http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1790464
Quote
Coffee-making naked guy rebuffed by exposure charge
October 21, 2009 - 10:53am
SPRINGFIELD, Va. - Eric Williamson faces an indecent exposure charge after a passerby saw him in the buff in his own home making coffee.
It happened at 5:30 a.m. Monday.
Channel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.
Williamson, 29, says he didn't know anyone could see him.
"If I stood and seemed comfortable in my kitchen, it's natural. It's my kitchen," Williamson tells Channel 5.
Williamson says his roommates were not home when he came into the kitchen and made his coffee.
Fairfax County Police say they believed Williamson wanted to be seen naked by the public.
Williamson, a father of a 5-year old girl, said he plans to fight the charge.
"There is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever, ever do anything like that to a kid," he says.
A trial lawyer, who is not connected to the Williamson's case, says the state will have to prove that Williamson knew people were there for them to get a conviction on the charge that carries a one-year jail term and a $2,000 fine.
Righto. Charge the bitch for trespassing and voyeurism. Why was she creeping around on other peoples' property with her kid at five thirty in the morning anyway? I don't see why it matters if he knew people were there or not. :P
What a dumb situation.
This is indeed incredibly dumb, assuming the facts are accurate. Why are prosecutors wasting their time on this shit?
Quote from: Malthus on October 21, 2009, 04:18:35 PM
This is indeed incredibly dumb, assuming the facts are accurate. Why are prosecutors wasting their time on this shit?
Never, ever assume that all the facts about a crime story are accurately reported. Indeed, I would suggest you assume the opposite.
Next thing you know that pedophile pervert will be exposing himself to kids who sneak into his bathroom while he is showering :x
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2009, 04:19:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 21, 2009, 04:18:35 PM
This is indeed incredibly dumb, assuming the facts are accurate. Why are prosecutors wasting their time on this shit?
Never, ever assume that all the facts about a crime story are accurately reported. Indeed, I would suggest you assume the opposite.
Fair enough; but it is hard to see the other side to this one, unless something totally different from what is alleged too place.
Well, I could imagine a scenario where the man is making coffee, nude, but obscured by the Mr. Coffee and whatever else is on the counter, and then, upon seeing the mother-child combo trespassing on his property, decides to apply the Castle Doctrine by springing out and making his private parts public in front of the window, perhaps accompanied by a lewd sneer or tongue gesture.
That could meet the facts of this case and still plausibly be an indecent exposure charge, n'est-ce pas?
By the way, a charge of indecent act inside your own home actually went to the Supreme Court of Canada a few years ago:
QuoteAttorney General of Ontario Intervener
Indexed as: R. v. Clark
Neutral citation: 2005 SCC 2.
File No.: 29976.
2004: November 2; 2005: January 27.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law — Disorderly conduct — Indecent acts — Public place — Criminal Code prohibits wilfully doing indecent act in public place — Whether masturbating in illuminated room before uncovered window while unknowingly being observed by neighbours is indecent act in public place — Whether living room "public place" within meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of Criminal Code — Meaning of word "access" in definition of "public place" in s. 150 of Criminal Code.
The accused was observed masturbating near the uncovered window of his illuminated living room by neighbours from the privacy of their darkened bedroom, across contiguous back yards, from a distance of 90 to 150 feet. The police were summoned. They observed the accused from "just below the navel up" from the neighbour's bedroom and "from about maybe the neck or the shoulders up" from street level. The accused was charged under ss. 173(1)(a) and 173(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. Section 173(1) makes it an offence to wilfully do an indecent act (a) "in a public place in the presence of one or more persons", or (b) "in any place, with intent thereby to insult or offend any person". The trial judge convicted the accused under s. 173(1)(a) after finding he had converted his living room into a "public place" but acquitted him under s. 173(1)(b) after finding that it did not appear the accused knew he was being watched or intended to insult or offend any person. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal of British Columbia upheld the conviction. The Court of Appeal concluded that the accused had "intentionally conducted himself in an indecent way, seeking to draw the attention of others".
Held: The appeal should be allowed. The accused's conviction is vacated and an acquittal entered.
The facts as found by the trial judge do not support the accused's conviction. The accused's act was not committed in a "public place" within the meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. A "public place" is defined in s. 150 as "any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied". "Access" means "the right or opportunity to reach or use or visit" and not the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within. Interpreting "public place" as contemplating physical as opposed to visual access renders the whole of s. 173(1) more coherent and is consistent with Parliament's legislative distinction in the Criminal Code between conduct that is criminal because it occurs "in a public place" and conduct that is criminal because it is "exposed to public view" or "open to public view". [11-14] [42-51]
The Court of Appeal erred by departing from the trial judge's appreciation of the evidence in the absence of a finding that he had committed a palpable and overriding error. It also erred in finding that the conviction was supported by case law that expands the meaning of a "public place" to include the place where the witnesses to an indecent act are physically situated. Even if correctly decided, this case law does not support the conviction since the accused's act did not occur in a public place within the expanded meaning. [9-10] [24-32]
Although the definition of "endroit public" in the French version of s. 150 contains no equivalent of the word "includes" found in the definition of "public place" in the English version, there is no need to choose between versions because both contemplate physical as opposed to visual access. [39-41]
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc2/2005scc2.html
So Beeb---does that mean that if visual access to the interior of the home is allowed (ie-there is line-of-sight from the position of the viewer), then the interior of the home becomes a public place for the purposes of this kind of infraction?
It sure seems like a stretch to me. A big stretch.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2009, 04:40:39 PM
So Beeb---does that mean that if visual access to the interior of the home is allowed (ie-there is line-of-sight from the position of the viewer), then the interior of the home becomes a public place for the purposes of this kind of infraction?
It sure seems like a stretch to me. A big stretch.
Uh, no. Not at all. The SCC said the opposite in fact. From the headnote that I posted:
QuoteThe facts as found by the trial judge do not support the accused's conviction. The accused's act was not committed in a "public place" within the meaning of ss. 150 and 173(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. A "public place" is defined in s. 150 as "any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied". "Access" means "the right or opportunity to reach or use or visit" and not the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within. Interpreting "public place" as contemplating physical as opposed to visual access renders the whole of s. 173(1) more coherent and is consistent with Parliament's legislative distinction in the Criminal Code between conduct that is criminal because it occurs "in a public place" and conduct that is criminal because it is "exposed to public view" or "open to public view". [11-14] [42-51]
Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2009, 04:46:05 PM
Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.
Not necessarily. He would be not guilty under s. 173(1)(a) (the public place provision). He could potentially be guilty under s. 173(1)(b), which reads "in any place, with intent to insult or offend any person".
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2009, 04:46:05 PM
Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.
Not guilty. Remember, to a prosecutor, nobody is innocent. ;)
Quote from: Neil on October 21, 2009, 04:50:53 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 21, 2009, 04:46:05 PM
Ah I see. I got it mixed up. So in Canada, this guy would be innocent regardless.
Not guilty. Remember, to a prosecutor, nobody is innocent. ;)
I have taught you well.
if we assume the opposite, it's 5:30 in the afternoon and he is making coffee fully clothed in her front yard.
look, that's an absurd axiom. if you have a communication issue with reporters, that's a public relations issue which as a public employee, you have a responsibility to address.
Quote from: saskganesh on October 21, 2009, 05:03:08 PM
if we assume the opposite, it's 5:30 in the afternoon and he is making coffee fully clothed in her front yard.
Or rather not making coffee.
Quotelook, that's an absurd axiom. if you have a communication issue with reporters, that's a public relations issue which as a public employee, you have a responsibility to address.
But isn't it true that reporters always get things wrong, and that they are largely either liars or imbeciles?
Quote from: saskganesh on October 21, 2009, 05:03:08 PM
if we assume the opposite, it's 5:30 in the afternoon and he is making coffee fully clothed in her front yard.
look, that's an absurd axiom. if you have a communication issue with reporters, that's a public relations issue which as a public employee, you have a responsibility to address.
Not that you assume the opposite facts, but the opposite of the axoim I suggested. In other words, you should assume that something in the story is inaccurately being told.
Hey - as a public employee I have spent a fair bit of time talking to the media. I remember spending some time with a young reporter with the Whitehorse Star just filling her in on some basic information on a file I had nothing to do with, just so she had the basic law correct.
But due to privacy concerns, and not wanting to try cases in the media, the prosecution can typically not reveal much evidence in advance of the trial itself. So most reporters are only left with information told to them by defense, or by so-called "experts" who know very little. Which means every news story about a criminal case is not telling the entire story.
Today is Languish Free Advice Day. :)
America. :D
Will you get over your sex-phobia in this century or will it carry over into the next?
Anyway, while I am normally not in favour of the "no snitching" campaign, that bitch who reported the guy to the police should have her brains blown out after being raped with a splintery broomstick.
Either way, the bitch and her dumb brat were on the guy's private property, right? Pity he didn't shoot them down.
Fucked up.
It should be legal to be nude in the garden let alone in the house.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
Not that you assume the opposite facts, but the opposite of the axoim I suggested. In other words, you should assume that something in the story is inaccurately being told.
Hey - as a public employee I have spent a fair bit of time talking to the media. I remember spending some time with a young reporter with the Whitehorse Star just filling her in on some basic information on a file I had nothing to do with, just so she had the basic law correct.
But due to privacy concerns, and not wanting to try cases in the media, the prosecution can typically not reveal much evidence in advance of the trial itself. So most reporters are only left with information told to them by defense, or by so-called "experts" who know very little. Which means every news story about a criminal case is not telling the entire story.
All this is very true, and should be extended; all accounts about anything are lacking "the entire story." One must look carefully to see what facts might be left out by the recounter of a story as "unimportant," since no one can recount all possible facts pertinent to any story. Legal cases are just a worse example of this phenomenon, for the reasons you note.
But is that a practical way to go about your life?
Quote from: Delirium on October 22, 2009, 05:06:06 AM
But is that a practical way to go about your life?
Making coffee in the nude? Better that than frying bacon in the nude.
Well argued, sir.
Quote from: Barrister on October 21, 2009, 04:19:42 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 21, 2009, 04:18:35 PM
This is indeed incredibly dumb, assuming the facts are accurate. Why are prosecutors wasting their time on this shit?
Never, ever assume that all the facts about a crime story are accurately reported. Indeed, I would suggest you assume the opposite.
Yes, what they fail to mention is the mitigating circumstance of his morning wood. THAT'S INTENT RIGHT THERE BUDDY
Story does leave some inconsistencies for me, but mostly pointing to how the woman and kid were where they shouldn't be...
If the guy's making coffee in the kitchen, he'd be covered up by the counter, unless he's freakishly tall.
Most houses' "ground" floor is slightly elevated, so in addition, they would have to be looking up at a window in order to catch a view.
The only exception I can think of is a plate glass door in the kitchen, which would most likely mean the "victims" weren't in the front yard at all...
This is just unfair. I bought my flat to be able to lay out a game of WiF and walking around naked alone at home when I feel like it.
I walk around my house naked under my clothes all the time - am going to be in trouble?
Quote from: PDH on October 22, 2009, 08:14:02 AM
I walk around my house naked under my clothes all the time - am going to be in trouble?
Don't think so, but if a crazy woman with her kid breaks into your home and pulls your pants down you might be done for indecent exposure.
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 05:49:13 PM
America. :D
Will you get over your sex-phobia in this century or will it carry over into the next?
I cannot hear you over the third world countries calling us sex addicts and immoral perverts.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 08:40:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 05:49:13 PM
America. :D
Will you get over your sex-phobia in this century or will it carry over into the next?
I cannot hear you over the third world countries calling us sex addicts and immoral perverts.
To be fair, Poland isn't really a third world country - with their recent advances, I think they are up to second and a half world.
Yes, I know.
For the record, this story is already being reported throughout Europe (including in Poland) as an example of "LOL STOOPID AMERIKKKANS".
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2009, 08:13:18 AM
This is just unfair. I bought my flat to be able to lay out a game of WiF and walking around naked alone at home when I feel like it.
That's really just a counter argument.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 09:01:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 08:40:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 05:49:13 PM
America. :D
Will you get over your sex-phobia in this century or will it carry over into the next?
I cannot hear you over the third world countries calling us sex addicts and immoral perverts.
To be fair, Poland isn't really a third world country - with their recent advances, I think they are up to second and a half world.
Yes, I know.
Well, I'm for one happy to be living in a "second and a half world" country where I wouldn't get arrested for walking naked around my flat. Or a country that's not the world's leader in violent gun crime. I guess to each his own.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:28:29 AM
For the record, this story is already being reported throughout Europe (including in Poland) as an example of "LOL STOOPID AMERIKKKANS".
Just goes to show that Euros report too much non-newsworthy items from the US. ;)
What the hell kind of kitchen does this dude have that someone just walking across his yard could see his entire naked body? Was he standing on the damn counter or something?
Edit: Oops...didn't see the post on the second page noting pretty much the same thing. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 08:40:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 05:49:13 PM
America. :D
Will you get over your sex-phobia in this century or will it carry over into the next?
I cannot hear you over the third world countries calling us sex addicts and immoral perverts.
Not sure I get the point behind your retort. Are you trying to say that you guys are attempting to walk the middle ground between Western democracies and oppressive islamist theocracies?
If that's the case, then I guess you are on the right track. Otherwise, you make little sense.
This is why Alanis recommended walking around naked in your living room.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:36:29 AM
Not sure I get the point behind your retort. Are you trying to say that you guys are attempting to walk the middle ground between Western democracies and oppressive islamist theocracies?
If that's the case, then I guess you are on the right track. Otherwise, you make little sense.
Everybody is a critic and they all give us shit for our supposed sex issues. I suspect it more has to do with their own sex issues being projected on us.
If one group is not going out of their way to stereotype 300 million+ people for being puritans another is going out of their way casting us as perverts. It is all just standard bullshit anti-Americanism.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:31:01 AMOr a country that's not the world's leader in violent gun crime.
I don't think we have any South African posters
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:36:29 AM
Not sure I get the point behind your retort. Are you trying to say that you guys are attempting to walk the middle ground between Western democracies and oppressive islamist theocracies?
If that's the case, then I guess you are on the right track. Otherwise, you make little sense.
Everybody is a critic and they all give us shit for our supposed sex issues. I suspect it more has to do with their own sex issues being projected on us.
If one group is not going out of their way to stereotype 300 million+ people for being puritans another is going out of their way casting us as perverts. It is all just standard bullshit anti-Americanism.
So tell me, is this bullshit anti-Americanism, or simple projection, that causes you to prosecute a guy for going around naked in his living room?
Don't give me bullshit like this. We are talking about a specific case, one that is retarded and shouldn't even go to a prosecutor's desk, not to mention a court. It happens, though, and it happens in America.
Poles are just balls of light, I bet.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 10:12:46 AM
So tell me, is this bullshit anti-Americanism, or simple projection, that causes you to prosecute a guy for going around naked in his living room?
We are a nation of 300 million with zillions of tiny jurisdictions where stupid things are done many times on a daily basis. Taking once incident and acting like it is somehow says something about the entire country is ridiculous.
Besides in this very thread there is a freaking Canadian Supreme Court Case about this very subject. Why don't you give Canadians shit? Is it because they are: not Americans? I think so.
QuoteDon't give me bullshit like this. We are talking about a specific case, one that is retarded and shouldn't even go to a prosecutor's desk, not to mention a court. It happens, though, and it happens in America.
Yes we are the only country in the world with silly court cases.
Well it might be true that the decentralized nature of our legal system means we have alot more of them though.
To be fair, in the Canadian case the accusation was different - it was that the guy was wacking off in front of his window deliberately so that others would see him, and was seen by neighbours standing in their own house.
In the words of the Appellate court, he allegedly:
Quote"...intentionally conducted himself in an indecent way, seeking to draw the attention of others".
Naked coffee making as viewed by trespassers isn't quite the same.
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2009, 10:30:23 AM
Naked coffee making as viewed by trespassers isn't quite the same.
The principle is the same. They would have to prove in the Springfield case that the accused deliberately made coffee in this way so others would see him.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 10:33:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2009, 10:30:23 AM
Naked coffee making as viewed by trespassers isn't quite the same.
The principle is the same. They would have to prove in the Springfield case that the accused deliberately made coffee in this way so others would see him.
I may run up against Rule 34 here, not to mention setting someone up with a great line ... but to my knowledge, coffee making isn't usually considered in the same light, erotically speaking, as wacking off. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2009, 10:35:27 AM
I may run up against Rule 34 here, not to mention setting someone up with a great line ... but to my knowledge, coffee making isn't usually considered in the same light, erotically speaking, as wacking off. ;)
I am aware of that, which is why proving that will be basically impossible for the court IMO. I am not sure what leg they have to stand on.
Not attractive. Throw the book at him.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fsky-news%2Fcontent%2FStaticFile%2Fjpg%2F2009%2FOct%2FWeek3%2F15410992.jpg&hash=675a006aff9c6188ab64d9e5ce3f75cb3930d030)
Was that picture taken during the incident in question?
I disagree. I think he is hot.
I'm sure.
Quote from: Delirium on October 22, 2009, 09:29:25 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 22, 2009, 08:13:18 AM
This is just unfair. I bought my flat to be able to lay out a game of WiF and walking around naked alone at home when I feel like it.
That's really just a counter argument.
what a pun-ishing wit you are.
Quote from: KRonn on October 22, 2009, 09:32:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:28:29 AM
For the record, this story is already being reported throughout Europe (including in Poland) as an example of "LOL STOOPID AMERIKKKANS".
Just goes to show that Euros report too much non-newsworthy items from the US. ;)
No kidding. Talk about serious inferiority complex.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:31:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 09:01:19 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 08:40:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 05:49:13 PM
America. :D
Will you get over your sex-phobia in this century or will it carry over into the next?
I cannot hear you over the third world countries calling us sex addicts and immoral perverts.
To be fair, Poland isn't really a third world country - with their recent advances, I think they are up to second and a half world.
Yes, I know.
Well, I'm for one happy to be living in a "second and a half world" country where I wouldn't get arrested for walking naked around my flat.
You won't get arrested for that here either.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 10:12:46 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:36:29 AM
Not sure I get the point behind your retort. Are you trying to say that you guys are attempting to walk the middle ground between Western democracies and oppressive islamist theocracies?
If that's the case, then I guess you are on the right track. Otherwise, you make little sense.
Everybody is a critic and they all give us shit for our supposed sex issues. I suspect it more has to do with their own sex issues being projected on us.
If one group is not going out of their way to stereotype 300 million+ people for being puritans another is going out of their way casting us as perverts. It is all just standard bullshit anti-Americanism.
So tell me, is this bullshit anti-Americanism, or simple projection, that causes you to prosecute a guy for going around naked in his living room?
Don't give me bullshit like this. We are talking about a specific case, one that is retarded and shouldn't even go to a prosecutor's desk, not to mention a court. It happens, though, and it happens in America.
You don't even know anything about this, and you are absolutely certain that it is bullshit AND that it reflects some kind of generic trait about America - because you know, people get arrested ALL THE TIME in the US for this kind of stuff, right?
Lots of things happen in lots of places. I bet there are any number of inane court cases going through even such a bastion of reason and free thought like Poland.
This is about your anti-Americanism, and nothing more. Indulge in it, I imagine it is all you have.
Christ, thank god the guy wasn't gay.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 10:18:58 AM
Well it might be true that the decentralized nature of our legal system means we have alot more of them though.
That is actually a far better agument for "Lol only in America"
Meaning it is IMHO more typically American to try these weird cases in court, due to tradition and differences in court system.
Here we have plenty of strange cases, but one like this would be tossed before it even saw a judge :)
Which doesn't mean this one wontofc :)
V
The story has been updated, and of course the original was rather selectively "reported"
QuoteSPRINGFIELD, Va. - 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.
So according to her they were not trespassing, and he was not in his kitchen, and clearly made an effort to be seen.
None of that may be true, but it does make it rather obvious why he was charged. I don't see how they can prove it happened though.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:36:29 AM
Not sure I get the point behind your retort. Are you trying to say that you guys are attempting to walk the middle ground between Western democracies and oppressive islamist theocracies?
If that's the case, then I guess you are on the right track. Otherwise, you make little sense.
The point is, I think, that it is hard to tell the pinheads who mistakenly think Americans are puritans from the pinheads who think Americans are mistakenly hedonists.
In fact, if I cannot see someone in order to tell whether or not he or she has a towel on his/her head, it is pretty much impossible to tell smug Euros from smug Saudis.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:40:45 AM
So according to her they were not trespassing, and he was not in his kitchen, and clearly made an effort to be seen.
It does not say she was not trespassing. Paths between houses are generally on private property.
LOL America
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:40:45 AM
So according to her they were not trespassing, and he was not in his kitchen, and clearly made an effort to be seen.
It does not say she was not trespassing. Paths between houses are generally on private property.
But is it trespassing if you walk along them, if in fact it is allowed?
People walk through my backyard all the time, and I am perfectly ok with that since it is the easiest way to get from the back street to the front - and everyone knows I am ok with it.
So it isn't necessarily trespass.
And the point is that the original article implied she was actually on his property where he had no reason to suspect she would be - and at 5:30 AM. her walking her kid to the bus stop at 8:40 AM along a path between houses is a bit different.
It could still be complete bullshit, but it is not obviously so.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:46:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:40:45 AM
So according to her they were not trespassing, and he was not in his kitchen, and clearly made an effort to be seen.
It does not say she was not trespassing. Paths between houses are generally on private property.
But is it trespassing if you walk along them, if in fact it is allowed?
People walk through my backyard all the time, and I am perfectly ok with that since it is the easiest way to get from the back street to the front - and everyone knows I am ok with it.
So it isn't necessarily trespass.
And the point is that the original article implied she was actually on his property where he had no reason to suspect she would be - and at 5:30 AM. her walking her kid to the bus stop at 8:40 AM along a path between houses is a bit different.
It could still be complete bullshit, but it is not obviously so.
Well, I think there are two things here. One if this is a criminal trespass.
However, another is if, even if you allow someone to pass through there, it should be treated as a public space.
Assume you let someone use a phone in your flat - should this make you liable if they see you naked there?
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:51:07 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:46:33 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 11:43:01 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:40:45 AM
So according to her they were not trespassing, and he was not in his kitchen, and clearly made an effort to be seen.
It does not say she was not trespassing. Paths between houses are generally on private property.
But is it trespassing if you walk along them, if in fact it is allowed?
People walk through my backyard all the time, and I am perfectly ok with that since it is the easiest way to get from the back street to the front - and everyone knows I am ok with it.
So it isn't necessarily trespass.
And the point is that the original article implied she was actually on his property where he had no reason to suspect she would be - and at 5:30 AM. her walking her kid to the bus stop at 8:40 AM along a path between houses is a bit different.
It could still be complete bullshit, but it is not obviously so.
Well, I think there are two things here. One if this is a criminal trespass.
However, another is if, even if you allow someone to pass through there, it should be treated as a public space.
Assume you let someone use a phone in your flat - should this make you liable if they see you naked there?
I don't know - but if someone asks to use my phone, and I say yes, then go to my room and take off my clothes and walk out, then I would not consider it unreasonable if I got in trouble for it.
I certainly would not consider it further evidence in my angst-ridden crusade against America.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:28:29 AM
For the record, this story is already being reported throughout Europe (including in Poland) as an example of "LOL STOOPID AMERIKKKANS".
...And it's being reported across America as "LOL STOOPID SPRINGFIELD". :P
If it wasn't a bizarre thing it wouldn't be in the news at all.
For the record, Marty's reaction is being reported throughout Languish as "LOL STOOPID MARTY!"
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:54:56 AM
For the record, Marty's reaction is being reported throughout Languish as "LOL STOOPID MARTY!"
Well at least it's not part of the "Throbby's Weekly Lashout" column.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:46:33 AM
But is it trespassing if you walk along them, if in fact it is allowed?
One of the dangers of passive voice is that it creates the impression, as in your use of it, that it is the act which is either allowed or not, as opposed to the owner who allows it or not. I have seen no evidence either way as to what the owner's position is. Someone on private property without permission is trespassing. It isn't necessarily criminal trespass, of course.
QuotePeople walk through my backyard all the time, and I am perfectly ok with that since it is the easiest way to get from the back street to the front - and everyone knows I am ok with it.
So is walking through back yards allowed, or not?
QuoteAnd the point is that the original article implied she was actually on his property where he had no reason to suspect she would be - and at 5:30 AM. her walking her kid to the bus stop at 8:40 AM along a path between houses is a bit different.
Except for the time of day, these stories are not inconsistent, though they are not necessarily consistent.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 11:56:55 AM
These stories are not inconsistent, though they are not necessarily consistent.
Thank you, Master yoda. :D
I remember how shocked I was the time I got roaring drunk, stumbled into the dorm room next door and saw the guy having sex with his girlfriend. I should have sued.
Quote from: PDH on October 22, 2009, 11:59:25 AM
I remember how shocked I was the time I got roaring drunk, stumbled into the dorm room next door and saw the guy having sex with his girlfriend. I should have sued.
The funny part is that someone today would sue.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 11:56:55 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:46:33 AM
But is it trespassing if you walk along them, if in fact it is allowed?
One of the dangers of passive voice is that it creates the impression, as in your use of it, that it is the act which is either allowed or not, as opposed to the owner who allows it or not. I have seen no evidence either way as to what the owner's position is. Someone on private property without permission is trespassing. It isn't necessarily criminal trespass, of course.
Right - so we don't really know. We don't even know if the path was on his property.
Quote
QuotePeople walk through my backyard all the time, and I am perfectly ok with that since it is the easiest way to get from the back street to the front - and everyone knows I am ok with it.
So is walking through back yards allowed, or not?
I imagine it depends. However, the fact that the path is there suggests that it is reasonable to presume that people will be walking along it, and it is entirely possible that people walk along it every single morning.
Again, this isn't necessarily true, but it does mitigate against the "This is obviously ridiculous!" response.
Quote
QuoteAnd the point is that the original article implied she was actually on his property where he had no reason to suspect she would be - and at 5:30 AM. her walking her kid to the bus stop at 8:40 AM along a path between houses is a bit different.
Except for the time of day, these stories are not inconsistent, though they are not necessarily consistent.
But the differences are pretty important when it comes to addressing the pinhead outrage.
Right now, it could be the case that the charges are perfectly reasonable - for all we know, Mr. Coffee knew that there would be people walking along that path, and intentionally exposed himself to them.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 11:54:56 AM
For the record, Marty's reaction is being reported throughout Languish as "LOL STOOPID MARTY!"
that is every day.
Quote from: PDH on October 22, 2009, 11:59:25 AM
I remember how shocked I was the time I got roaring drunk, stumbled into the dorm room next door and saw the guy having sex with his girlfriend. I should have sued.
You should have stayed - he left the door open for a reason.
I love the fact that in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property, but heavens forbid they see you naked.
Fucked up country. :lol:
Remind me to smack you on Halloween.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:02:15 PM
Right - so we don't really know. We don't even know if the path was on his property.
We don't even know if there was a "path."
QuoteI imagine it depends. However, the fact that the path is there suggests that it is reasonable to presume that people will be walking along it, and it is entirely possible that people walk along it every single morning.
What difference does that make? Are you seriously arguing that the fact that people routinely walked on this property means that the man has sacrificed his right to presume privacy?
QuoteAgain, this isn't necessarily true, but it does mitigate against the "This is obviously ridiculous!" response.
What argues against the "this is obviously ridiculous" response is that a number of people would have to be involved for the case to get to this position. It could still be ridiculous, but it was never "obviously" so.
It's the woman who reported the nudity who is stupid, not the Country. The dude may be stupid, but that isn't the issue. What a rational person would do after seeing naked coffee guy is cover the child's eyes (or not) and leave. not gawk long enough to get offended somehow. Waste of taxpayer money the police doing anything other than telling this woman to stop being such busybody.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 12:06:01 PM
I love the fact that in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property, but heavens forbid they see you naked.
Fucked up country. :lol:
I love that a self-proclaimed lawyer would claim that " in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property!"
Fucked up post. :lol:
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 22, 2009, 12:12:23 PM
It's the woman who reported the nudity who is stupid, not the Country. The dude may be stupid, but that isn't the issue. What a rational person would do after seeing naked coffee guy is cover the child's eyes (or not) and leave. not gawk long enough to get offended somehow. Waste of taxpayer money the police doing anything other than telling this woman to stop being such busybody.
:bleeding:
:yes:
Once I am made the Dictator for life, people like her will be crucified or thrown off the Tarpeian Rock.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 12:09:32 PM
Remind me to smack you on Halloween.
Would you really need to be reminded? :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 12:11:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:02:15 PM
Right - so we don't really know. We don't even know if the path was on his property.
We don't even know if there was a "path."
Nope, we do not - but if there is one, it certainly changes things a bit.
Quote
QuoteI imagine it depends. However, the fact that the path is there suggests that it is reasonable to presume that people will be walking along it, and it is entirely possible that people walk along it every single morning.
What difference does that make? Are you seriously arguing that the fact that people routinely walked on this property means that the man has sacrificed his right to presume privacy?
Actually, yes. If people routinely walk on your property with your permission (and presumably they would not be doing so without it), then yes, it does seem reasonable to presume that you won't be going out of your way to parade around in the buff, within reason.
Obviously the case is going to come down to whether there is reason to believe that his being seen naked was his intent, or simply an accident. If it is an accident, the case goes nowhere, I imagine.
I don't think being on your own property gives you 100% freedom to walk around naked and flash the neighbors kids out the doorway.
My house faces onto a cul-de-sac where there are almost always a bunch of kids playing. Do I have a right to privacy that includes me parading around in my garage with the door open nude?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 22, 2009, 12:12:23 PM
It's the woman who reported the nudity who is stupid, not the Country. The dude may be stupid, but that isn't the issue. What a rational person would do after seeing naked coffee guy is cover the child's eyes (or not) and leave.
She can do that AND call the cops though, if naked Coffee Man is clearly trying to flash her and her child under the cover of being on his personal property.
And we don't know - the fact that he was charged suggests that there is something more here than her catching an accidental look of him in the buff. If in fact that is all it was, than I agree with you.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 12:06:01 PM
I love the fact that in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property, but heavens forbid they see you naked.
Fucked up country. :lol:
Yeah it is awesome if somebody breaks into my house in Poland I have to then respect their right to leave peacefully with my stuff.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:18:26 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 22, 2009, 12:12:23 PM
It's the woman who reported the nudity who is stupid, not the Country. The dude may be stupid, but that isn't the issue. What a rational person would do after seeing naked coffee guy is cover the child's eyes (or not) and leave.
She can do that AND call the cops though, if naked Coffee Man is clearly trying to flash her and her child under the cover of being on his personal property.
And we don't know - the fact that he was charged suggests that there is something more here than her catching an accidental look of him in the buff. If in fact that is all it was, than I agree with you.
well the OP doesn't say he was doing more than making coffee. sure if he was flashing sure. but does every flasher get national media coverage? maybe he was adding kittens to his brew of satanic coffee?
also though even if he flashed her. She was cutting across his lawn. she shouldn't be such a fricking whiny nelly. He's just a naked guy. Did he threaten her somehow other than being naked. (this is what's wrong with the modern world. her puritanical mindset (and it isn't just Americans I'm talking about) is an example of how something as simple as nakedness is somehow abhorrent.
What she would have done if she was a reasonable person, is, walk away. If he was flashing her, etc... she should have given him the finger and made sure she gossiped to all the neighbors about him.
We don't know that she was cutting across his lawn.
And I can assure you that if one of my neighbors flashes my kids, I will call the cops. I don't think I am all the puritanical, but if some perv is flashing kids, then it is likely that is only the beginning of his sexual issues with children, not the end.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:33:31 PM
We don't know that she was cutting across his lawn.
And I can assure you that if one of my neighbors flashes my kids, I will call the cops. I don't think I am all the puritanical, but if some perv is flashing kids, then it is likely that is only the beginning of his sexual issues with children, not the end.
Well I missed the kid part *and I agree if it wasn't accidental (he was flashing the kid) I guess but see the rest of that sentence:
QuoteChannel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.
usually people have a lawn in their front yard. maybe she was standing in his koi pond?
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 22, 2009, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:33:31 PM
We don't know that she was cutting across his lawn.
And I can assure you that if one of my neighbors flashes my kids, I will call the cops. I don't think I am all the puritanical, but if some perv is flashing kids, then it is likely that is only the beginning of his sexual issues with children, not the end.
Well I missed the kid part *and I agree if it wasn't accidental (he was flashing the kid) I guess but see the rest of that sentence:
QuoteChannel 5 reports the woman and 7-year-old boy who saw him naked apparently had cut through Williamson's front yard from a nearby path.
usually people have a lawn in their front yard. maybe she was standing in his koi pond?
well, the reporting is a bit spotty, and since the story is driven by the "outrage" of the Marty types, I am not really sure what the deal is.
However, if you are hanging out naked in your carport where anyone from the front of your house can see you, you are probably not thinking too clearly.
He should drink his coffee before deciding whether or not hanging out naked when the schoolkids are going by is a good idea.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:33:31 PM
And I can assure you that if one of my neighbors flashes my kids, I will call the cops. I don't think I am all the puritanical, but if some perv is flashing kids, then it is likely that is only the beginning of his sexual issues with children, not the end.
If he in fact flashed the kids, well, that is totally different. His story seems to be he totally innocently was walking around his house in the morning and the kid happened to spot him.
I don't think anybody is saying flashing kids is a good thing Berkut. If they can prove that was what he was doing then he will pay the consequences.
I do sort of like the whole: assume hardcore pedophilia first, ask questions later approach though. I guess pedophiles are super common that every naked man should be presumed to be one.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 12:55:51 PM
I don't think anybody is saying flashing kids is a good thing Berkut. If they can prove that was what he was doing then he will pay the consequences.
Of course - my point is just that everyone going all "OMG! This is crazy!" are off base.
Granted, it would be crazy if he was just in his house naked, and there was no reason for him to think a kid would be around.
But since he was charged, that suggests that either:
1. Everyone involved, from the parent to the cops, are all ridiculously sensitive, or
2. There is more to the story, and some reason to suspect that this was not what he has claimed.
I think #2 seems a bit more likely than #1. It is also very plausible that the woman is a spaz who is blowing something innocent out of proportion, and the cops found her story credible enough to charge, but is won't go anywhere.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 12:16:18 PM
Would you really need to be reminded? :lol:
No, but I couldn't resist the imagery of you reminding me to smack you upside the head.
This seems like another half assed reported story, as too usual. We don't have enough info, so no idea if the naked coffee maker was flashing the mom and kid, or just happened to be seen by them as they walked on his property. It shouldn't really have made the news, at least not in the half baked manner the story appears to have been reported in, leaving out the pertinent info.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 12:06:01 PM
I love the fact that in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property, but heavens forbid they see you naked.
Fucked up country. :lol:
This is where he goes into "OMG I WAS TROLLING LOL" mode.
At what point is it ok to begin prosecuting a person for doing things on his own property? I ask in a purely devil's advocate way.
Should a person be prosecuted for being nude in his own backyard, for instance? Or only if nobody can see him? Or only if he's fat or ugly?
Is land that belongs to you not enclosed by a structure considered a public place for the purposes of things like public intoxication or indecency or other things that might offend other people? What if said land is a rural place and surrounded by acres and acres of more land owned by you?
What if you own a drive-in theater and you want to show porn there one night a week, but the screen can be seen from certain angles from the road?
Where do your property rights end and other peoples' desire not to be offended begin?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 22, 2009, 01:08:52 PM
At what point is it ok to begin prosecuting a person for doing things on his own property? I ask in a purely devil's advocate way.
Should a person be prosecuted for being nude in his own backyard, for instance? Or only if nobody can see him? Or only if he's fat or ugly?
Is land that belongs to you not enclosed by a structure considered a public place for the purposes of things like public intoxication or indecency or other things that might offend other people? What if said land is a rural place and surrounded by acres and acres of more land owned by you?
What if you own a drive-in theater and you want to show porn there one night a week, but the screen can be seen from certain angles from the road?
Where do your property rights end and other peoples' desire not to be offended begin?
Read the law. Or that's what you would do in Sweden.
Quote from: The Brain on October 22, 2009, 01:11:03 PM
Read the law. Or that's what you would do in Sweden.
Of course. I'm not talking about what is, I'm talking about what "should" be.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 22, 2009, 01:08:52 PM
Or only if he's fat or ugly?
This. That's how I feel about public nudity in SF as well.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 22, 2009, 01:13:07 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 22, 2009, 01:11:03 PM
Read the law. Or that's what you would do in Sweden.
Of course. I'm not talking about what is, I'm talking about what "should" be.
So where's the devil's advocate stuff?
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 12:16:18 PM
Would you really need to be reminded? :lol:
No, but I couldn't resist the imagery of you reminding me to smack you upside the head.
Did it arouse you? :perv:
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:59:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 12:55:51 PM
I don't think anybody is saying flashing kids is a good thing Berkut. If they can prove that was what he was doing then he will pay the consequences.
Of course - my point is just that everyone going all "OMG! This is crazy!" are off base.
Granted, it would be crazy if he was just in his house naked, and there was no reason for him to think a kid would be around.
But since he was charged, that suggests that either:
1. Everyone involved, from the parent to the cops, are all ridiculously sensitive, or
2. There is more to the story, and some reason to suspect that this was not what he has claimed.
I think #2 seems a bit more likely than #1. It is also very plausible that the woman is a spaz who is blowing something innocent out of proportion, and the cops found her story credible enough to charge, but is won't go anywhere.
Seeing how America seems to be in the constant state of moral panic, I don't think #1 is less likely than #2.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:59:49 PM
Granted, it would be crazy if he was just in his house naked, and there was no reason for him to think a kid would be around.
See this is where you employ your intellectual dishonesty. you are making the argument, effectively, that anyone who goes naked around his house, where there is a chance (no matter how remote) that kids could possibly ever see them, is "flashing the kids".
This is where your idiocy lies.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:50:38 PM
And I can assure you that if one of my neighbors flashes my kids, I will call the cops. I don't think I am all the puritanical, but if some perv is flashing kids, then it is likely that is only the beginning of his sexual issues with children, not the end.
And here is the second part of your perfectly idiotic, moral-panic-style argument.
1. Anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter how remote the chance) is "flashing the children".
2. Anyone who is "flashing the children" is likely having "sexual issues with children".
Ergo, anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter if this is their private property and no matter how remote the chance) is a pedophile.
Perfect Berkut logic. :lol:
Hey, Berkut. Are you ever naked at your home? That means your kids could theoretically enter at some point and see you naked.
So are you a pedophile? When are you going to turn yourself in?
Quote from: Maximus on October 22, 2009, 01:06:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 12:06:01 PM
I love the fact that in America you can legally kill people who trespass on your property, but heavens forbid they see you naked.
Fucked up country. :lol:
This is where he goes into "OMG I WAS TROLLING LOL" mode.
How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:59:57 PM
How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.
Putting aside the
ad hom attack, do you have any statistics on that? I would have thought that the most common offenders would be the biological father. Not that your stat couldn't be true either.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:01:34 PM
Putting aside the ad hom attack, do you have any statistics on that? I would have thought that the most common offenders would be the biological father. Not that your stat couldn't be true either.
"Most common" is the wrong statistic. "Most likely" is more appropriate.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:01:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:59:57 PM
How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.
Putting aside the ad hom attack, do you have any statistics on that? I would have thought that the most common offenders would be the biological father. Not that your stat couldn't be true either.
He's from Poland. They rarely know who is the father.
For what it's worth, I agree with the woman reporting the guy. He obviously has issues, and probably wouldn't stop at just flashing strangers. Today he flashes strangers, tomorrow he might flash his wife (and may not even stop at just flashing her).
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:01:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:59:57 PM
How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.
Putting aside the ad hom attack, do you have any statistics on that? I would have thought that the most common offenders would be the biological father. Not that your stat couldn't be true either.
yeah, what the statistician said. ;)
Anyway, what about nudist families? Are the people who walk naked in nudist families in front of their children (and children walk naked too) pedophiles too?
I love how people here are equating nakedness with sex. Fucking puritan prudes.
I've been trying to flash the Japanese chick in the next apartment for weeks now but she never opens her curtains. :(
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:16:27 PM
Actually, yes. If people routinely walk on your property with your permission (and presumably they would not be doing so without it), then yes, it does seem reasonable to presume that you won't be going out of your way to parade around in the buff, within reason.
So if one hasn't given permission, on can parade around in the buff beyond reason?
I don't think the permission aspect applies at all. If he gives people permission to corss his property, they do so at the risk of seeing him nude inside his home.
QuoteObviously the case is going to come down to whether there is reason to believe that his being seen naked was his intent, or simply an accident. If it is an accident, the case goes nowhere, I imagine.
I agree. I just don't think the trespass issue is relevant.
QuoteI don't think being on your own property gives you 100% freedom to walk around naked and flash the neighbors kids out the doorway.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
QuoteMy house faces onto a cul-de-sac where there are almost always a bunch of kids playing. Do I have a right to privacy that includes me parading around in my garage with the door open nude?
I shouldn't think so, but feel free to make your case. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:01:34 PM
Putting aside the ad hom attack, do you have any statistics on that? I would have thought that the most common offenders would be the biological father. Not that your stat couldn't be true either.
QuoteA study of child abuse registers in the United Kingdom found that 46 percent of paternal offenders were nonbirth fathers, compared to 54 percent who were birth fathers. Given the fact that during the study time frame only 4 percent of British children resided with nonbirth fathers, father-substitutes appear "substantially over-represented" among perpetrators. As one researcher concluded, "a stepfather was five times more likely to sexually victimize his stepdaughter than was a genetic father." In more than one study, stepfathers actually outnumbered natural fathers as abusers, a telling result given the disproportionately greater number of biological fathers during the study time frames.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1iPX-2I_4TMC&lpg=PT18&ots=O_JNi7QGAT&dq=stepfather%20most%20common%20abuser&pg=PT18#v=onepage&q=&f=false (footnotes and paragraphing omitted)
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2009, 02:05:21 PM
For what it's worth, I agree with the woman reporting the guy. He obviously has issues, and probably wouldn't stop at just flashing strangers. Today he flashes strangers, tomorrow he might flash his wife (and may not even stop at just flashing her).
Don't forget his evident predeliction for stimulants - 5 AM coffee. :contract:
These drug-addicted sex maniacs have to be kept under control.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:52:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:59:49 PM
Granted, it would be crazy if he was just in his house naked, and there was no reason for him to think a kid would be around.
See this is where you employ your intellectual dishonesty. you are making the argument, effectively, that anyone who goes naked around his house, where there is a chance (no matter how remote) that kids could possibly ever see them, is "flashing the kids".
This is where your idiocy lies.
Wow. That is quite the strawman.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:55:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:50:38 PM
And I can assure you that if one of my neighbors flashes my kids, I will call the cops. I don't think I am all the puritanical, but if some perv is flashing kids, then it is likely that is only the beginning of his sexual issues with children, not the end.
And here is the second part of your perfectly idiotic, moral-panic-style argument.
1. Anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter how remote the chance) is "flashing the children".
This is where you go into your normal lying mode. I never said anything of the kind.
Quote
2. Anyone who is "flashing the children" is likely having "sexual issues with children".
Adults who flash children most certainly have sexual issues with children.
Flashing, as I think I made rather clear, is an intentional act.
You have some serious issues Marty. Quite the lawyerly mind you have there.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:48:55 PM
Seeing how America seems to be in the constant state of moral panic
Your western neighbors seem to love to censor everything when it comes to video games to protect teh childrens so we are hardly alone in that...to the extent that we are.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:31:20 PM
Adults who flash children most certainly have sexual issues with children.
Why are we even arguing about this? I don't think anybody has said flashing children, or anybody for that matter, is a good thing to do.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 02:15:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 12:16:27 PM
Actually, yes. If people routinely walk on your property with your permission (and presumably they would not be doing so without it), then yes, it does seem reasonable to presume that you won't be going out of your way to parade around in the buff, within reason.
So if one hasn't given permission, on can parade around in the buff beyond reason?
No. I don't think I said that.
Quote
I don't think the permission aspect applies at all. If he gives people permission to corss his property, they do so at the risk of seeing him nude inside his home.
I think the permission aspect applies to the context of his being nude, and whether there is reason to think others might see him. If he knows that people are around the property a lot, then it is more reasonable to expect him to take that into account.
Conversely, if he lives on a mountain with no neighbors within miles, he can probably walk around in the yard buck naked, and if someone happens to go by, it seems reasonable for him to claim that he did not expect that.
It isn't a matter of permission, it is a matter of context. If there are people around outside your house all the time, then it seems hard to believe you can argue that you had no idea they would see you, and more plausible for a DA to argue that not only did you know they would see you, that you in fact set out with the intent for them to see you.
Quote
QuoteObviously the case is going to come down to whether there is reason to believe that his being seen naked was his intent, or simply an accident. If it is an accident, the case goes nowhere, I imagine.
I agree. I just don't think the trespass issue is relevant.
It is indirectly, I think. It speaks to his claim that he never intended to be seen, and the potential prosecutors claim that he did intend to be seen.
Quote
QuoteI don't think being on your own property gives you 100% freedom to walk around naked and flash the neighbors kids out the doorway.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
Well, isn't that germaine to the discussion? He was naked in either his kitchen or his carport. Both of those places are his private property, so clearly the fact that he was on his own property does not absolve him from any potential indecency charge.
Quote
QuoteMy house faces onto a cul-de-sac where there are almost always a bunch of kids playing. Do I have a right to privacy that includes me parading around in my garage with the door open nude?
I shouldn't think so, but feel free to make your case. :cool:
I'll leave that to Marty.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 02:34:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:31:20 PM
Adults who flash children most certainly have sexual issues with children.
Why are we even arguing about this? I don't think anybody has said flashing children, or anybody for that matter, is a good thing to do.
Because the claim of the woman is that he intentionally exposed himself.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 02:09:43 PM
Anyway, what about nudist families? Are the people who walk naked in nudist families in front of their children (and children walk naked too) pedophiles too?
Nobody has made any such claim, Mr. Lawyer.
Quote
I love how people here are equating nakedness with sex. Fucking puritan prudes.
I love how you prove over and over again what a intellectually dishonest slimeball you are.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:39:17 PM
Because the claim of the woman is that he intentionally exposed himself.
Yes and the question is whether or not he did that or whether they just stumbled upon him accidentally. Not whether or not he should be allowed to intentionally expose himself.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 02:41:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:39:17 PM
Because the claim of the woman is that he intentionally exposed himself.
Yes and the question is whether or not he did that or whether they just stumbled upon him accidentally. Not whether or not he should be allowed to intentionally expose himself.
...and?
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:39:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 02:34:43 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:31:20 PM
Adults who flash children most certainly have sexual issues with children.
Why are we even arguing about this? I don't think anybody has said flashing children, or anybody for that matter, is a good thing to do.
Because the claim of the woman is that he intentionally exposed himself.
Did she? The story you posted doesn't say.
QuoteSPRINGFIELD, Va. - 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.
The
implication may be that the exposure was intentional, because he was facing the way she was walking and according to her it was daylight, but that's about it.
I dunno, sure seems to be that is what she is saying...and if she isn't making such a claim, how could there even be a charge?
And come on - you are splitting hairs..."The woman who reported to police that a man in a Springfield home exposed himself to her and her son".
sure sounds like she is claiming he exposed himself to her intentionally.
From my training last summer, one psychiatrist mentioned that people who get off on exposing themselves (I forget the term, but I bet someone here knows it) typically do so in an environment where they can claim some kind of deniability. In other words, in situations just like this.
That certainly doesnèt prove this guy intended to do it, but just raising it as a factor.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:49:55 PM
From my training last summer, one psychiatrist mentioned that people who get off on exposing themselves (I forget the term, but I bet someone here knows it) typically do so in an environment where they can claim some kind of deniability. In other words, in situations just like this.
That certainly doesnèt prove this guy intended to do it, but just raising it as a factor.
LOL, CANADA
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:49:55 PM
From my training last summer, one psychiatrist mentioned that people who get off on exposing themselves (I forget the term, but I bet someone here knows it) typically do so in an environment where they can claim some kind of deniability. In other words, in situations just like this.
After that, did they tell you that shoplifters typically steal where they think they can get away with it? :lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:49:55 PM
From my training last summer, one psychiatrist mentioned that people who get off on exposing themselves (I forget the term, but I bet someone here knows it) typically do so in an environment where they can claim some kind of deniability. In other words, in situations just like this.
That certainly doesnèt prove this guy intended to do it, but just raising it as a factor.
Seems like it would be very difficult to actually get a conviction though - kind of be one word against another, and how do you prove he intended to expose himself, outside the guy doing so on the street or something?
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:59:57 PM
How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.
:mellow:
Wow. Usually I find these little tet-a-tets amusing, if a bit ridiculous. But then someone goes and says something like this, and I remember just how miserable some of the Languishites must be to even think like this, much less to type it out.
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:47:41 PM
Did it arouse you? :perv:
I know this is hard for some homos like Grallon and yourself to understand, but there are things that are pleasurable that are not arousing. Contrary, to what you might think, there is some merit to such things.
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:49:13 PM
I dunno, sure seems to be that is what she is saying...and if she isn't making such a claim, how could there even be a charge?
And come on - you are splitting hairs..."The woman who reported to police that a man in a Springfield home exposed himself to her and her son".
sure sounds like she is claiming he exposed himself to her intentionally.
No, that's a third parties' (the newscasters) description of the woman's report. You have to look at what the woman actually alleges happened.
It isn't splitting hairs, it's basic.
Certainly one would
hope that she's making the allegation, otherwise there is no case. But so far, neither the original story nor your second version, although they differ in significant ways, directly alleges he
deliberately exposed himself - though it's a reasonable
implication from the
facts of the second story (he was facing her way, it was broad daylight).
For example, if the woman claimed, "he said, 'hey baby, want some of this?'" ...
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 02:49:55 PM
From my training last summer, one psychiatrist mentioned that people who get off on exposing themselves (I forget the term, but I bet someone here knows it) typically do so in an environment where they can claim some kind of deniability. In other words, in situations just like this.
That certainly doesnèt prove this guy intended to do it, but just raising it as a factor.
Making the deep searching analysis that "people do stuff so they won't be caught"?
Now I know how to earn some expert consultant fees ... ;)
Heh, too funny ... the cops are feeling the heat of ridicule and are actively canvassing the neighbourhood to drum up evidence that he's a deliberate flasher.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_update#
QuoteOn 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.
...
So on Wednesday, officers canvassed the neighborhood with fliers, asking anyone who may have been subject to an exposure to come forward.
This, if true, may explain why they are going through such efforts:
QuotePolice wouldn't release the incident report or the name of the mother who filed the complaint. FOX 5 has learned she is a respected member of the community, and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer.
:lol:
Corruption is rife in America. Film at 11.
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2009, 03:00:51 PM
Making the deep searching analysis that "people do stuff so they won't be caught"?
Now I know how to earn some expert consultant fees ... ;)
ITès a little bit deeper than that.
Most sex crimes are crimes of opportunity, and are not planned out in advance.
Flashing is a little bit different in that it often is.
Hell - most crimes are committed in the heat of the moment, and are not carried out with any thought as to Ègetting away with itÈ.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 03:20:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 22, 2009, 03:00:51 PM
Making the deep searching analysis that "people do stuff so they won't be caught"?
Now I know how to earn some expert consultant fees ... ;)
ITès a little bit deeper than that.
Most sex crimes are crimes of opportunity, and are not planned out in advance.
Flashing is a little bit different in that it often is.
Hell - most crimes are committed in the heat of the moment, and are not carried out with any thought as to Ègetting away with itÈ.
Well, to be somewhat less snarky on my part - I imagine a not insignificant number of voyeurs get off on getting caught and humiliated by the authorities.
Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 10:08:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 09:36:29 AM
Not sure I get the point behind your retort. Are you trying to say that you guys are attempting to walk the middle ground between Western democracies and oppressive islamist theocracies?
If that's the case, then I guess you are on the right track. Otherwise, you make little sense.
Everybody is a critic and they all give us shit for our supposed sex issues. I suspect it more has to do with their own sex issues being projected on us.
If one group is not going out of their way to stereotype 300 million+ people for being puritans another is going out of their way casting us as perverts. It is all just standard bullshit anti-Americanism.
No, the vast majority of Americans are great big Goddamn crybaby bitches about sexual issues. We speak in whispers and euphemisms, even regarding the most ordinary fucks.
QuoteWe are a nation of 300 million with zillions of tiny jurisdictions where stupid things are done many times on a daily basis. Taking once incident and acting like it is somehow says something about the entire country is ridiculous.
Besides in this very thread there is a freaking Canadian Supreme Court Case about this very subject. Why don't you give Canadians shit? Is it because they are: not Americans? I think so.
If it makes you feel better, I think it's absolute asstarded that the man had to appeal to the CSC when he was already acquitted
at trial, or that the appellate court even has the power of hearing a criminal case de novo at the request of the State. Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but as I understood it, those appeals weren't from a dismissal, but a verdict. Are you Scythians truly so barbaric in your practices? :(
Quote from: Ideologue on October 22, 2009, 03:57:13 PM
If it makes you feel better, I think it's absolute asstarded that the man had to appeal to the CSC when he was already acquitted at trial, or that the appellate court even has the power of hearing a criminal case de novo at the request of the State. Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but as I understood it, those appeals weren't from a dismissal, but a verdict. Are you Scythians truly so barbaric in your practices? :(
:frusty:
I don't even know where to begin.
1. In R v Clark the accused was convicted at first instance.
2. There's no trial
de novo, the appellate court only reviews for errors of law.
3. Appeals of a dismissal vs appeals of a verdict is terminology that he no meaning in Canadian law.
4. What the fuck is wrong with the Crown appealing an acquittal? I've had to do it. Sometimes the judge just gets it wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 04:19:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 22, 2009, 03:57:13 PM
If it makes you feel better, I think it's absolute asstarded that the man had to appeal to the CSC when he was already acquitted at trial, or that the appellate court even has the power of hearing a criminal case de novo at the request of the State. Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but as I understood it, those appeals weren't from a dismissal, but a verdict. Are you Scythians truly so barbaric in your practices? :(
:frusty:
I don't even know where to begin.
1. In R v Clark the accused was convicted at first instance.
2. There's no trial de novo, the appellate court only reviews for errors of law.
3. Appeals of a dismissal vs appeals of a verdict is terminology that he no meaning in Canadian law.
4. What the fuck is wrong with the Crown appealing an acquittal? I've had to do it. Sometimes the judge just gets it wrong.
Ok, thanks for explaining--I misread it. Sorry. :(
So he was acquitted under 173(1)(b) due to lack of intent but convicted under subsection (a) of that law. Probably a more accurate analogue in American law would be a prosecutor appealing after a JNOV setting aside a guilty verdict. It seems kind of weird that he didn't have a jury trial.
But I thought we discussed this once before--that the Crown
can actually appeal an actual final judgment or verdict, even in favor of the defendant. And that the CoA can substitute a conviction for an acquittal. I'm relatively positive the first isn't permitted in the US except under exceptions where jeopardy has not attached--like when the trial has been tainted by substantial fraud. I'm pretty sure the second requires the trial judge to have granted a JNOV in favor of the defendant--I don't believe any CoA is competent to substitute its judgment for anyone's in a criminal case, only to reinstate a jury's verdict.
To make sure I've got this clear, if the case was as I misunderstood it--with Clark being acquitted--the Crown
could still appeal and be granted a new trial, right?
As a side question, I didn't get the wilfulness in Clark's actions. I thought wilfull meant intentional (looking up the definition isn't much help there though really). Does it mean merely reckless or grossly negligent in Canada?
Quote from: Ideologue on October 22, 2009, 04:43:02 PM
Ok, thanks for explaining--I misread it. Sorry. :(
So he was acquitted under 173(1)(b) due to lack of intent but convicted under subsection (a) of that law. Probably a more accurate analogue in American law would be a prosecutor appealing after a JNOV setting aside a guilty verdict. It seems kind of weird that he didn't have a jury trial.
But I thought we discussed this once before--that the Crown can actually appeal an actual final judgment or verdict, even in favor of the defendant. And that the CoA can substitute a conviction for an acquittal. I'm relatively positive the first isn't permitted in the US except under exceptions where jeopardy has not attached--like when the trial has been tainted by substantial fraud. I'm pretty sure the second is totally verboten. :unsure:
To make sure I've got this clear, if the case was as I misunderstood it--with Clark being acquitted--the Crown could still appeal and be granted a new trial, right?
It's not odd at all - s. 173 is a summary conviction offense, which means no option of a jury trial.
And yes, we can and do appeal from acquittals. The key however is there has to be an error of law. It's generally not enough to say 'the judge should not have believed the accused', however if we can show that the judge applied the wrong legal test, or the wrong statute, then why not? To be blunt if you can't correct a judge's mistakes of law what's to prevent them from deliberately ignoring the law? As it is I've seen judges deliberately ignore binding precedents that they don't like, essentially daring us to appeal them (which we know we are unlikely to do, since appeals are a lot of work).
So how would the US deal with a situation where the judges ruling is simply contrary to law?
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 04:54:07 PM
So how would the US deal with a situation where the judges ruling is simply contrary to law?
We stuff it and live with bad precedent for decades until another similar case comes up and new precedent is made. Naturally. :P
Beeb:
I guess "living with it" is pretty much correct--though MiM, only trial judges are at issue here. CoA judges are overturned all the time. This has nothing to do with the discussion, but I got to see some 4th Circuit oral argument the other day and they were hilarious. I wish the first one was on youtube so I could show you guys the man least suited to be an appellate lawyer in the state of South Carolina. Poor bastard's first time, and he had to do it with, firstly, a weak case, and secondly, in front of 1000 law students laughing inside their heads when he fucked up. And boy did he fuck up. He had one of the judges so offended he literally shrieked at him--can't say which, because the judge was stunned enough that his voice went up about four octaves becoming unrecognizably high-pitched. At first we thought it was one of the (female) clerks. :lol:
Anyhow, judges almost never convict anyone of anything. Regarding a judge's trial conduct, jury charges are appealable as a matter of law in civil matters of course, but after a cursory look I haven't found any cases where the state has appealed a jury charge in a criminal proceeding. Judges can set aside a guilty verdict, but only if he or she believes that they have reached a conclusion that no reasonable jury could given the evidence, and this is appealable, since there is a verdict in hand and a voiding of the judge's order in this case does not constitute double jeopardy.
I do not believe judges can set aside an acquittal in any normal circumstance, and likewise prosectors cannot appeal from it. Juries can nullify law, but are kinda-sorta not supposed to, and jury charges to the effect that "There is no such thing as a valid nullification" are apparently okay, and obviously the lack of a jury charge to the effect that nullification is possible is not an error of law. I am not aware of any JNOV removing the issue from a nullifying jury, nor of an ability for the state to appeal from a jury nullification. I think they have to choke it down. I suppose it might be technically permissible for a judge to give the opposite instruction, charging the jury that nullification is okay. If the jury went ahead and did this, I don't see how the state could do anything about the verdict, though I guess they might be able to do something about the judge (by not reappointing him, impeaching him, etc.).
There are some narrow exceptions--if the trial is shown to be out-and-out fraudulent (e.g., the judge was bribed to throw the trial), such fraud is held to have created a circumstance in which jeopardy of life and limb never attached in the first place, so a new trial can be held, even if the trial was favorable to the defendant. Afaik, this is the only way to try someone twice for the same offense in the same level of jurisdiction. Oh, and if the first trial was held in a court without authority (i.e., an illegal township's tribunal of a gunslinger) jeopardy doesn't attach, but this seems more like a separate sovereigns issue to me. Don't know if you guys have that.
Appeals viz. factual issues, however, can only be made when the trial judge has committed an abuse of discretion, but--so far as I can tell--this is not appealable by the state. I'm not 100% convinced they couldn't, if the judge's behavior was [tim]absolutely appalling,[/tim] but I haven't seen a case like that in any readings, and some cursory research this afternoon has not uncovered one. Plenty where the defendant has appealed, tho.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 22, 2009, 05:33:16 PM
I guess "living with it" is pretty much correct
Well that's just stupid, and yet another proof of the failings of the US Justice system. :console:
Beeb's appellate flow chart:
The accused is:
Convicted----Acquitted
| |
Hooray! White-----An Indian
| | |
Gaol Oh well APPEAL
|
Upheld------Reversed/Convicted
| |
APPEAL Hooray!
| |
Upheld------Rev'd/Convicted Gaol
| |
Remind Hooray!
court |
that Gaol
accused is
a minority
|
Albertan death squads
You know that is actually quite personally offensive Ideologue, intended as a joke or not.
I'm offended by the use of "gaol"
Ide is the sort of weirdo that inserts a "u" into Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
You know that is actually quite personally offensive Ideologue, intended as a joke or not.
:huh: Of course I was just kidding around. I know good and well that isn't you, Beeb.
That said, if you're offended, I apologize. I didn't think that it would bother you, nor particularly outside the ambit of usual Languish bullshit. Hell, I figured you'd be more offended by the pleated diaper joke. Nevertheless, sorry. :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2009, 06:11:36 PM
Ide is the sort of weirdo that inserts a "u" into Pearl Harbor.
Like between the "r' and the "l"? Man, the South really is fucked up.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 22, 2009, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 22, 2009, 06:11:36 PM
Ide is the sort of weirdo that inserts a "u" into Pearl Harbor.
Like between the "r' and the "l"? Man, the South really is fucked up.
Mew.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
You know that is actually quite personally offensive Ideologue, intended as a joke or not.
Yeah, Beeb appeals all acquittals regardless of color. :mad:
Quote from: Ideologue on October 22, 2009, 06:16:46 PM
:huh: Of course I was just kidding around. I know good and well that isn't you, Beeb.
That said, if you're offended, I apologize. I didn't think that it would bother you, nor particularly outside the ambit of usual Languish bullshit. Hell, I figured you'd be more offended by the pleated diaper joke. Nevertheless, sorry. :(
I knew you were joking Ideo. But nevertheless it's a joke that goes to the core of professional ethics and responsibilities.
Thank you for the apology, and make as many pleated diaper jokes as you'd like to. :hug:
In an ideal world, no case would ever go to trial. The Albertan death squads should be getting involved before Beeb gets a chance to press charges.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 06:56:04 PM
But nevertheless it's a joke that goes to the core of professional ethics and responsibilities.
But you're a lawyer?!?! :huh:
Quote from: Berkut on October 22, 2009, 02:38:32 PM
No. I don't think I said that.
I dunno what your point is, then.
QuoteI think the permission aspect applies to the context of his being nude, and whether there is reason to think others might see him. If he knows that people are around the property a lot, then it is more reasonable to expect him to take that into account.
The man has no obligation to consider what people on his property see inside his house. If they don't want to see what is inside his house, they should stay off his property. This is not a public space we are talking about.
QuoteConversely, if he lives on a mountain with no neighbors within miles, he can probably walk around in the yard buck naked, and if someone happens to go by, it seems reasonable for him to claim that he did not expect that.
If he is naked in a public space (which includes his yard if visible from public areas, but not if he has taken steps to make it not visible, like a fence), he cannot claim that he had no expectation that it was in use by the public. That is a difference between public and private property.
QuoteIt isn't a matter of permission, it is a matter of context. If there are people around outside your house all the time, then it seems hard to believe you can argue that you had no idea they would see you, and more plausible for a DA to argue that not only did you know they would see you, that you in fact set out with the intent for them to see you.
I don't believe that that is the way the law sees it. If what occurs in one's home is visible to the public in public spaces, that is a far different case than what someone may see from on one's own property.
QuoteIt is indirectly, I think. It speaks to his claim that he never intended to be seen, and the potential prosecutors claim that he did intend to be seen.
He has no obligation not to be seen. He simply has an obligation not to be seen from public spaces.
QuoteWell, isn't that germaine to the discussion? He was naked in either his kitchen or his carport. Both of those places are his private property, so clearly the fact that he was on his own property does not absolve him from any potential indecency charge.
I don't see how this is germaine to the discussion, unless his carport also cannot be seen from off his property, in which case he can dance around in it naked as much as he pleases. It is only his obligation not to impose his nudity on the public in public places.
Quote from: merithyn on October 22, 2009, 02:56:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:59:57 PM
How often do you molest your wife's children? Types like you (step fathers) are most common offenders in pedophilia cases. I hope the local police have an eye on you.
:mellow:
Wow. Usually I find these little tet-a-tets amusing, if a bit ridiculous. But then someone goes and says something like this, and I remember just how miserable some of the Languishites must be to even think like this, much less to type it out.
That's our boy Marti for ya! :cry:
Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:55:15 PM
And here is the second part of your perfectly idiotic, moral-panic-style argument.
1. Anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter how remote the chance) is "flashing the children".
2. Anyone who is "flashing the children" is likely having "sexual issues with children".
Ergo, anyone who walks naked in a place where they could be seen by children (no matter if this is their private property and no matter how remote the chance) is a pedophile.
Perfect Berkut logic. :lol:
I do believe that this is the finest example of a strawman I have seen yet on Languish. The "perfect Berkut logic" is
100% made up by you out of whole cloth, and you smugly think you have scored a point. Just wow.
You lost little credibility on Languish with this post, for you had little to lose. Any you had, though, you lost.
Quote from: grumbler on October 22, 2009, 09:53:51 PM
I do believe that this is the finest example of a strawman I have seen yet on Languish. The "perfect Berkut logic" is 100% made up by you out of whole cloth, and you smugly think you have scored a point. Just wow.
You lost little credibility on Languish with this post, for you had little to lose. Any you had, though, you lost.
Haven't you made that statement to Marty before? So you're suggesting in the interim he
gained some credibility? :huh:
I think people's jobs should be a safe zone. No jokes about them please.
The radiation's finally gotten to Brain. :(
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 06:01:16 PM
You know that is actually quite personally offensive Ideologue, intended as a joke or not.
I know. I would feel extremely offended if anyone made a joke about my lawyering skills. Hell, I'd demand a formal apology.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2009, 10:05:22 PM
Haven't you made that statement to Marty before? So you're suggesting in the interim he gained some credibility? :huh:
:huh: I am pointing out what is true if he did.
Quote from: Barrister on October 22, 2009, 06:56:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on October 22, 2009, 06:16:46 PM
:huh: Of course I was just kidding around. I know good and well that isn't you, Beeb.
That said, if you're offended, I apologize. I didn't think that it would bother you, nor particularly outside the ambit of usual Languish bullshit. Hell, I figured you'd be more offended by the pleated diaper joke. Nevertheless, sorry. :(
I knew you were joking Ideo. But nevertheless it's a joke that goes to the core of professional ethics and responsibilities.
Thank you for the apology, and make as many pleated diaper jokes as you'd like to. :hug:
You're welcome. :)
Barrister wasn't offended. His concern is that people will read Languish and if stuff like that is floating around it could be interpreted (or claimed to be interpreted) as a sign of real unprofessionalism (smoke and fire and whatnot).
Quote from: The Brain on October 23, 2009, 07:32:22 AM
Barrister wasn't offended. His concern is that people will read Languish and if stuff like that is floating around it could be interpreted (or claimed to be interpreted) as a sign of real unprofessionalism (smoke and fire and whatnot).
"Silence implies consent."
That is why CdM puts the duct tape over their mouths.