I said "Mulling" not "Mullet
The latter is banned in all polite circles, with good reason:
Posted on 03/26/2010 9:30:59 PM PDT by Chet 99
The case of the Naked Guy -- the Fairfax County man arrested for being naked inside his own house last fall -- is starting to sprout some serious legal wings, after Fairfax police officers testified Friday that they had no warrant when they entered the man's house, and then approached him with their guns drawn as he slept, with pants on, in his bed.
The case of Erick Williamson, 29, attracted significant media attention for his claims that he had been arrested for indecent exposure on Oct. 19 simply for drinking coffee in the nude in the kitchen of his rented Springfield house. At his misdemeanor trial in Fairfax General District Court in December, it turned out it wasn't that simple.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
See post 18 for links and quotes. They were cutting through his yard. If you need to trespass onto my property to get a view of me naked, then the solution is for you not to trespass.
OK- was he naked, or asleep with his pants on?
No, she said she was using a path between the houses. Was there a trespass charge?
The first woman that he exposed himself to called the Police hours before the second woman said that he exposed himself to her and the child from two different areas, he was convicted.
>”The incidents occurred at Williamson’s rented townhouse on Arley Drive in the Springfield area. In the first, neighbor Joyce Giuliani testified that she heard moaning coming from Williamson’s house about 6:15 a.m., then singing at 6:35. On her way to work a few minutes later, she said, she drove past the townhouse, glanced at it and saw a man standing in the front window “unclothed.” She could not identify Williamson specifically.
Giuliani then called police, according to Dickson J. Young, Williamson’s attorney. He said police responded and saw nothing. Young said he would explore that angle in the Circuit Court trial.
Yvette Dean testified that about two hours later, at 8:40 a.m., she and her son were walking single file on a footpath near the side of Williamson’s home. Dean said she heard “a rattling sound that distracted me.” She looked over and saw Williamson standing in a doorway, holding open the screen door with one hand, and made eye contact with him.
“How was he dressed?” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Marc Birnbaum asked.
“He wasn’t,” Dean replied.
She said her son was in front of her, so she darted up to him and put a coat over him so he couldn’t see. They continued walking toward the sidewalk on Arley Drive on their way to Hunt Valley Elementary School.
“I looked again,” Dean said. Williamson had moved to a window at the front of the house, still offering a fully unobstructed view of himself, she said.”<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804027.html
the case is a close case...my issue would be why the Police felt they had to call his employer.
That’s seriously Effed up...given that he hadn’t been convicted of anything.
I am hitting the abuse button! Mulling is not allowed on FR. This whole thread should be pulled. First, Chet99 posts a story about nekked people and then that arouses you to start mulling!
What has FR come to??
:-)
“She said her son was in front of her, so she darted up to him and put a coat over him so he couldn’t see.”
I can understand covering the eyes of a child who is the opposite sex of the nude adult, but not the same sex. She is protecting her child from what...knowing what the future holds?
This whole thing sounds like my whole life working to help stop abuse and neglect—
Somebody does something, but the facts change every time you get another story from another character.
Somebody is shocked, or outraged, or thinks the behavior is risky, but other folks don’t think it’s that big a deal.
Nobody was really hurt, but the incident falls into a general category of events that can be hurtful.
Intervention causes about as much (and sometimes more) alarm and distress as the original incident.
The whole environment is so altered by the confusion of the original story, that “truth” is almost unimportant after a while. Who knows what the women who reported the incident really saw? Who knows what the guy really was thinking? I don’t even want to hazard a guess about whether the guy really was in the carport or whether this is just a trivial accident grown in the telling.
To a professional, questions arise as to whether the guy in the house is cognitively whole. Perhaps he is even partially disabled.
What a mess! It’s tough being in law enforcement; it’s tough trying to be a parent; it’s tough having the community think you’re a perv; it’s tough trying to stand up for community standards when about everybody make excuses for every weird thing done by every weird person.
I said "Mulling" not "Mullet
The latter is banned in all polite circles, with good reason:
Nice hair. Why no lipstick?
:-)
Nudity has to do with context, a pervert exposing himself to a child on his way to school with his mother, drawing a reaction from the mom isn’t surprising.
It is a rare 7 year old boy that has seen a grown naked man holding a screen door open in all his glory and looking at him. His mother’s reaction does not seem unusual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.