Is the Fairfax County Justice System Out of Control? re: Naked Man (house, neighborhood)

[FairfaxGuy73]

Originally Posted by normie

They were on a path going by the house. A pathway is public property.

??? People can have paths on private property, including HOAs. She could have been trespassing.

[FairfaxGuy73]

I'll bet that the single-finger salute woman who admitted to being "angry" really built it up to her police officer husband, including the in front of a child part. The responding officers were no doubt pumped to do something, which explains entering the house under false pretenses.

[normie]

Originally Posted by FairfaxGuy73

??? People can have paths on private property, including HOAs. She could have been trespassing.

Possibly, but IMO if that was the case the Washingon Post would have reported it that way. They would have said she was walking across his property instead of she was walking on the path that went by his house.

[FairfaxGuy73]

Originally Posted by normie

Possibly, but IMO if that was the case the Washingon Post would have reported it that way. They would have said she was walking across his property instead of she was walking on the path that went by his house.

Agree that it likely wasn't his. That would be a pretty big parcel if she was 83 feet away. It just that paths are often on HOA and other private property that people use anyway, esp. if they lead to a school or park.

She could have been somewhere that she should not have been (in his neighborhood and not her own) but that wasn't taken up in the case because it wouldn't have affected the verdict (or a better tack was chosen).

[normie]

Originally Posted by FairfaxGuy73

He was fired because the police called his workplace and said that he had exposed himself in front of a child (the seven year old boy who was with the finger-flipping mother 83 feet away). His boss also happened to be his landlord. He hadn't lived there very long may not have worked for the boss long either. Most people think that a person is guilty when the police charge them. Boss thought that he had a child molester on his property and in his office. A lot of people could get fired if the police called their workplace for something that they may be found innocent of.

So his boss was also his landlord? Then he had a personal relationship with the man, and certainly had had time to make a personal judgement of him. This is the part of the story that doesn't add up to me. I've been a boss for many years and you get to know your employees. Good employees sometimes get falsely accused (especially by ex-spouses) and you tend to reserve judgement until all the facts are in. That was a really fast reaction from the boss. A boss of a person who is truly innocent is not likely to react like that. I guess it could happen, but it seems weird to me.

I can maybe buy that two different neighbors made a mistake and over-reacted and even that all those different law enforcement people also over-reacted. But his employer as well? I don't know about that. I suppose it's possible but it seems odd.

Also, if the boss was his landlord, then he likely knew the two women making the accusations. If they tend to be over-reacting busybodies, he'd know it. He'd be rolling his eyes and thinking "Oh lord those ladies are always over-reacting" and not take the accusation as seriously as he did.

Which is not to say that I have an opinion on this case. I don't, since I don't know much about it. I just think the quick reaction of his boss was worth noting.

[normie]

Originally Posted by FairfaxGuy73

It just that paths are often on HOA and other private property that people use anyway, esp. if they lead to a school or park.

What difference would this have made? The public is allowed to walk on walking paths, it's the same as walking on a sidewalk. And, whether the path by your house is a sidewalk or an HOA trail, if it goes by your house you should keep your curtains closed if you want to walk around naked. Especially if you're walking around for hours at a time during the morning when kids are walking to school. Common sense.

Then again, some people have no common sense. Oh well, guess this guy knows to close his curtains now.

[FairfaxGuy73]

Originally Posted by normie

So his boss was also his landlord? Then he had a personal relationship with the man, and certainly had had time to make a personal judgement of him. This is the part of the story that doesn't add up to me. I've been a boss for many years and you get to know your employees. Good employees sometimes get falsely accused (especially by ex-spouses) and you tend to reserve judgement until all the facts are in. That was a really fast reaction from the boss. A boss of a person who is truly innocent is not likely to react like that. I guess it could happen, but it seems weird to me.

I can maybe buy that two different neighbors made a mistake and over-reacted and even that all those different law enforcement people also over-reacted. But his employer as well? I don't know about that. I suppose it's possible but it seems odd.

Also, if the boss was his landlord, then he likely knew the two women making the accusations. If they tend to be over-reacting busybodies, he'd know it. He'd be rolling his eyes and thinking "Oh lord those ladies are always over-reacting" and not take the accusation as seriously as he did.

That really gets into too much speculation, because we don't know the profession or the boss. I worked in an office where a person was arrested for stalking. BAM -gone. Some professions require workers to be bonded, require a high level of integrity, security clearances, etc. There are lots of professions where you don't want an accused child abuser around. It's a pretty serious charge. There are lots of jerky bosses too. I just say that this part goes beyond what can be speculated upon.

But it does support part of my original thesis. Once you're charged, you're usually found guilty by the system and in the eyes of your community. Everyone thinks you done it. After all, why would the police arrest you? Why would the magistrate charge you? Why would the prosecutor go after you? They build on each other in a snowball. Why would the boss fire him?. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

One minute you're a normal person, a phone call later, a fiend with a ruined life.

[normie]

Originally Posted by FairfaxGuy73

That really gets into too much speculation, because we don't know the profession or the boss. I worked in an office where a person was arrested for stalking. BAM -gone. Some professions require workers to be bonded, require a high level of integrity, security clearances, etc. There are lots of professions where you don't want an accused child abuser around. It's a pretty serious charge. There are lots of jerky bosses too. I just say that this part goes beyond what can be speculated upon.

But it does support part of my original thesis. Once you're charged, you're usually found guilty by the system and in the eyes of your community. Everyone thinks you done it. After all, why would the police arrest you? Why would the magistrate charge you? Why would the prosecutor go after you? They build on each other in a snowball. Why would the boss fire him?. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

One minute you're a normal person, a phone call later, a fiend with a ruined life.

Interpret as you wish. But I hope we all learn one thing from this: Close your curtains if you want to walk around naked!

[bmwguydc]

This whole situation makes me wonder, would the police response, and neighbor reaction have been the same if the alleged perpetrator was a woman?

The guy was a bit naive to think that he would not be viewed in that part of Springfield, as the houses are not set amid acre+ wooded lots. However, there's a big difference between naivete and willful indecent exposure. Moreover, if the distance to the trail from the door is 83 feet, how could one even hear a slight rustling that would attract their attention? Why would she have been looking in his carport? That seems to be a flimsy part of the accusation, IMO, and I would have voted with the jury on that evidence.

Perhaps it's because I am a New Yorker, and in larger cities, you can see and be seen if you don't close your blinds/drapes/shutters. Does that mean that it's legitimate to be a voyeur and invade others' spaces where they are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if they neglect to close their blinds/drapes/shutters? Just because you could see, doesn't mean that you should be looking.

If it had been a pattern of repeated exposure, despite a warning from the police, or if there had been a deliberate act in full view, designed for indecency, then that would change things. If nudists moved next door and the breeze pushed their curtain back and one could see them, that would not be intentional, nor should they be prosecuted. If they guy didn't think he could be seen, he's free to do what he wants in his own house with regard to the amount of clothing, if any, he wears within its walls.

I also think that the mother should remember that vulgar gestures in public, designed to incite another, which is generally what people intend by the middle finger salute, is not appreciated by many people. While the Supreme Court has not ruled on its legality, it's certainly not something that I would appreciate witnessing, especially if I were walking by with a child.

[weezycom]

I guess I fall on the other side of the coin here. As a woman, I can tell you that there are a lot of creepy guys out there that don't pull this nonsense when another guy is around, only when women are alone or with small children. I'm a middle-aged average looking, averagely-dressed woman -- not some hot chicka playing hootchie -- who, a couple of times a year, still has to deal with some creepy guy doing his creepy thing of choice.

If this guy was sitting around in his house nekkid, who cares? It's that he made sure he was standing right in front of a glass door and making enough noise until that woman walking by would turn and get the unexpected and unasked-for sight of his weiner.

When it got into court, it was a he-said/she-said, and there was just not enough to convict. The police should have gotten a warrant and I'm sure overplayed it b/c nekkid guy happened to target a policeman's wife. But these creeps are generally cowards and the police know this and also know that it won't hold up in court but a really big scare will go a long ways to preventing future creepy behavior around the general citizenry.