Man arrested for making coffee naked in house

[Allereli]

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/102109_naked_man_arrested_after_making_coffee_upda te


Police: Others May Have Seen Naked Man
Man charged after he claims he made coffee in nude
Updated: Thursday, 22 Oct 2009, 7:50 AM EDT
Published : Wednesday, 21 Oct 2009, 7:31 PM EDT

Will Thomas
By WILL THOMAS/myfoxdc
SPRINGFILED, Va. - A debate continues in Northern Virginia that is bringing the issue of civil liberties to the national stage. A 29-year-old Springfield man says he was making coffee in the nude was arrested after a neighbor saw him, and on Wednesday police were back out in his neighborhood looking for others who might have seen him.

Eric Williamson, 29, is a commercial diver who grew up in Hawaii and rents home with several co-workers. Williamson told FOX 5's Will Thomas his roommates were not home and he walked into the kitchen to make coffee about 8:30 a.m. Monday.

"Yes, I wasn't wearing any clothes but I was alone, in my own home and just got out of bed. It was dark and I had no idea anyone was outside looking in at me," Williamson said.

But at about 8:30 a.m. on Monday morning, a neighbor walking her son to school says he deliberately exposed himself-- not once, but twice. First, she says it happened as he was standing in the glass doorway in the kitchen, and then again at a front window.

"We've heard there may have been other people who had a similar incident," said Mary Ann Jennings, a Fairfax County Police spokesperson.

The complaint came from an unidentified woman who was walking with a 7-year-old boy. A Fairfax County Police spokesperson said officers arrested Williamson for indecent exposure because they believe he wanted to be seen naked by the public.

On Wednesday, investigators told FOX 5 they have reason to believe there may have been another incident in which someone saw Williamson naked in front of his window. They're asking anyone who may have seen Williamson in the nude through his windows to come forward, even if it was at a different time.

Police are especially concerned because the house is located across the street from a bus stop for school children. So on Wednesday, officers canvassed the neighborhood with fliers, asking anyone who may have been subject to an exposure to come forward.

The department spokesperson says in a rare move, they're releasing more information about the case.

"Because this was being spun into a national story, and the idea you can't be naked in your own house-- we wanted to come forward and say in this case our officers believed there was probable cause the law had been violated," said Jennings.

Eric has since moved out of the rental house he shared with several diving buddies. And, by phone on Wednesday, the father of a 5-year-old girl maintained his innocence, as he did Monday in an exclusive interview with FOX 5.

"I'm a loving dad-- any of my friends would tell you that," Williamson said. "There is not a chance on this planet I would ever, ever do anything like that to a kid."

Police wouldn't release the incident report or the name of the mother who filed the complaint. FOX 5 has learned she is a respected member of the community, and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer.

FOX 5 also spoke with some of Williamson's roommates, and they said they believed Eric was drunk on Monday morning when they were all leaving for work around 5 a.m. The alleged exposure happened around 8:30 a.m. Williamson, however, says he was drinking on Sunday night, but was not drunk on Monday morning.

The mother is so full of shit, the press is being retarded. just stay off the man's lawn. Stupid Virginians

[Monsoon]

He looks like Jason Lee.

[Keller]

My neighbors have multi-hour, loud, screaming, sex next door.

Can I turn them in as perverts or something to make them stop?

What a fucked up story.

[Asha]

Sounds ominous.

[BriarFox]

That's ridiculous. I'm going to go make coffee naked now in support.

[Asha]

I think the neighbours noticed him doing this a lot and got pissed off because they're prude.
I think they talked among themselves about it and formulated a plan to report it to the police to have him stopped. They picked the best candidate to make the report since she had excellent standing in society AND top support from the police ( I bet she was itching to exercise this to really look good to her neighbours or something ) and I think she embellished the story to really make it work since her husband probably told her that's what he'd have had to do in order to have broken the law by being naked in the house.
Then they figure all it takes is ''witnesses'' to come forward and it'll their scheming words against his.

OR he could be a fucking weirdo flasher, which I wouldn't put past anyone I don't know.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm all for being naked at home. That being said close the blinds, especially if you're across from a school bus stop. I don't think the law was broken, just a lack of common sense that has been blown out way out of scale. She should have knocked on the door, explained that kids could see him, he'd correct himself, apologize, everyone moves the fuck on.

This is why I hate people.

[BigWorm]

I'm all for being naked at home. That being said close the blinds, especially if you're across from a school bus stop. I don't think the law was broken, just a lack of common sense that has been blown out way out of scale. She should have knocked on the door, explained that kids could see him, he'd correct himself, apologize, everyone moves the fuck on.

This is why I hate people.

Um, aren't school bus stops pretty much across the street from most houses?

[Solkern]

What's she doing, starring into his damn window??

[Gelston]

If you're going to be naked in your house, close the fucking curtains. Simple as that.

[AnticorRifling]

Um, aren't school bus stops pretty much across the street from most houses?

I would assume you've never lived in the country :)

[Monsoon]

Only a woman would complain. If it were a lady making coffee naked, slow news day.

[Mabus]

Only a woman would complain. If it were a lady making coffee naked, slow news day.

:yeahthat:

[AnticorRifling]

Only a woman would complain. If it were a lady making coffee naked, slow news day.
I disagree. I'd probably complain, to the person I wouldn't call the cops, if I was walking my kids to the bus and someone was naked and visible to them. And honestly the complaint would be "Can you do me a favor and please keep the blinds closed during normal pick up/drop off times to minimize the chance of a kid seeing you?

[BriarFox]

Only men are perverts in the American consciousness, of course.

[Solkern]

:yeahthat:



and if a guy was walking his kid to school, and saw her naked, and she saw him looking, she'd call the cops and he'd get arrested lol

[Atlanteax]

He could probably retort that she was soliciting?

[Monsoon]

It's lame to call the police. Be a grown-up and walk up to the door. If you're inside your house, the police don't need to be involved. If she had approached him to speak her mind, and he persisted with windows/blinds open, then maybe get the police involved.

[Nieninque]

How do people even know enough of the details of this to have an opinion.
He says he was just naked in his house making coffee, but until the details of the case have been released, he might just have been in his house, waiting for the kettle boil and masturbating in his front window for the passers by to see.

Not saying it is the case, but people might want to reserve judgement on whether or not he did something wrong, until they hear what law he was supposed to have broken.

[AnticorRifling]

..the kettle to boil... way to go and british this up for us.

[BriarFox]

How do people even know enough of the details of this to have an opinion.
He says he was just naked in his house making coffee, but until the details of the case have been released, he might just have been in his house, waiting for the kettle boil and masturbating in his front window for the passers by to see.

Not saying it is the case, but people might want to reserve judgement on whether or not he did something wrong, until they hear what law he was supposed to have broken.

Haha. Your response versus the response of others is such a case in point for American and English differences on bureaucracy and law enforcement.

[Asha]

I lolled

[Asha]

Not at her response but since I felt exactly the same btw

[Monsoon]

I'm sure that woman's had some drunken bouts of physical disregard. ;)

[phantasm]

I'm all for being naked at home. That being said close the blinds, especially if you're across from a school bus stop. I don't think the law was broken, just a lack of common sense that has been blown out way out of scale. She should have knocked on the door, explained that kids could see him, he'd correct himself, apologize, everyone moves the fuck on.

This is why I hate people.

Yes, wives and young children should be sure to follow your advice.
I'm going to let my wife and kids know that next time they spy a man standing naked in his house through an open window, they should promptly go knock on his door and let him know what they saw.
Maybe your wife is more butch than mine, or you didn't think this all the way through.

[AnticorRifling]

I think he should bat wing the glass.

[Tisket]

I'm sure that woman's had some drunken bouts of physical disregard. ;)

Usually it takes at least 8-10 pages for a thread to degenerate into nonsensical remarks.

[Tisket]

Am I the only one who wondered what brand of coffee he was using?

[AnticorRifling]

Yes, wives and young children should be sure to follow your advice.
I'm going to let my wife and kids know that next time they spy a man standing naked in his house through an open window, they should promptly go knock on his door and let him know what they saw.
Maybe your wife is more butch than mine, or you didn't think this all the way through.
I apologize for not putting a time line on that or expressly saying wait until a later time. I didn't think it would be taken as "Go knock on the door the very second you see his penis!" I also don't see anywhere in my post that says "The little kid should go knock on the door." I do see common sense referenced in that post though....

[AnticorRifling]

Am I the only one who wondered what brand of coffee he was using?
Since he's nude it's probably Maxwell House, good to the last drop and all that.

[Monsoon]

Usually it takes at least 8-10 pages for a thread to degenerate into nonsensical remarks.
:hug2:

[BigWorm]

Am I the only one who wondered what brand of coffee he was using?

I am more interested in what he was adding to his coffee to be drunk at 5am-8am on a Monday morning. Obviously this guy is living the dream: getting hammered drunk and running around naked.

FUCK YEAH!!!

[Asha]

just drunk from night before. It happens to me every time until about 12 pm when im ok again

[AnticorRifling]

I am more interested in what he was adding to his coffee to be drunk at 5am-8am on a Monday morning. Obviously this guy is living the dream: getting hammered drunk and running around naked.

FUCK YEAH!!!

At least he wasn't naked, face down on the lawn.

[Monsoon]

Marissa: [after seeing Frank running naked along the streets, she slows down her car] Frank, what are you doing?
Frank: [out of breath] We're... We're going streaking! We're going up the quad and to the gymnasium.
Marissa: Who is?
Frank: Th... W... There's more coming.
Marissa: Frank, get in the car.
Frank: But... everybody's doing it.
Marissa: Frank! Now!
Frank: [still out of breath] Ok.


I can't believe Old School was 2003. Where the fuck did time go?

[Paradii]

So, this woman was married to a cop right? Why not just go home and ask the husband to go next door and explain your case? Or would that just be too easy.

[AnticorRifling]

He might be at work, she might have freaked out and over reacted, he could be lying and was pressing brains on the window, who knows. I just prefer talking it out over blowing it up. If, after trying to talk it out he is still doing it then it's time to kill his cat, break his laptop, burn his house down, etc.

[BigWorm]

Marissa: [after seeing Frank running naked along the streets, she slows down her car] Frank, what are you doing?
Frank: [out of breath] We're... We're going streaking! We're going up the quad and to the gymnasium.
Marissa: Who is?
Frank: Th... W... There's more coming.
Marissa: Frank, get in the car.
Frank: But... everybody's doing it.
Marissa: Frank! Now!
Frank: [still out of breath] Ok.


I can't believe Old School was 2003. Where the fuck did time go?

Hey honey, you think KFC is still open?

[Asha]

kill his cat, break his laptop, burn his house down, etc.

:lol: timeless

[Nieninque]

Haha. Your response versus the response of others is such a case in point for American and English differences on bureaucracy and law enforcement.

I think it would be more accurate to talk about the difference in people who work with sex offenders and those who dont.

Anyone who works with sex offenders will look at a suspect's account with more than a healthy dose of cynicism. Your average person off the street will be more inclined to accept what they say.

Don't believe me?

Come to work with me for a day...I see it all the time.

[phantasm]

That sounds kinky, will you want dinner before?

[AnticorRifling]

I think it would be more accurate to talk about the difference in people who work with sex offenders and those who dont.

Anyone who works with sex offenders will look at a suspect's account with more than a healthy dose of cynicism. Your average person off the street will be more inclined to accept what they say.

Don't believe me?

Come to work with me for a day...I see it all the time.

I google image search with safe search off. Bring it on!

[BigWorm]

I google image search with safe search off. Bring it on!

That's the only way to do it. I'm so fucked up I even GISed Mythbusters Adam despite Celephais' warning.

[Asha]

hahaha me too

[Beguiler]

That's ridiculous. I'm going to go make coffee naked now in support.


::le sigh:: I suppose I'm too late to watch? <ducks and runs>

Oh, back on topic. What a crock. Okay, ring the bell, tell the guy to close his curtains/warning, let it go. Unless this guy has priors, sheesh. If I look out of my 2nd story window I can watch the neighbors fool around if I wanted to (which I don't) but I've never considered calling the cops on them. Weird times in this country, I'm starting to get the paranoia about the US becoming a police state.. or Big Brother watching over my shoulder. I need to go make coffee naked, but I have a feeling I'll wait until I get home, my co-workers would appreciate that...

[Nieninque]

::le sigh:: I suppose I'm too late to watch? <ducks and runs>

Oh, back on topic. What a crock. Okay, ring the bell, tell the guy to close his curtains/warning, let it go. Unless this guy has priors, sheesh. If I look out of my 2nd story window I can watch the neighbors fool around if I wanted to (which I don't) but I've never considered calling the cops on them. Weird times in this country, I'm starting to get the paranoia about the US becoming a police state.. or Big Brother watching over my shoulder. I need to go make coffee naked, but I have a feeling I'll wait until I get home, my co-workers would appreciate that...

Actually, whilst I think people are rushing too readily to this blokes defence before the facts are known, we have a few high profile stories in the news here about women nursery workers being prosecuted for sexually abusing children. Today I dealt with my first hysteria-based child protection referral based on those news stories and it really made me sad. It's sad that there are people who abuse children, but it is just as sad when people can't do really normal things because they are scared of abuse.

[Liagala]

I need to go make coffee naked, but I have a feeling I'll wait until I get home, my co-workers would appreciate that...

Depends on the coworkers. Many of them would probably appreciate you making coffee naked now.

[Beguiler]

Am I the only one who wondered what brand of coffee he was using?


Dunkin', ftw...

[Methais]

Did anything ever happen to that old fat guy that would stand naked on his front lawn every morning while the school bus passed by him?

I'm too lazy to find the thread. Was from probably 1-2 years ago.

[Monsoon]

Did anything ever happen to that old fat guy that would stand naked on his front lawn every morning while the school bus passed by him?

I'm too lazy to find the thread. Was from probably 1-2 years ago.
You tell us. :D

[Methais]

You tell us. :D

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/funny-pictures-cat-sees-what-you-did.jpg

[Skeeter]

I walk around the house naked in the morning all the time. but I have the decency to keep the blinds shut since my house IS the bus stop.

Also welcome to the sex abuser registry original guy in the story.

[Latrinsorm]

If she had approached him to speak her mind, and he persisted with windows/blinds open, then maybe get the police involved.
Unless this guy has priors, sheesh.How do you know either of these things weren't the case?
I just prefer talking it out over blowing it up.It shouldn't be up to some woman walking her kid to school to confront a potentially dangerous sex criminal. I'm not recommending the police or the justice system take that frame of mind, but the police have the luxury of guns and plenty of backup. It's simply imprudent to wander into a potentially dangerous situation - look both ways before you cross the street, and don't knock on the door of the guy who's flashing schoolchildren.
OR he could be a fucking weirdo flasher, which I wouldn't put past anyone I don't know.

[Methais]

It shouldn't be up to some woman walking her kid to school to confront a potentially dangerous sex criminal.

By that logic, if you've ever done anything in your home while naked, then that makes you a potentially dangerous sex criminal too.

[Liagala]

It shouldn't be up to some woman walking her kid to school to confront a potentially dangerous sex criminal.

That's kind of a stretch. Let's find out if the guy even realized people would see him through the window, first. People can be pretty oblivious, especially in the morning after drinking. Windows can also reflect whatever's outside back at you, instead of allowing you to see into a house. Yes, he could be a psycho axe-murdering cracked-out pedophile and all... but it's far more likely that he was just an ordinary guy making a cup of coffee, and didn't realize someone would see his wang.

[Killer Kitten]

Since he's nude it's probably Maxwell House, good to the last drop and all that.

Ok, this made me laugh. I was thinking "Folgers in my cup" but this is better.

[Latrinsorm]

By that logic, if you've ever done anything in your home while naked, then that makes you a potentially dangerous sex criminal too.
That's kind of a stretch. Let's find out if the guy even realized people would see him through the window, first.Again, my point is not that the fact of the matter is the guy is a rapist/murderer/whatever. My point is that a random civilian should keep that possibility in mind and not blithely walk into said guy's clutches and start chit-chatting. It's akin to running into a smoldering building with a bucket of water - call the fire department, it's their job and they're 10,000x better equipped and trained. It's not always the case that smoke indicates serious fire, but why take the risk of running into an inferno? It's simply imprudent.

[Ashliana]

She could have also left a note. Who says she'd have to personally confront him?

[AnticorRifling]

Again, my point is not that the fact of the matter is the guy is a rapist/murderer/whatever. My point is that a random civilian should keep that possibility in mind and not blithely walk into said guy's clutches and start chit-chatting. It's akin to running into a smoldering building with a bucket of water - call the fire department, it's their job and they're 10,000x better equipped and trained. It's not always the case that smoke indicates serious fire, but why take the risk of running into an inferno? It's simply imprudent.

Yeah that makes sense. I guess the next time I see someone cooking on the grill and there is smoke I'll call the fire department.

[Latrinsorm]

If they're grilling inside a building and smoke is coming out, you probably should.

[Androidpk]

I saw my neighbor break into his house once, I immediately called the police.

[AnticorRifling]

I saw my neighbor break into his house once, I immediately called the police.

Was he black and/or a professor?! ZOMG call CNN!

Wait...you knew it was your neighbor and you called the police? Or was it a case of you saw someone, who later turned out to be your neighbor, breaking in and you called the police. If the former you're a tool. If the latter I can see that.

[AnticorRifling]

If they're grilling inside a building and smoke is coming out, you probably should.

I grill in my garage all the time because I'll be damned if I'm going to not grill during the winter.

[Methais]

If they're grilling inside a building and smoke is coming out, you probably should.

If they're grilling inside a building and the building gets set on fire, they either a) Should call the fire department themselves, or b) If they're too stupid to notice the fire, they deserve to BURRRRRRRRRRRN!!!!!1

[LMingrone]

Screw that, I grill outside, in the snow. Luckily I have a direct gas hookup to my grill.I can't go a whole season without my swordfish.

[AnticorRifling]

Screw that, I grill outside, in the snow. Luckily I have a direct gas hookup to my grill.I can't go a whole season without my swordfish.
I would but I haven't built a deck yet so I keep my grill in my garage, open the door and roll it out to grill. In the winter I just open the door and grill :)

[Atlanteax]

Here's another fine example of the horrid state of our legal system:

http://www.katu.com/news/local/65957522.html


PORTLAND, Ore. - A man convicted of murder is now targeting one of his victims again, and he's winning in court.

An Oregon inmate who killed one man in 2006 is now suing his former hostage.

It all started over an $18,000 order for an ice cream truck.

The hostage victim, Rob Chambers, used to build ice cream trucks and he built one for a customer in New York. That customer turned into a killer, deciding to commit murder when he couldn't get a refund.

Now in prison, the convicted killer - Tremayne Durham - is using the courts to get the refund. And he's having success.

Facing eviction and the loss of his business, Rob Chambers can't afford a lawyer so he's going to fight this convicted killer on his own, in court.

Durham still wants his money back, all $18,000 - even after he confessed to murdering Adam Calbreath. Calbreath was someone Chambers considered as a loyal friend.

"He protected me, and gave the ultimate sacrifice to me," Chambers said. "I don't know how to repay it."

Durham is serving 30 years for murdering Calbreath and taking Chambers hostage while shoving a gun in his stomach.

"He had said, 'Look at what you made me do,'" Chambers recounts. "He said, 'I've been robbing and killing people to get to you.'"

Now Durham is going after Chambers again, only without a gun and with a lawsuit. Durham is even demanding reimbursement for his travel expenses from New York - for the trip he took to gun down Chambers' friend.

Since the murder, Chambers said he has suffered unending guilt and grief.

"I lost my abilities to function; that's what makes me the most angry," Chambers said. "One of these days he's going to get the feeling he won somehow over me."

Chambers escaped from Durham in 2006, but says he doesn't feel alive.

"There are days that I honestly wish he would have pulled the trigger," Chambers said. "He doesn't deserve the satisfaction of knowing this, but he took my life."

Since Chambers did not respond to letters from the court, an arbitrator already has ruled in Durham's favor. But it's not over. Chambers plans to be at a hearing Wednesday to face Durham once again, in court.

"I'm not going to be the victim in this anymore," Chamber said.

Durham made international news for his unusual plea deal in 2006. He agreed to plead guilty in exchange for his favorite foods from KFC and some Haagen-Dazs ice cream.

Chambers said the deal felt like a slap in the face and wishes Durham had been forced to face the family of the man he murdered.

[Sean of the Thread]

The shit that bothers me is when someone is driving piss ass drunk and slams into a school bus and 30 people burn to death... that someone gets less than 30 years in prison.

Put them before a firing range within 30 days please.

[Latrinsorm]

Here's another fine example of the horrid state of our legal system:The article is pretty unclear, but it seems the facts are these:

1. Chambers sells Durham an ice cream truck.
2. Durham seeks but does not receive a refund for unspecified reasons.
3. Durham takes at least one person (Chambers) hostage and kills at least one other person.
4. Durham pleads guilty to the crimes listed in (3).
5. Durham sentenced to 30 years in prison, begins serving his sentence.
6. Durham continues to seek the refund he did not receive.

What, specifically, do you find horrid about these facts?

[Atlanteax]

Don't be obtuse!

[Keller]

If Glenn Beck bought a blender from Walmart in 1989, raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, and subsequently discovered that the blender never worked -- should he receive a refund?

[TheEschaton]

You do realize, Atlanteax, that it is a conservative jurisprudence that vests strong property rights in people, that allows a convicted murderer to still pursue a breach of contract case, right Atlanteax?

DON'T BE SO OBTUSE!

[Atlanteax]

You do realize, Atlanteax, that it is a conservative jurisprudence that vests strong property rights in people, that allows a convicted murderer to still pursue a breach of contract case, right Atlanteax?

In the meantime, they can also file appeal after appeal after appeal on death row too. Which is absolutely absurd.

[EasternBrand]

In the meantime, they can also file appeal after appeal after appeal on death row too. Which is absolutely absurd.

What the hell does this have to do with his contract?

EDIT: He's not even ON death row.

[Atlanteax]

I'm just pointing out that death row inmates being able to file appeal after appeal is another serious flaw of our legal system.

[Keller]

I'm just pointing out that death row inmates being able to file appeal after appeal is another serious flaw of our legal system.

I'm just trying to make a point that isn't rediculous, but I couldn't find any political cartoons.

[Atlanteax]

Oh look!!! It's Glenn Beck!!! Your main man!

[Keller]

Oh look!!! It's Glenn Beck!!! Your main man!

You are a liar.

I do not associate with individuals who will not deny that they raped and murdered little girls.

[BigWorm]

I'm just pointing out that death row inmates being able to file appeal after appeal is another serious flaw of our legal system.

And I would argue that death row inmates being able to file appeal after appeal is a major feature of our legal system. When it comes to the death penalty, as horrible as it would be to let a murderer avoid a death sentence, it is a lot worse to kill an innocent person.

[Latrinsorm]

Don't be obtuse!I was being serious. There are several things that bother me about the story, but I think it's fair to say that you and I tend to espouse different viewpoints, so I wanted to know what bothered you.

[EasternBrand]

I'm just pointing out that death row inmates being able to file appeal after appeal is another serious flaw of our legal system.

Oh, nm then. I thought you were just unable to respond to TheE questioning whether your jurisprudence was internally consistent or not and were instead just shifting the base of the discussion to avoid it, so I apologize.

I mean, because if I had been going for that, I would have said something like, "property rights are not inviolable and convicted criminals do not deserve--nor, in our system, do they actually enjoy--the same scope of property rights as law-abiding citizens," rather than point to the fact that people facing the electric chair are allowed somewhat greater access to reviewing courts who can ensure that their punishment actually comports with the Constitution.

[Atlanteax]

And I would argue that death row inmates being able to file appeal after appeal is a major feature of our legal system. When it comes to the death penalty, as horrible as it would be to let a murderer avoid a death sentence, it is a lot worse to kill an innocent person.

We obviously disagree on this approach, as I'd say that the cost of such a feature of the legal system to American society is not worth it, versus the extremely small chance that a genuine bona-fide innocent (wrong place at the wrong time) was wrongfully-convicted.

Costs being such as overcrowded prisons (lost taxpayer $$$ that could be spend instead on health care) and revolving door (excessive early parole) leading to released convicts repeating criminal acts.

When it's cheaper to house a serial killer for life than to execute him, then there's something wrong with the legal system, as efforts such as rehabilitation are limited in realistic application.

[Latrinsorm]

We obviously disagree on this approach, as I'd say that the cost of such a feature of the legal system to American society is not worth it, versus the extremely small chance that a genuine bona-fide innocent (wrong place at the wrong time) was wrongfully-convicted.What do you say to Indiana, where less than 50% of death row inmates were provably guilty enough to execute?
Costs being such as overcrowded prisons (lost taxpayer $$$ that could be spend instead on health care) and revolving door (excessive early parole) leading to released convicts repeating criminal acts.Overcrowding is a serious issue, but there are around 3000 people on death row in all of America to almost 2.5 million incarcerated. It's hard to see how a size reduction to 99.9% of the previous population will have any palpable effect.

[Atlanteax]

I was being serious. There are several things that bother me about the story, but I think it's fair to say that you and I tend to espouse different viewpoints, so I wanted to know what bothered you.

Alright.

I'd be as EasternBrand pointed out.

I don't think the guy, being a convicted killer, should be able to continue litigate at someone who he was in all likelihood, was going to kill.

It reminds me of those stories of cat-burglars suing home-owners for injuring themselves in the process of breaking & entering.

I'd be one of those that feel that convicted criminals (of seriously major crimes, and then especially so if they're of the serial element) should have reduced civil rights.

[Keller]

What burglars are you talking about, Atlanteax?

Could you produce 2 of more of these stories, please?

[Atlanteax]

What do you say to Indiana, where less than 50% of death row inmates were provably guilty enough to execute?

I don't know the details of Indiana's situation ... but apparently the juries that convicted them felt that they were guilty enough.

[TheEschaton]

Juries can, and often are, wrong.

Oh, and if you want to lighten prison populations, you legalize marijuana and stop having inane drug laws, not, as Latrin mentioned, reduce the 0.1% of the prison population that is death row.

Edit: and just to debate EB's point, even though I don't know if he believes it, and you are too philosophically inconsistent to actually espouse it: the right to property is virtually sacrosanct in American law, unlike other jurisdictions. I'm raiding Naxx at the moment, so I will not get into it right now, but in Texas (tongue in cheek, but somewhat true), you can shoot a man for stepping on your property. I understand that that is real property, and this case is personal property, but under the law, you're also allowed to reaquire your property by otherwise illegal means, if you're the owner of that property, as long as the means aren't unreasonable.

-TheE-

[Paradii]

I understand that that is real property, and this case is personal property, but under the law, you're also allowed to reaquire your property by otherwise illegal means, if you're the owner of that property, as long as the means aren't unreasonable.

-TheE-

What are some of these illegal means to reacquire property? Someone stole my bike and rollarblades when I was like 9. I am interested in reacquiring said items in a most devious manner.

[Atlanteax]

I agree on the merits of legalizing marijuana to free up prison space for the convicts that one would normally anticipate being in jail for a very long time.

[EasternBrand]

Edit: and just to debate EB's point, even though I don't know if he believes it, and you are too philosophically inconsistent to actually espouse it: the right to property is virtually sacrosanct in American law, unlike other jurisdictions. I'm raiding Naxx at the moment, so I will not get into it right now, but in Texas (tongue in cheek, but somewhat true), you can shoot a man for stepping on your property. I understand that that is real property, and this case is personal property, but under the law, you're also allowed to reaquire your property by otherwise illegal means, if you're the owner of that property, as long as the means aren't unreasonable.

-TheE-

I'll admit to total unfamiliarity with the laws of Texas, but generally speaking, don't those "otherwise illegal means" apply only in hot pursuit? Once sufficient time has passed, you can't knock the guy down and take back your stuff back anymore (sorry, Paradii). I'm honestly not entirely sure.

In any event, I didn't say that property rights in America were weak, only that they are not inviolable, and that they are certainly not inviolable for criminals. For instance, the government has enormous leeway to exercise eminent domain. Granted, they have to compensate you for it, so you are acquiring some value for your property, but you still cannot keep it. And yes, I understand that Kelo was decided by the liberal wing of the Court and therefore does not go to show that American conservative jurisprudence necessarily approves of enlarged government power in this area.

To take the case of a criminal, if a person uses his own lawfully purchased weapon in the commission of a crime, the government will seize it and the person will get neither his weapon returned to him nor anything of value in exchange for it.

Of course, in both of these scenarios, the government is the one exercising a right to withhold property rights, and the case of the Ice Cream Killer truck refund is a dispute between private parties. But I can still think of ways private parties can lose property rights to each other without fault (adverse possession, for example). My only point was that as sacrosanct as property rights are -- and I agree with you that they are at the top of the list when the list is "Sacrosanct American Rights" -- they are still not one hundred percent secure in all cases.

[Latrinsorm]

Alright.

I'd be as EasternBrand pointed out.

I don't think the guy, being a convicted killer, should be able to continue litigate at someone who he was in all likelihood, was going to kill.

It reminds me of those stories of cat-burglars suing home-owners for injuring themselves in the process of breaking & entering.

I'd be one of those that feel that convicted criminals (of seriously major crimes, and then especially so if they're of the serial element) should have reduced civil rights.Do you feel that if Durham were accused of committing another crime, let's say grand theft, the prosecution should be allowed to mention or testify to his murder conviction?
I don't know the details of Indiana's situation ... but apparently the juries that convicted them felt that they were guilty enough.That's what I mean, though. You feel that the percentage of people on death row that were wrongfully sentenced to death is "extremely small", and yet in Indiana it amounted to 13 out of 25 people since they reinstituted the death penalty. 13!!!

[TheEschaton]

In NY, if you lend someone something, and they refuse to give it back, you can take it back from them, even using non-serious force (IE, grab their arm, and take it out of their hand), and they can't file larceny charges against you, and (I believe), a&b charges, regardless of hot pursuit.

I don't know the exact laws in Texas, but I imagine it's something similar, if not more permissive.

Now, as for property rights not being inviolable, obviously they're not. No rights are, according to our Constitution. Freedom of speech can be curtailed, same with the press, and so on, so forth. Just because a right isn't inviolable doesn't mean they're violated at the drop of a hat. Criminals are still afforded almost all the rights of normal citizens, including freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, unlawful search and seizure, etc. In fact, you could say many rights are created FOR criminals. They lose their right to vote, and, in many cases, that can be reinstated, and, in some cases, their right to assemble, depending on the crime (think pedophiles assembling with children).

[TheEschaton]

And lol, a claim of adverse possession takes 21 years to ripen, and is basically an accusation of neglect of property, i.e., you didn't want it so badly you let me stay here for 21 years without kicking me out or even asking me to leave.

[Paradii]

And lol, a claim of adverse possession takes 21 years to ripen, and is basically an accusation of neglect of property, i.e., you didn't want it so badly you let me stay here for 21 years without kicking me out or even asking me to leave.


Yeah, I've always wanted to try and get someone's house through the squatter's law. I just don't have the patience for that kind of commitment.

[AnticorRifling]

How do we go from naked man house walks around with maxwell house and batwin to hippies saying let's make pot legal it will fix everything?

[Tisket]

How do we go from naked man house walks around with maxwell house and batwin to hippies saying let's make pot legal it will fix everything?

I'm in the Dunkin Donuts coffee camp.

[Keller]

How do we go from naked man house walks around with maxwell house and batwin to hippies saying let's make pot legal it will fix everything?

Bad tie.

[Barundar]

And lol, a claim of adverse possession takes 21 years to ripen, and is basically an accusation of neglect of property, i.e., you didn't want it so badly you let me stay here for 21 years without kicking me out or even asking me to leave.

In some states you can take the land if you've spent enough time walking on it. http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_7501264

[EasternBrand]

I'm in the Dunkin Donuts coffee camp.

Yes, this is partially credited, but have you ever had Peet's? I will grant you that it can't, at least in all circumstances, replace the 423909 oz. cup of coffee you can get at Dunkin's.

And I'm too lazy to go back and review this whole thread to see if this discussion was ever had, but has anyone else thought to comment on the possibility of horrible disaster attendant to brewing morning coffee while naked? I mean, there you are, in all your glory, brewing a blindingly hot cup of coffee. A spill would be extremely uncomfortable even in pants, but in this case you can't possibly be fully alert and ready for danger, because you haven't even had your goddamn coffee yet!

[Tisket]

I've never even heard of Peet's. Is it a national brand?

[Paradii]

I've never even heard of Peet's. Is it a national brand?

Yeah, but it's not in every supermarket I've ever been to. I know costco sells it.

And stick with the Dunkin over peet's.

[EasternBrand]

Sort of, but not really. There are only stores in 6 states: CA, CO, IL, MA, OR, WA. Which is really a shame, because it's consistently excellent coffee. I'm moving to a non-Peet's state after the summer, and it greatly disturbs me. I mean, you can get the beans shipped and everything, but that can get kind of pricey.

Starbucks actually used to use Peet's as a bean supplier in the way-back, but stopped when then got too big to fail.

[Paradii]

Sort of, but not really. There are only stores in 6 states: CA, CO, IL, MA, OR, WA. Which is really a shame, because it's consistently excellent coffee. I'm moving to a non-Peet's state after the summer, and it greatly disturbs me. I mean, you can get the beans shipped and everything, but that can get kind of pricey.

Starbucks actually used to use Peet's as a bean supplier in the way-back, but stopped when then got too big to fail.

I've seen it in Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and Pennsylvania.

[Clove]

If you ask me, what this world needs is more naked coffee brewing (and more cowbell).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33003900

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080516/NEWS01/647107885/0/SPORTS

[EasternBrand]

I've seen it in Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, and Pennsylvania.

Like, Peet's Coffee Shops in these places, or packaged in supermarkets? Because I was just copying store locations from their website. The problem is that I'm lazy and don't grind and brew my own, and in any event I usually don't have to pay for coffee. But if I want an upgrade from shitty (but free) institutionally provided coffee, I need to find a coffee shop.

[AnticorRifling]

Could have been solved in a day but the cops took two months to "investigate" I like it :)

[Paradii]

Like, Peet's Coffee Shops in these places, or packaged in supermarkets? Because I was just copying store locations from their website. The problem is that I'm lazy and don't grind and brew my own, and in any event I usually don't have to pay for coffee. But if I want an upgrade from shitty (but free) institutionally provided coffee, I need to find a coffee shop.

Stores. I am pretty sure Costco carries it.

Edit: stores means grocery stores.

[TheEschaton]

We had Peet's in Boston, but I haven't seen it so far in NYC.

Oh, and they used the land for more than 21 years, they made changes to it, the owners KNEW about the changes, and didn't kick them out. That's the definition of adverse possession, it's not the walking that matters, but the hiking paths they created.

All the owners would have had to do is go up to the trespassers and say "Get out", and the claim would have been defeated, and they could have been charged as trespassers if they didn't leave.

-TheE-

[Keller]

It reminds me of those stories of cat-burglars suing home-owners for injuring themselves in the process of breaking & entering.



What burglars are you talking about, Atlanteax?

Could you produce 2 of more of these stories, please?

Still curious.

[TheEschaton]

There was one case which is famous in the Torts textbooks, about the trip-wire shotgun that blew off the robber's legs when he opened the door. Forgot what it was called, but they said the homeowners were unreasonable, in creating a death trap for robbers. :P

-TheE-

[Keller]

There was one case which is famous in the Torts textbooks, about the trip-wire shotgun that blew off the robber's legs when he opened the door. Forgot what it was called, but they said the homeowners were unreasonable, in creating a death trap for robbers. :P

-TheE-

Bird v. Holbrook and Katko v. Briney are the two most commonly cited cases with Bird being the English common law and Katko being the most developed case law in the US.

[Atlanteax]

Still curious.

1) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

2) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-23227104.html

A case study that I had in mind when mentioning this: http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/

[Keller]

Bird v. Holbrook and Katko v. Briney are the two most commonly cited cases with Bird being the English common law and Katko being the most developed case law in the US.

But before Bad-tie thinks he is off the hook, neither of these cases provide that a trespasser can sue for being injured while trespassing. They provide that a property owner cannot use deadly force to protect unoccupied dwellings.

[Clove]

1) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts

2) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-23227104.html

A case study that I had in mind when mentioning this: http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/The case you had in mind involved a public school which isn't exactly the same as a private residence though technically a trespasser did sue and win for injuring himself while stealing.

The other two are just examples of how tort gets abused; people will try to sue for almost anything, it doesn't mean they'll be awarded anything.

Regardless of how you feel about the subject, you just HAVE to love this quote:

The lawyer added that Rainiero showed restraint, not excessive force, in dealing with Prochaska. Although, he had an entire magazine of bullets, Rainiero fired only once. LOLZ!

[Sean of the Thread]

Florida = Castle Doctrine thank goodness.

It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.





Basically don't fuck around in Florida bad guys or you're ded.


*(and I doubt there is any jury that would convict here if it did go that far)

** Also it was our future President Jeb Bush that made that happen. Just looked up the numbers and it was senate 39 yeas to zero nays and the house went 94-20.

[Sean of the Thread]

Post script I got fucked over in 1995-96 for not fulfilling my duty to retreat prior to them changing the law. /shrug