Erick Wililamson decided to spend a morning in the buff packing and drinking coffee. Trouble is, on this fine October morning, two women saw him through the windows of his home, and didn't think highly of his unusual morning ritual. He was convicted of public indecency, but given a suspended sentence and no fine. Not satisfied, Mr. Williamson is appealing, saying he never intended anyone to see him. His lawyer says that neither of the conditions required for an incident to be considered obscene by Virginia law. Those requirements are "an obsene display or exposure" and must be in a "public place or place where people are present."
I'm no lawyer, but when people see you from the street it seems to me that you should either be putting on clothes or buying drapes. And you definitely shouldn't be singing loudly or rattling things around. And I almost hope an appeals court gives him some jail time and a fine, because he obviously needs to be educated on how to respond to a lenient court.
This man should build and live in a "no-glass house".
ReplyDeleteHe should have filed counter charges for invasion of privacy, stalking and the women being a peeping tom.
ReplyDeleteDon't think stalking would have worked, but peeping tom has possibilities.
ReplyDeleteHe was in his own house and was not trying to show anyone.
ReplyDeleteI have to side with the "He's in his private domain" group. What someone chooses to do in their own house is their business. If the women weren't being nosy, they wouldn't have notice the man was undressed. Now, if he was standing infront of a full window facing the street doing the helicopter, that would be different.
ReplyDeleteA home is a person's private area. Not having shades or curtains doesn't remove that expectation. It may lessen the privacy, but no more than becoming water-cooler gossip fodder. If I want to walk around naked in my own home, I should be able to do so. If I want to have neon orange pinstripes on my puke green walls, I should be able to do so. People may (will) talk, but they should not be able to have a court make me change my decoration/painting/clothing choices.
Besides, if he was to make a plaster molding of his naked body and display it in his window, they women would have simply said it was an interesting piece of art.
I don't know. Without being there to see what happened or hearing the actual testimony it's hard to say, but the first woman said she heard "loud singing" and when she turned to look he was standing behind a picture window. Seems a little iffy. The second woman heard a rattle and turned to see what it was, and he was in a doorway. If he actually made eye contact as she claims, he may have been trying to be seen.
ReplyDeleteI also have a little trouble with the idea that it's ok to walk around naked in a house with no window coverings. It's unreasonable to expect no one to look into a window if there's nothing obstructing the view.