Man Arrested in Own Home for Indecent Exposure

[Lonestar_logic]

Ok, argue it all you want. The trick is proving it in a court of law (intentionally leaving the shades up). Hell dude I've accidentally done it a couple of times when my wife left the shades open and didn't tell me. The second thing I do after taking a leak is go to the kitchen and start the coffee, then I get dressed. I check every time now to make sure the shades are pulled. I'm sure he'll start doing that from now on.

How easy would it be to prove you left your shades up "accidently"?

Lonestar, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accusee, In my humble but accurate opinion in this instance it would be nearly impossible for the prosecutor to prove intent, without past history, whether the guy is guilty or not. At the very least I think the guy was plain stupid but I'm sure you are aware that lots of people never pay attention to the obvious, they wander about their daily lives and their focus never gets beyond the end of their noses. They are oblivious to the world around them, this guy could be one of those.

Two eye witnesses saw the man standing nude in two different parts of the house. The accidently leaving the shades up may work for the one instance but not the other. If I were a prosecutor I would win just on those facts.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

this is not teax and teax can go shove it for all i care. people can be nude in there homes you take the chance to look you are peeping you are crossing into someone elses yard you have no right to call cops on a naked man in his own home minding his own business.

Is that right? Well take some writing courses and get back to me. Because you make as much sense as Jay Canuck, Gaybikershithead and Zona combined, which amounts to a sum total of none.

Fact is dumbass, in Texas (not teax) if you're in public view whether in your house or on your porch, you are subject to public nudity laws. The only exceptions to nudity laws in Texas are, if you're in a clearly marked nudist area or nursing a child.

go fuck off you jackass

You're a fourth grader huh? Well keep studying and hopefully you'll make it to the fifth grade.

 

[Oldandtired]

In order to prove indecent exposure it must be shown the act was intentional.

Ignorance is no excuse. You just can't walk around like that without the drapes drawn. He could have thrown some boxers on.

Americans are afraid of their own sexuality. OMG, it's a naked man. Cover your eyes or you might see something you've never seen before, lmao. And please don't take that to mean that we should all be running in the streets naked. Just saying, this ain't no big deal, or at least it shouldn't be.

Better yet, maybe the woman should have kept her eyes on where she was going and not looking into other peoples windows. I remmebr when THAT was illegal...and you were labelled a peeping tom.

I can turn on the TV and see a Family Guy cartoon where the teenage daughter takes a package of hot dogs and names it "the NY Knicks" as she takes it into her bedroom, but I can not walk naked in my own house.

Just sayin'

 

[Newby]

Someone up above mentioned that his daughter lived with him, but in all the articles that I've read, they say he lived with 'roommates', so I doubt his daughter lives with him.

I'm guessing there wasn't any ill intent, but the Mom has every right to feel as she does if it went down the way she described it. They're saying he's right across or near an elementary school bus stop, so you have to wonder why he would run around naked with the curtains open to begin with. He had to know that there was a bus stop there where kids were gathering. There are too many unknowns here to really make a call though.

I agree there are a lot of facts we don't yet know, but wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of the childrens safety until all the facts are known?

Oh definitely, it should be investigated. I read that he's already moved out of there as well.

 

[critter]

Here something i was just thinking about. The lady said she was walking her kid to school, well why would she need to walk her kid to school when there is a bus stop right there?

 

[critter]

In the article I read it also said that his co-workers that he lives with said that he was drunk Monday morning when they left at around 5:00 AM, but he's insisting that he wasn't. If he was, that would probably explain it.

don't tell me hhe going to be charge for ditnmc.

plus they were not home so that does not matter he said he done it millions of times before. so if h done it before and if you look at the window in the view the bushes block the window part where is private area would be.

 

[Immanuel]

In the article I read it also said that his co-workers that he lives with said that he was drunk Monday morning when they left at around 5:00 AM, but he's insisting that he wasn't. If he was, that would probably explain it.

Drunk or not, that does not excuse the behavior nor it will not stop him from having to register as a sex offender and ruining his life forever.

Immie

 

[CryGlennCry]

They can tell you how high your grass can be or to get trash out of your yard.. I would think having a flasher in the neighborhood might lower property values as well.

We'll have to see how it turns out.

They do not have a "flasher" in their neighborhood!

We don't know that yet. I didn't like this guy from the beginning though, call it a hunch.

Read a couple of those updates to the story that Emma is posting.

I read Emma's posts.
Look. the way I see it. unless this guy was pounding on his picture window, doing the "helicopter" with his junk in front of this lady and her kid, he's innocent of indecency.

 

[Oldandtired]

They do not have a "flasher" in their neighborhood!

We don't know that yet. I didn't like this guy from the beginning though, call it a hunch.

Read a couple of those updates to the story that Emma is posting.

I read Emma's posts.
Look. the way I see it. unless this guy was pounding on his picture window, doing the "helicopter" with his junk in front of this lady and her kid, he's innocent of indecency.

In NYC there is a hotel with picture windows and many have been seen doing the deed in front of the window.

They were not arrested. Instead the hotel was asked to request, NOT INSIST, that their guests close the blinds.

Maybe people should learn to not look into other people's windows?

 

[Immanuel]

In NYC there is a hotel with picture windows and many have been seen doing the deed in front of the window.

They were not arrested. Instead the hotel was asked to request, NOT INSIST, that their guests close the blinds.

Maybe people should learn to not look into other people's windows?

Yeah, but what would you expect from New York! j/k

/ducks

Immie

 

[jillian]

I found the statute Ringel.

It states:

Indecent Exposure and Public Lewdness Statutes

"Intentional obscene display or exposure of person or private parts in public place or any place where others are present."

So yes he violated the law.

in post 26 you say you don't believe that indecent exposure is required to be an intentional act.

In post 28, you clearly and correctly state that it must be an "intentional obscene display or exposure...."

Seems pretty clear that there needs to be at least some level of intent. Whether intent is proven by the act in this particular instance is something I can't answer because I don't know how those laws are construed where this man lives.

I do think the woman calling the police was a bit insane, though. I mean seriously....

Key word is "or".

What if the man turns out to be a child predator and the woman failed to report the incident, then later learn that he child or another child fell victim to this man. Personally I'd rather err on the side of the childrens safety. Besides we don't know if he meant to be seen or not, doyou honestly believe a man that flashes people is going to admit it? Can you say "naive"?

what on earth about a man making coffee in his own home makes you think he's a "child predator"? He wasn't "flashing". He probably forgot that when it's dark outside, you can see inside when the lights are on.

The woman was a nutter....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For God's sake, OR is not the key word. "Intentional" is the key word. OR was linking the words display OR exposure that WAS intentional. Take a reading comprehension class.

or

definition:

A particle that marks an alternative; as, you may read or may write, that is, you may do one of the things at your pleasure, but not both. It corresponds to either. You may ride either to London or to Windsor. It often connects a series of words or propositions, presenting a choice of either; as, he may study law, or medicine, or divinity, or he may enter into trade.

Now I argue that the first alternative would be the "intentional" obscene display and the second alternative ( the "or") is simply the exposure of ones private parts in public. Note the second alternative doesn't clarify as it having to be intentional. If both alternatives meant to be intentional displays then the second alternative would be redundant. Because the only difference would be the word "obscene", and I argue than any display of ones genitalia is obscene especially when children are considered.

I understand your point and I do see how a cursory reading could lead one to that conclusion but it's just part of the definition which you are interpreting without application to context. Again, a simple parsing of the sentence shows the emphasis of the word intent with application on both subjects, it's basic elementary school english.

Explain the difference between "intentional obscene display" and intentional "public exposure". I argue there is no difference hence the "or" alternative.

 

[Ravi]

How easy would it be to prove you left your shades up "accidently"?

Lonestar, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accusee, In my humble but accurate opinion in this instance it would be nearly impossible for the prosecutor to prove intent, without past history, whether the guy is guilty or not. At the very least I think the guy was plain stupid but I'm sure you are aware that lots of people never pay attention to the obvious, they wander about their daily lives and their focus never gets beyond the end of their noses. They are oblivious to the world around them, this guy could be one of those.

The police are saying there is at least one other incident.

In one of the articles online they have a videotaped report from the house. Where the woman was walking was NOT through his yard; there is a dirt road that runs alongside the house, and the door she described is right there visible from that path. The window where she says he was standing faces a school bus stop. Because of that, I hope the police get their ducks in a row before he's tried. If he is exposing himself where children can see him, they need to make sure they've got this nailed down.

If that's so then he probably is a perv.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Here something i was just thinking about. The lady said she was walking her kid to school, well why would she need to walk her kid to school when there is a bus stop right there?

Perhaps the bus stop was for an intermediate school further away and the elementary school she was going to was within walking distance.

 

[jillian]

Explain the difference between "intentional obscene display" and intentional "public exposure". I argue there is no difference hence the "or" alternative.

nudity is not, by definition, obscene.... hence the "or".

 

[Lonestar_logic]

in post 26 you say you don't believe that indecent exposure is required to be an intentional act.

In post 28, you clearly and correctly state that it must be an "intentional obscene display or exposure...."

Seems pretty clear that there needs to be at least some level of intent. Whether intent is proven by the act in this particular instance is something I can't answer because I don't know how those laws are construed where this man lives.

I do think the woman calling the police was a bit insane, though. I mean seriously....

Key word is "or".

What if the man turns out to be a child predator and the woman failed to report the incident, then later learn that he child or another child fell victim to this man. Personally I'd rather err on the side of the childrens safety. Besides we don't know if he meant to be seen or not, doyou honestly believe a man that flashes people is going to admit it? Can you say "naive"?

what on earth about a man making coffee in his own home makes you think he's a "child predator"? He wasn't "flashing". He probably forgot that when it's dark outside, you can see inside when the lights are on.

The woman was a nutter....

Are you saying it isn't possible? Do child predators not drink coffee? Fact is he was seen at the back door and at the front window which contradicts his "making coffee " excuse. Now why would he lie if in fact it was an accident? Once I can see as an accident but twice deserves a closer look. ( no pun intended)

 

[Avatar4321]

That's ridiculous. He has no intent to expose himself. End of story. The Charges should be dropped immediately.

It's ridiculous that people can parade down the street naked claiming free speech and the police cant touch them, but walk around in ones own house naked and the police arrest the man. Id be suing the PD.

 

[Ringel05]

How easy would it be to prove you left your shades up "accidently"?

Lonestar, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accusee, In my humble but accurate opinion in this instance it would be nearly impossible for the prosecutor to prove intent, without past history, whether the guy is guilty or not. At the very least I think the guy was plain stupid but I'm sure you are aware that lots of people never pay attention to the obvious, they wander about their daily lives and their focus never gets beyond the end of their noses. They are oblivious to the world around them, this guy could be one of those.

Two eye witnesses saw the man standing nude in two different parts of the house. The accidently leaving the shades up may work for the one instance but not the other. If I were a prosecutor I would win just on those facts.

Hence my statement: "without past history." If a pattern can be shown then the guy is obviously guilty as hell, but a one time occurrence, regardless of the number of witnesses, suggests stupidity, not necessarily intent.
Our argument between intent and or is a classic example of why everything and most importantly laws needs to be written with the greatest of care, it happens all the time. Just look at the argument over the second amendment, many people still think it applies to state militias only.

 

[California Girl]

As usual, I'll wait for actual fact rather than speculation about what this guy did or did not do.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Bottom line.........just like if you don't approve of the program on your tv, turn it off or change the channel, just don't watch it and bitch.

She shoulda kept her eyes outta his house. I personally hope that he lawyers up, sues the bitch for everything that she's got and puts her out on the street where when SHE wakes up, she's in public and has to stay clothed.

Fucking bitch.