told the daughter, quite you will
wake up your father. Can't get no respect!
Oren
>"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/2009/10/20/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-naked/UPI-98241256068372/
From another group posting:
"[FAIRFAX, Va] A man charged with indecent exposure after two women
said they saw him naked inside his own home was acquitted Wednesday by
a Virginia jury."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/07/va-man-acquitted-flashing-passers-home/?test=latestnews
So, people who live in glass houses...
-- end cut and paste---
Coffee naked is good.