EtUL wrote:The double standard he's referring to is that if the roles were reversed, she standing nude in a window and him being outside on a trail behind her house, HE would be a peeping tom pervert.
I don't see anything in any of those articles that says she was on a trail behind his house, or anywhere other than walking down the street with her son.
Since all 3 links I read imply that not only could you see him from the street, but also that multiple people have seen him doing it, I don't really understand why everyone is piling on acting as if this was some sort of invasion of the man's privacy.
EtUL wrote:The double standard he's referring to is that if the roles were reversed, she standing nude in a window and him being outside on a trail behind her house, HE would be a peeping tom pervert.
I don't see anything in any of those articles that says she was on a trail behind his house, or anywhere other than walking down the street with her son.
Since all 3 links I read imply that not only could you see him from the street, but also that multiple people have seen him doing it, I don't really understand why everyone is piling on acting as if this was some sort of invasion of the man's privacy.
Maybe not a breach of privacy, but if they guy being spotted thru his window is indecent behaviour, I wonder what might happen to people like me whose TV is in quite open view of the street thru large windows. I don't often walk naked in front of the window, but I do watch violent movies or documentaries(or the like) with unedited footage of atrocities.
What if the woman was walking in front of my house and saw in beautiful 1080p a man being disemboweled or a bulldozer plowing a pile of dead jews into a mass grave?
If the lady (and everybody else who saw him) was on his private property, then it's a whole different case. If people can only see him when they're on his property, then I can't imagine any justification at all for having a problem with the guy's actions -- much less charging him with a crime. I must have just missed that line in the article because I didn't come away from it with that impression.
At any rate, I'm not trying to sentence the guy here or anything -- I admit there's no way I can know exactly what the facts are. I just didn't understand, from what I read, why so many people seemed to be championing his ability to parade nude for others to see.
TBH, if this lady was on his property when she saw him, I think he'd be justified in suing HER for making him out to be some kind of pedo in front of the rest of the community, just to clear his name.
R00k wrote:If the lady (and everybody else who saw him) was on his private property, then it's a whole different case. If people can only see him when they're on his property, then I can't imagine any justification at all for having a problem with the guy's actions -- much less charging him with a crime. I must have just missed that line in the article because I didn't come away from it with that impression.
Which is why I didn't bash you.
I happen to not believe the witnesses at all. The first one said she heard "loud singing" while driving past in her car. It must have been pretty fucking loud if she's driving an automobile (and there's no mention if she had her windows rolled down). She's obviously making up excuses for looking at the naked man in the window as it was probably the only source of light on the street at 5 am. And the second lady (walking the young boy) was indeed cutting through the guy's yard which I find hilarious.
There once was a man named Erick
Believing nakedness was quite aesthetic,
When his neighborhood cunts
Started naked witchhunts,
He learned freedom was esoteric.
GONNAFISTYA wrote:
Which is why I didn't bash you.
I happen to not believe the witnesses at all. The first one said she heard "loud singing" while driving past in her car. It must have been pretty fucking loud if she's driving an automobile (and there's no mention if she had her windows rolled down). She's obviously making up excuses for looking at the naked man in the window as it was probably the only source of light on the street at 5 am. And the second lady (walking the young boy) was indeed cutting through the guy's yard which I find hilarious.
Nobody said court rulings had to make sense.
When dealing with witness testimony I tend to begin with thinking that they are wrong and then lend credibility as you learn more about them and the circumstances.
From researching the "witness testimony!!!" arguments of the faithful to what I've read of innocence project stories, I've decided witnesses are unreliable. A number of reasons contribute, it's cool to learn about if you're interested.
Also, I might've seen it here first but whatever, it's a cool thing for people who haven't seen it: Watch the movie on this site, and count how many times the people in the WHITE shirts only pass the ball.
I'm in between r00k and the rest here.
I do think a bit of prudence even when in your own home is not a bad thing, but arresting a person for it is a bit over the top. The woman could've handled this without police interference, and even if police would be involved, they could've warned him rather than arrest him.
Right now it's like he committed a crime, which he didn't. He should, however, take a moment to think about the implications of his actions.
To be honest I've seen goatse so many times I'm immune to it. There's still a lot of endbosses in the ol' game of internets that make me wince and quickly close (pain series) but goatse is not one of them.
I can still remember my first time being goatse'd too...pretty sure it was on this board.
