So... she is trespassing in his yard, she looks in his window, and rather than being arrested as a Peeping Thomasina, HE is arrested for indecent exposure.
Reverse the genders on this story and tell me it would have the same outcome.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Unbelievable - I'm sure if she twisted her ankle in a gopher hole while cutting across his property, she'd have sued him, too.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I don't think that standing in somebody's front yard qualifies as trespassing.
I think it depends on local law and other specific circumstances, such as whether the owner had a "No Trespassing" sign posted, whether he'd previously told the person they weren't welcome on his property, or whether the person caused damage to his property.
In this case, you're probably right and this isn't technically trespassing. But I still doubt the indecent exposure charge will stick. Like the lawyer quoted in the article mentions, I think they'd have to prove he knew someone was watching which is likely not possible.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see anything wrong with a man being naked in his own house, even if he knew that people were on his property and could see him through the window, if that's all there was to it. Don't look through the window if you don't want to see what is on the other side.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, the question is whether or not his nakedness was visible from the sidewalk and the approach to the front door.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She didn't just "stand" in his lawn, she "apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path". I think that is a little different.
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely agree with that. But then maybe we're missing some important details here. Why are the police convinced he wanted to be seen? And we still don't know just how visible he was from outside - and more specifically from outside his property.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: For me, the question is whether or not his nakedness was visible from the sidewalk and the approach to the front door.
I think this should be the standard. I usually run around my place naked but I make sure the blinds facing the street are closed. But if someone came around to the back and looked in...that's their fault.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this should be the standard. I usually run around my place naked but I make sure the blinds facing the street are closed. But if someone came around to the back and looked in...that's their fault.
Assuming, of course, that it's not possible to see into your back door from off your property.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. It's his property. I have an issue with anyone infringing on what I do at home, within my own 4 walls. At least with this type of thing.
If you are on MY property, without my express invitation, then I can't see how I can be prosecuted for being naked in my own home just because you saw it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a good thing for a child to be able to knock on their neighbor's door because their ball went over the fence without ever having to worry about seeing that neighbor naked.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think it's a good thing for a child to be able to knock on their neighbor's door because their ball went over the fence without ever having to worry about seeing that neighbor naked.
I agree. But I'm not sure that means the law should dictate that people cannot be nude in their own homes. I do think they ought to have the curtains closed though.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this should be the standard. I usually run around my place naked but I make sure the blinds facing the street are closed. But if someone came around to the back and looked in...that's their fault.
Assuming, of course, that it's not possible to see into your back door from off your property.
It isn't So if the guy in the op's link is only visible if you cut through his yard I can hardly blame him.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think it's a good thing for a child to be able to knock on their neighbor's door because their ball went over the fence without ever having to worry about seeing that neighbor naked.
I don't. It's my yard I am not going to change my habits on my property just because Jr's parents are teaching him that the human body is bad.
Quite frankly I have had it up to here with all the prudes and busybodies curtailing my rights and entertainments by screaming "think of the children" at the top of their lungs.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are suggesting that I shouldn't be able to run around naked in my home because your child is on my property without my permission then you certainly are. EDIT; That sounds to harsh but you are limiting my freedoms on my property out concern that some kid will see me naked. I would never walk around naked in my front yard out of respect for those in my community who don't want to see that but I am certainly not going to submit to their prudish attitudes when confined to my property and if you cannot see it from a public street or alley then my backyard counts as my property.
posted
This whole fiasco is making me reconsider my morning naked-calisthenics-in-the-kitchen routine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
people can see into my appartment from their appartments. While I don't necessarily want them to see me naked, I definitely think I have the right to wear (or not) whatever I please.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you cannot see it from a public street or alley then my backyard counts as my property.
Yup, you've misunderstood.
I wasn't talking about somebody coming into your backyard. I was talking about somebody approaching your house by the publicly accessible route for whatever reason.
I also object to your characterization of people you disagree with as prudes who think the human body is bad.
quote:people can see into my appartment from their appartments. While I don't necessarily want them to see me naked, I definitely think I have the right to wear (or not) whatever I please.
If your curtains are draw, I've got no problems with that. Otherwise, I disagree.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This really disturbs me. I don't see why the law would even think they have any jurisdiction to tell a man what to wear inside his own home and I don't care if the curtains are open. It strikes me that any trauma to the child in this situation came more from the mother's reaction than this man's nakedness.
I'm also naked in my house all the time, so I feel like this is a personal affront to my own rights. No, I'm not naked now -- but I could be. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you cannot see it from a public street or alley then my backyard counts as my property.
Yup, you've misunderstood.
I wasn't talking about somebody coming into your backyard. I was talking about somebody approaching your house by the publicly accessible route for whatever reason.
I also object to your characterization of people you disagree with as prudes who think the human body is bad.
quote:people can see into my appartment from their appartments. While I don't necessarily want them to see me naked, I definitely think I have the right to wear (or not) whatever I please.
If your curtains are draw, I've got no problems with that. Otherwise, I disagree.
If they can't see into my place without stepping foot on to my property then it's not my fault if they see me naked. As to the prudes comment, suggesting that I should cover my self up because someones kid may illegally enter my property in order to get back their baseball is a very prudish notion. Firstly I the kid should not be in my yard and secondly even if they did see me it's not like it would hurt them in any way.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: suggesting that I should cover my self up because someones kid may illegally enter my property in order to get back their baseball is a very prudish notion.
It is not illegal for someone, kid or not, to walk up the sidewalk to your front door, which is what mph wrote.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If your curtains are draw, I've got no problems with that. Otherwise, I disagree. "
So, to clarify, you think that the law should be able to, under certain circumstances, dictate what you wear in your own home?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: suggesting that I should cover my self up because someones kid may illegally enter my property in order to get back their baseball is a very prudish notion.
It is not illegal for someone, kid or not, to walk up the sidewalk to your front door, which is what mph wrote.
If they cannot see what I am wearing from the sidewalk or street then they have no say in the matter. If they have to be on my property to see me then they have no say in my attire or lack therefor of. Sidewalks don't come up to doors. The run parallel to the street. If it comes up to my door then it's my property.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "If your curtains are draw, I've got no problems with that. Otherwise, I disagree. "
So, to clarify, you think that the law should be able to, under certain circumstances, dictate what you wear in your own home?
I do. In the extreme case, if you lived in a glass house which provided interior visibility from public spaces, I think public decency standards should apply to you in your home. In general, if you are visible from public space (including doorway approaches) then I think the same rules should apply.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think it's a good thing for a child to be able to knock on their neighbor's door because their ball went over the fence without ever having to worry about seeing that neighbor naked.
I'm not sure I follow this logic. Are you suggesting that I must be clothes at all times in case someone rings my doorbell? Because if I'm naked when someone rings the bell I can always throw some clothes on or choose not to answer (I've done both). In fact, the only time I would agree that you should not be naked in your own home is for something like answering the door.
If you're talking about the off chance of them catching me in the living room window while they walk up the front path then I'm afraid I'm just not that bothered by the possibility.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "If your curtains are draw, I've got no problems with that. Otherwise, I disagree. "
So, to clarify, you think that the law should be able to, under certain circumstances, dictate what you wear in your own home?
Nope. I think the law should dictate that you use curtains or blinds when you are nekkid and visible. You can not wear whatever you want. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you suggesting that I must be clothes at all times in case someone rings my doorbell?
If you've read the other things I've said in this thread, it's quite obvious that I'm not saying that.
quote:So, to clarify, you think that the law should be able to, under certain circumstances, dictate what you wear in your own home?
I'm suggesting that the law should be able to limit you sharing your nakedness with the public. Specifically that you should not be naked and visible from off your property, or from the walkway to your main entrance.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, to clarify, you think that the law should be able to, under certain circumstances, dictate what you wear in your own home?
I'm curious about something. Do you not think the law should be able to dictate under certain circumstances what you can wear in your own home?
Anyway, 'in your own home' is not an inviolate status. I can be 'in my own home' and, for example, listen to very loud music that disturbs neighbors unreasonably while they're in their own homes. I could, I dunno, have a rotting carcass out in my backyard and never clean it up, wafting a stench out of my very own home to someone else's very own home. Etc. etc. The situations are not very far removed from one another, because in every case something one does in the confines of their own home causes disturbance to others who aren't in their home and who aren't trespassing or spying or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A real life example came up today, a bit different since it concerns rentals rather than (presumably someone owning (or rather their bank?) a house) but still interesting.
quote: A decision by Waterloo to phase out smoking in social housing by requiring tenants after April 1 to sign leases with no-smoking provisions, and a similar proposal being considered in Hamilton, will have a "domino effect," predicts Pippa Beck, policy analyst for the non-smokers' group.
...
Landlords can declare their buildings smoke-free, but don't have the legal right to evict someone for smoking, said Brad Butt, whose Greater Toronto Apartment Association represents 230 companies that own 160,000 units.
"The rights of tenants within the sanctity of their own homes are supreme," Butt said.
quote:I'm curious about something. Do you not think the law should be able to dictate under certain circumstances what you can wear in your own home? [/QB]
I've actually been thinking about this since this article popped up and I've finally decided that my answer is no, the law should never be able to dictate what you wear in your own home, even if you are visible to the public (through a window). I think you should be able to be naked in your own backyard, with or without a privacy fence.
Here's the thing: Nudity is one of those things that only hurts people because of cultural constraints. It is offensive, not in and of itself, but because some people think it is offensive. It is harmful to children only because their parents insist that it is. (As I already said, I think the mother in this case hurt her child more than the naked man ever could have. She's the one who made this dirty and wrong.)
And if you find it offensive, here's what you do: look away.
The loud music isn't a good example because you can't turn your ears away the way you can turn your eyes away. That can disturb your sleep or your concentration because you can't turn it off.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it beyond silly that people freak out about human nakedness, while taking their children to the monkey house at the zoo. For that matter, they let their children watch Animal Planet, etc. To my mind, maybe, it's simply an example of a need becoming a cultural tradition becoming a law (freezing temps require clothes, which then becomes a cultural tradition, which then becomes a law). It's kind of like the whole burka/hijab thing in Islam. The burqa was once a fashion choice by upper class women, but then become a religious law.
Personally, I feel it's a waste of my time to worry about whether or not I can see my fellow citizens naked, and to try to get them jailed for their nakedness. When Porter starts putting pants on his goat, then he won't be a hypocrite. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was almost on board with you, Christine, but I'm not so sure that nudity caused zero harm - especially for young children. Do you not think that a man who flashes himself to kids as they walk home from school everyday is wrong just as long as he is on his lawn when he does it?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christine: Your cultural point reminds me of this actually:
quote:A Montreal YMCA will remove the frosted glass it installed last fall to protect the innocent eyes of young Orthodox Jews from spandex-clad exercisers.
The glass will be replaced with clear windows and blinds to be closed or opened at the request of Y members, restoring the view from the exercise room.
It was installed at the request of a synagogue across the alley where some young male students found the state of undress of some exercisers a distraction. Also, some Y members had complained about peeping toms.
The glass fast became a flashpoint in Quebec political debate over how institutions are adapting to religious minority views.
It also does make me wonder if there are regulations in Muslim countries that enforce the whole veil thing over whether women can go without a veil in their own homes (if visible from outside).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I was almost on board with you, Christine, but I'm not so sure that nudity caused zero harm - especially for young children. Do you not think that a man who flashes himself to kids as they walk home from school everyday is wrong just as long as he is on his lawn when he does it?
The trouble with this is that the only reason flashing children as they walk down the street is a thing at all is because you're not supposed to do it. I've actually always wondered how seeing a naked person or a person's private parts actually hurts a child?
Now, don't get me wrong, if someone in the neighborhood is doing that I'm not going to let my kids play over there, but if I don't make a big deal out of my kids seeing a naked person, then they won't make a big deal out of it either.
(And actually, they see naked people all the time -- my husband and I are regularly naked in front of our children.)
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Flashing" is going to have a different effect from casual nudity. It's shocking to see a clothed person suddenly exposing his body. The interaction is intrusive and charged. Flashing is to casual nudity what a gibbering scream is to humming a tune.
Interestingly, nobody flashes with benign intent.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Flashing" is going to have a different effect from casual nudity. It's shocking to see a clothed person suddenly exposing his body. The interaction is intrusive and charged. Flashing is to casual nudity what a gibbering scream is to humming a tune.
Interestingly, nobody flashes with benign intent.
What about this, from News of the Weird?
"* Jailed in San Rafael, Calif., in February, on the latest of his 18 indecent-exposure convictions, Mr. Ubiquitous Perpetuity God, 68. (Mr. God says he changed his name years ago so that his flashed victims would have "some type of awareness of God.") [New Haven Register-AP, 2-15-96]"
This has stuck in my mind for the last 13 years or so, ever since I read it in college. I actually remembered the guy's name and the quote from him, word-perfect.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
