Naked in Your House=Criminal
- Thread starter goodwood
- Start date
Channelwood
Experimental Member
As in most of these cases where the initial story is told in such a way to incite outrage, the Devil's in the details.
While Mr. Williamson was convicted of indecent exposure, he faces no jail time or fines, as he received a suspended sentence.
Neither was his conviction based solely on his being naked in his home. Contrary to the thread title, being naked in his house was not criminal. While he claims that he never intended to expose himself and was simply exercising personal freedom as he spent several hours naked in his Springfield home packing up belongings, the complaints were that his actions were designed to draw attention to himself.
"The first woman, school librarian Joyce Giuliani, said she heard some loud singing as she left her home and drove to work. As she drove by Williamsons home, she saw him naked, standing directly behind a large picture window.
A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school along a trail that runs by Williamsons 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.
As she turned the corner, she looked back at the home, in disbelief at what she had just seen. Again, she saw Williamson, naked in the same picture window.
One of Williamsons housemates testified that Williamson had been nude well before dawn. Timothy Baclit testified that he woke up around 5 a.m. to go to work and saw Williamson walking around naked with a hard hat.
He said he warned Williamson that he would be visible to passers-by but that Williamson did not respond."
Sure, it's a marginal case. That's why we have the adversarial judicial system. He claims he was doing nothing wrong and had no idea he'd be seen. The other side claims he intentionally intended to criminally expose himself. Who's right? We'll never know. The judge decided in a way that slaps this guy's wrist but shouldn't after him adversely.
But remember, exercising poor judgment in this country in many cases results in criminal charges.
The main point, though, is that one should not immediately jump to snap conclusions about complex issues based on incomplete information, especially when you can tell it's presented in a way designed to get a rise out of you. Do some research before blurting out "Fuck, that's whack, dude!" (Anyone who ever railed in indignation about the failings of the legal system because of the $2.7 Million Hot McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit is typical of this type of outrage, and has obviously never read the details of the case ... see Liebeck v. McDonald's)
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
While Mr. Williamson was convicted of indecent exposure, he faces no jail time or fines, as he received a suspended sentence.
Neither was his conviction based solely on his being naked in his home. Contrary to the thread title, being naked in his house was not criminal. While he claims that he never intended to expose himself and was simply exercising personal freedom as he spent several hours naked in his Springfield home packing up belongings, the complaints were that his actions were designed to draw attention to himself.
"The first woman, school librarian Joyce Giuliani, said she heard some loud singing as she left her home and drove to work. As she drove by Williamsons home, she saw him naked, standing directly behind a large picture window.
A few hours later, Yvette Dean was walking her 7-year-old son to school along a trail that runs by Williamsons 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.
As she turned the corner, she looked back at the home, in disbelief at what she had just seen. Again, she saw Williamson, naked in the same picture window.
One of Williamsons housemates testified that Williamson had been nude well before dawn. Timothy Baclit testified that he woke up around 5 a.m. to go to work and saw Williamson walking around naked with a hard hat.
He said he warned Williamson that he would be visible to passers-by but that Williamson did not respond."
Sure, it's a marginal case. That's why we have the adversarial judicial system. He claims he was doing nothing wrong and had no idea he'd be seen. The other side claims he intentionally intended to criminally expose himself. Who's right? We'll never know. The judge decided in a way that slaps this guy's wrist but shouldn't after him adversely.
But remember, exercising poor judgment in this country in many cases results in criminal charges.
The main point, though, is that one should not immediately jump to snap conclusions about complex issues based on incomplete information, especially when you can tell it's presented in a way designed to get a rise out of you. Do some research before blurting out "Fuck, that's whack, dude!" (Anyone who ever railed in indignation about the failings of the legal system because of the $2.7 Million Hot McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit is typical of this type of outrage, and has obviously never read the details of the case ... see Liebeck v. McDonald's)
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Channelwood
Experimental Member
jason-els: Can you cite a reference to the case you mention? I can't find it an a casual search.
No, I can't. I remember it only because it seemed so outrageous. It's years old.
Channelwood
Experimental Member
The lack of corroborating documentation *may* mean that its outrageousness was manufactured specifically for that purpose.
I don't remember where or when I read it other than it was online. I'm sure it's older than two years but after that I'm not sure so that leaves about a decade. The story was about a boy who did this. The couple claimed that the blinds were down and shut because the next house is quite close. The boy had to nose right up to the window and then angle himself to see anything. I do remember that it was in Georgia. I wish I knew where or when but am not sure how (or where) to search. I tried looking in Google news but received zillions of awful stories about sex with minors in Georgia. I can't think of any pinpointing key words.
Channelwood
Experimental Member
I'm not necessarily suggesting that the event was manufactured, just that the outrageousness may have been.
Especially if it was reported online, the details of the case may have been exaggerated or inaccurately reported (either intentionally or unintentionally), only initial reports included without followups to the eventual resolution, etc. For instance, if this was an actual case the couple may have decided it was in their best interest to take a plea rather than go through trial. We'll never know without finding the details of the case.
For instance, one policeman can arrest you or one prosecutor with a bug up his ass can charge you with anything ... which sucks if you live in a place where the judicial system has a pattern of abuse. The saving grace is that the system is supposed to go through enough hands to prevent egregious abuse.
