Busted in the buff

Remove all ads!

I saw this video on Fox and it got me thinking. There have clearly been times when I have passed an uncovered window au natural. I would hate to be arrested and charged with a sex crime because of it. I would think there has to be a clear distinction between exposing yourself for lude reasons and innocently being caught naked. Whatever happened to the concept of a man's castle?

Link

 

Wow, I'm actually surprised by that. Looking into someone's home, on his property, and seeing them in that state would make that person a "peeping Tom," I would have thought. Eric needs a good lawyer.

 

I totally agree except if you're in the nude and looking for some lube... Sorry I had to make that pun, play on words, wathever. Apologies Snookie.

On a more serious note, if you live on the ground floor you have to admit that it can't be much different from exposing yourself to bystanders.

I don't think it's such a problem if you live in a flat on the nth floor or if you have a secluded property with no neighbours in view. In the country many girls sunbathe completely naked (swimsuits can really ruin your tan) and it doesn't seem to pose so many problems.

Standing naked in your flat close to a window won't get you arrested if people in the street can't see you. From a certain number of floors it seems that shouldn't be the case unless if your genitals are visible from down there (which is not a good thing or maybe the sign that you should try and get into the adult film industry). Of course you may have people with binoculars on the other side of the street. Funny thing, I knew a guy who had a telescope and who wasn't into astronomy or birds at all. To be honest he was a class-A weirdo.

 

We have a playground just outside our window, I'd hate to have some pedophile wank in front of a similar window while looking at a children and get away with it because he is doing it in "his castle". It's a silly concept anyhow. I find the case a bit silly but somewhat understandable. If you want to have your castle then you should buy enough land around to it not expose other people to your nakedness, or alternatively just use curtains.

 

dmc,

I think it's a sign of the times. The law really comes down hard on any type of sexual crime against minors. While I don't necessarily have a problem with throwing a book at a pervert, I have a major problem that the mere accusation by a woman walking through your yard is enough for police to bust into your bedroom and arrest you. I mean, would it have killed them to knock on his door and ask him a few questions?

I cannot imagine that this is how police officers operate with many other types of crime. For example, I doubt the police would have nabbed the guy in his bedroom if someone had accused him of burglary if they had no proof beyond one person's accusation. I think that's the part that really bugs me the most. Even if this guy DID intentionally expose himself (IMO he was a bit negligent - pulling closed the curtains is a reasonable measure that can be taken if you're walking around naked), I find it disturbing that based on a mere accusation and no evidence that you could arrest someone.

And I cannot believe this case could ever get into a court of law. Having served on a grand jury, the county/state has to present evidence to a jury before the case even goes to criminal court. There is no guilty/not guilty verdict at a grand jury level - heck the defense isn't even allowed in court. The only thing the grand jury decides is whether or not there is reasonable cause for the accused person to stand trial. Generally speaking, either a lawyer or a police officer presents the evidence to the jury, and if you get a majority to say yes, the case goes to criminal court - and about 99% of all cases presented to the grand jury I served on were sent to court. If the only evidence the officer presents is "this woman said so", I would hope the grand jury would say they guy doesn't even need to stand trial.

 

Let me reiterate my opinion on the state of the US, as I stated before. We are a bunch of wussies! Are you kidding me? Arresting a guy for being naked in his own house? Did a group of anal-rententive virgins suddenly take over the US legal system. This should be thrown out of court, a gigantic waste of taxpayer dollars. Before having kids, I always walked naked in my house. Why? Because it's mine! If you lose the sanctity of your own home, what do we have left? We can have nudist colonies, nude beaches, but you can't walk around naked in your own home? That is just stupid!

 

Another one from Absurdistan ...

Something like that wouldn't happen in that form in Germany. If they had come at all, police, and certainly not more than two cops, would have knocked at his door, and told the guy that he ought to mind to close curtains when he's in his house naked because there had been complaints. End of story.

The denunciation of that man is the result of puritan prudery. But the call for curtains contrasts with the puritan idea (once prominent in the Netherlands for instance) of transparency - which expressly prohibited curtains, because everyone should be able to see (and log) the actions of his neighbour, holding him to the task (or burning him at the stake) for ungodly conduct. It also gave those idle hands something to do, benefits self-esteem and society as a whole. In that sense, unlike the commenters recommending curtains, the lady got the spirit just right.

The police overreacted, in a particularly ham fisted way that appears to be a trademark of US police (thinking of all the tasering incidents our nekkid guy can count himself lucky the cops didn't get the impression he resisted arrest). I mean, how many, five or six cops for this one guy, for that? Who did they think he was? And then, they were entering his home without a search warrant, just based on the complaint of a woman passing by his house? It's not as if there was an imminent danger here. After making coffee in the kitchen, naked, he was in his bedroom, naked, and not nakedly standing in the window, masturbating. What happened to the invulnerability of the private sphere when some upset prude's call results in five or so cops coming to your bedroom - with the bathroom essentially the inner sanctum of your private sphere - arresting you, calling you a pervert? What about proportionality?

America is, let's face it, remarkably ambivalent on sexuality. You have explicit porn on cable. But kids as young as 12 or so have been arrested for sex crimes because of playing doctor. Topless or naked bathing is in many states prohibited. And apparently, you also can't run around in your house naked, without blacking your house out, after all, someone could see you! Indeed, it is the dark time of the year when one can clearly see from the outside what's going on in lit rooms in a house. And especially early in the day someone might spot morning wood

Still, I really don't understand the view that he basically had it coming, after all he could have done something to prevent that from happening. To do that he needed to predict that one of his neighbours would come to his property, gawking, to be greatly offended at his sight and call the cops ... aah, ok, it happened in America, so that argument doesn't count. The idea is: Just as he had the option to pull curtains, she had the option to look away quickly and mind her own business. After all, he was just naked in his house.

America has a knack for excessive and inconsistent punishment, and to Europeans often an alien understanding of what constitutes justice. So some Judge of the Peace refuses to marry interracial couples because he doesn't think races should mix in that way. Is he the only one to rely on such 'gut feelings'? Why not presume that a judge or a jury feel that perverts must be punished, and 'know a pervert when they see one', never mind intent, evidence or trifles of that kind? Wonderful character with such a mindset is Col. 'Bat' Guano in Dr. Strangelove. To the cops hearsay was reason enough to storm his bedroom and call him a pervert i.e. assuming him guilty. Gov. Perry of Texas, after very probably ordering the execution of an innocent man, today remarked that the death penalty is working fine (indeed, the guy is perfectly dead). People have gotten 12 years in jail for selling dope, while rapists often get far less. American doesn't have the largest prison population globally for no reason. It is thus fully plausible to me that the local justice systems might result in a guilty verdict and jail time for that man, for nothing really.

​

Indeed, decent Americans are to be dressed in bed and have the lights out! It boggles the mind to imagine, how, while sticking to that dress code strictly, something like the baby boomer generation could ever manifest itself. The thought certainly makes Elliot Spitzer's preference for wearing socks during sex more comprehensible, suggesting it to be at least part of traditional attire.

The entire episode is patently absurd.

 

Oh, wont somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!

 

Obviously, the child will be severely traumatised by the sight of a naked man making coffee.

 

I'd be in jail for a long time if being naked in your own house were a crime. LKD likes to let it all hang out!

I hope the police get punished for their over - exuberance. I hope the woman is charged with trespassing and invasion of privacy -- she had no reason to be looking into a private residence.

 

TMI ... just ... TMI.

 

I've got photos if you want 'em, T2Bruno! Black and white, colour, weird angle shots, the whole 9 yards*

*I wish

 

Good point especially when you look at LKD's signature.

@LKD: I know I shouldn't be asking but please define "weird" as in "weird angle shots"....

 

That would have actually been funnier, without the asterik.

While I do find it strange that he was basically walking around his house in the nude (I don't think I've ever made coffee while I was naked), I agree that the reaction by the woman and the police officers was excessive. And I certainly don't think the guy did anything illegal.

Now that this has got national news attention, I foresee the charges being dropped and an apology issued to him.

@Rags - I wasn't suggesting that the guy was obligated to close his curtains, I was merely suggesting that most people when they would prefer not to be seen in their homes DO close their curtains - whether they are naked or just want privacy.

 

Come on?! No way! I don't believe this. Never ever? Not even after a rough and sweaty night with a sexy cheerleader?

 

Sadly, I have never spent a rough and sweaty night with a sexy cheerleader. And given that I'm 35, that's probably something that's never going to get crossed off my bucket list.

 

Well, it depends on what the man was using to stir his coffee after adding cream and sugar.

 

Now I'm feeling sad.

Let me re-phrase please: a rough and sweaty night with a sexy former cheerleader?

That's the kind of night that would give anyone the incentive to make some coffee without getting dressed.

Although I can understand that the handling of possibly scalding beverages is not something that one should attempt in the buff. Especially if you're not a morning person.

Cream and sugar? That is disgusting!

 

My eyes are burning from the mental image this conjured up.

That's never happened either - but it's OK - I've come to terms with this a long time ago. I will also probably never spend a rough and sweaty night with a supermodel either - or anyone with the exception of Mrs. Idiot, if Mrs. Idiot has anything to say about it.