Press On: Overexposed

nice title.

Rediculous. Why was that woman looking in to his home, is that not his private domain? Curtains were in order, but facing a year in jail for this is just plain stupid.

Yes ridiculous! Now the freedom of our santuaries are being invaded. The guy went out and resolved the issue by buying curtains and installing them, that should have been the end of story! The officers should have given the guy a warning instead of the actions they took and in no way in He ll should he be faced with even a possible years sentence, obsurd! Unless on the other hand he has a criminal background of any type of sex activity and then that would leave me to believe he purposely exposed himself curtains or not!

Joke wrote:

Yes ridiculous! Now the freedom of our santuaries are being invaded. The guy went out and resolved the issue by buying curtains and installing them, that should have been the end of story! The officers should have given the guy a warning instead of the actions they took and in no way in He ll should he be faced with even a possible years sentence, obsurd! Unless on the other hand he has a criminal background of any type of sex activity and then that would leave me to believe he purposely exposed himself curtains or not!

True, but there was no mention of past sexual perversion. Absurd is correct. Big Brother is watching!(or nosey old ladies).

What the article also said was that the woman cut through his property on her way to drop her kid off. I think she should be brought up on trespassing if he gets popped for indecent exposure. This whole story is a joke.

nick wrote:

What the article also said was that the woman cut through his property on her way to drop her kid off. I think she should be brought up on trespassing if he gets popped for indecent exposure. This whole story is a joke.

This story is a joke, waste of taxpayers money. I did not read however, that the woman "cut through his property"?

I believe I stated if you re-read, Unless of course there was!

Insanity wrote:

<quoted text>True, but there was no mention of past sexual perversion. Absurd is correct. Big Brother is watching!(or nosey old ladies).

The reason there were no curtains on his window was because he was packing his crap up to move out of the house. Get your facts straight.

i wonder if this person has any prior problems with sexual deviance, etc., then the guy deserves what he gets-- but, if this guy really was just innocently standing in his home in the buff and the government acted this way, then he is the victim and we should all be worried about what we can and can't do IN OUR OWN HOMES.

no real judgment can be made strictly from this story.

The complaining party was a cop's wife.

She finally saw a real one?

Shouldn't nosey neighbor get a peeping charge? I mean if this was different and it was a man taking his son to school and they looked in and saw a naked women fixing breakfast would this had been handled different?
What if it was a teenage girl fixing corn flakes in the buff? I see Megans list all over that one.

"Regardless of what happens to Williamson in court, I believe that he made a poor decision that morning, and I know he realizes that too; otherwise he would not have installed curtains that afternoon. "

This is absolute hogwash. I don't think you can draw any conclusion about what he knew prior to the event based on his hanging of the curtains after the event. An oversight, as opposed to a "poor decision" worthy of punishment, are two very different things. The fact that he installed curtains after the event in no way proves he knew or should have known that he was visible or being watched. Hindsight is 20/20. It was corrective action he took AFTER becoming aware that people were inside his yard watching him. It is ridiculous to claim that hanging the curtains proves anything about what he knew before the problem was brought to his attention. After a problem occurs, our attention is naturally drawn to ways in which it could be avoided or fixed. That doesn't mean that we should have or even could have predicted the problem to begin with. The fact remains that the people who saw him were on his property uninvited. The "view" was much less "favorable" if they had been on public property and not cutting through his yard -- not to mention if they had not been looking into his windows. To assume one's privacy will be respected by passers by is a generally valid. We have a name for people who look in windows uninvited. They are called peepers.