do you really know your neighbor?

[fatcat]

the guy making coffee naked while it is visible from street has a 5-year girl? I hope the little girl was not visiting him that day. It would be rather terrible if the little girl wakes up by a nightmare, goes around the house looking for her Dad and walks into a nightmare......

[Springfielder]

First of all, there's nothing wrong with teenagers dating, so why should schools have a no-dating policy? And no, kids making out at lovers lane, IMO, doesn't warrant a call to the sex crimes unit. However, they take their own risks if they engage in sexual activity while minors...and no, I'm not advocating they should be arrested and labeled as sex offenders. I think that most people have already agreed about that, so to continually bring the teenager scenarios is fruitless.

Although I do agree that as a whole, society does tend to over react, however there's also the cry for stronger penalties when it comes to those convicted of sexual abuse of a minor...and no, I'm not talking about teenagers sexually active with other teenagers.

[ChriswUfGator]

I guess we can add another sex offender to the list...

Guy was arrested for making coffee naked in his own kitchen, in his own house, first thing after getting out of bed in the morning. Some woman walking by outside saw him through his own window, now he's charged with indecent exposure:

First of all, why in the world is this guy standing in his kitchen naked, when there must not be curtains or shades to keep from being seen by anyone outside. Who cares that he wants to make coffee naked, that's his privilege, but it's stupid of him to do so when he can be seen from outside.

We all know that the law needs to be revisited and make it so those who get caught up in stupid acts like this, or some of the other stupid acts don't haunt them for the rest of their lives. However, at some point, people simply have to think about what they're doing and take responsibility for their own actions.

This constant bringing up cases like this is useless...if it bothers you that people are being tagged as sex offenders, when you feel they are not...then petition the law makers to change the laws.

I'm thankful to not know anyone that was stupid or reckless with their sexual actions, that would've landed them charged with a sexual offense. I can't say that I feel sorry for those who have, it's called doing the right thing and not leaving yourself or opening up yourself to the possibility of violating the law.

He says right in the article he didn't think anybody could see him. You saying you've NEVER had to walk around your own house naked? Gimme a break! Come onnnnnnnnnnn....

Everybody does it. How else do you get from your bed to the shower? And from the shower to the closet? If someone doesn't want to see what's going on in your house, they shouldn't be peeping through your windows in the first place!

And I disagree with your point, because I don't really think the guy did anything stupid in the first place. He does the same thing we all do, and did it in his own house! I think he rolled out of bed the same way he usually sleeps, and went into the kitchen to put the coffee on. Should he really have to expect some random woman to be peeping into his house at that exact moment and call the cops on him? That's ridiculous! And it's equally ridiculous that the guy will be labeled a 'sex offender'...

Even from the 'hang 'em high' / 'personal responsibility' argument side of things, the current setup still isn't working. Would you rather get a list of (literally) a couple thousand "sex offenders" in every city and then have to wonder which ones are just some dumb$h!t B.S. like this, and which ones who are actually child molesters? Or would you rather have a list of child molesters? Wouldn't the latter be better for everyone?

[Springfielder]

If he was visible from a passerby, then he was stupid. Has he ever heard of curtains or shades? That's all it would've taken.

Now, how many times do you have to read by others posting here, that the law needs to be revisited? I've not read many in support of anyone being labeled a sex offender for stupid crap like this...

[ChriswUfGator]

If he was visible from a passerby, then he was stupid. Has he ever heard of curtains or shades? That's all it would've taken.

Now, how many times do you have to read by others posting here, that the law needs to be revisited? I've not read many in support of anyone being labeled a sex offender for stupid crap like this...

So then you think the onus is on a homeowner to do whatever is necessary to prevent any other person from ever peeping inside their windows and possibly seeing them naked? What if he had drapes, but there was a crack in the middle? Or you could see a silhouette through the drapes from the lighting inside when it's dark out? We're supposed to put up 15ft high walls or something?

And since you're such a proponent of personal responsibility, you don't think that if the woman doesn't want to see what's going on inside someone's private home, she shouldn't be peeping in there in the first place?

[Springfielder]

First of all, I doubt this woman walking by with her young son was out roaming the neighborhood, peeping into houses. I know that when I'm walking by houses in my neighborhood, I look at the house...which does not constitute peeping...walking by and looking and peeping are two VERY different things. And if this guy was visible to anyone walking by, looking at the house as they do, and seeing him...yes, he's wrong.

And yes, the homeowner/resident/occupant should be responsible. As you stated before, many of us do wander from room to room not fully clothed...part of the freedom one has being in their own home, but along with that comes the responsibility of ensuring privacy to do so.

[ChriswUfGator]

First of all, I doubt this woman walking by with her young son was out roaming the neighborhood, peeping into houses. I know that when I'm walking by houses in my neighborhood, I look at the house...which does not constitute peeping...walking by and looking and peeping are two VERY different things. And if this guy was visible to anyone walking by, looking at the house as they do, and seeing him...yes, he's wrong.

And yes, the homeowner/resident/occupant should be responsible. As you stated before, many of us do wander from room to room not fully clothed...part of the freedom one has being in their own home, but along with that comes the responsibility of ensuring privacy to do so.

But,

1: He already said he thought he was in private and didn't think anyone could see him, and;

2: He was in his own home.

So that sounds catchy and all, but honestly WTF is he supposed to do here? Should he have shut the drapes? Probably. But if he believed in good faith nobody could see him and was inside his own house, I think that should be the end of it.

With all due respect, if you are so easily offended, don't look into people's houses. Where's the personal responsibility on the part of the woman? What's she going to do when her kid gets ahold of an R-rated movie then, get the CEO of MGM arrested? If you don't wanna see it, don't look. It's that simple.

If she doesn't want to see stuff like that, then don't look through other peoples' windows! The guy wasn't running around outside flashing her and her kid. She admits he was inside his own house making coffee and she looked in his window!

[nvrenuf]

in any reasonable society, the woman should have been arrested for peeping.

The place is in serious need of an enema.

So walking on a sidewalk and glancing over at someone's house should now constitute peeping? That makes as much sense as the guy that got arrested.

And so far as "serious need of an enema", I agree. This forum needs a serious douching.

[Springfielder]

But,

1: He already said he thought he was in private and didn't think anyone could see him, and;

2: He was in his own home.

So that sounds catchy and all, but honestly WTF is he supposed to do here? Should he have shut the drapes? Probably. But if he believed in good faith nobody could see him and was inside his own house, I think that should be the end of it.

With all due respect, if you are so easily offended, don't look into people's houses. Where's the personal responsibility on the part of the woman? What's she going to do when her kid gets ahold of an R-rated movie then, get the CEO of MGM arrested? If you don't wanna see it, don't look. It's that simple.

If she doesn't want to see stuff like that, then don't look through other peoples' windows! The guy wasn't running around outside flashing her and her kid. She admits he was inside his own house making coffee and she looked in his window!

When I'm walking the dog, or just taking a walk through my neighborhood, one of the things that makes it enjoyable, is looking at the houses....I personally, find it pleasurable to be able to do so. Had I been the one who happened to see some naked guy by his window, I wouldn't have called police, I would've simply mentioned it to him (as my neighbor) to be aware that he's visible to passersby.

There is no responsibility on behalf of people walking by and seeing something like that, visible as a passerby. To suggest there is, is ludicrous. I can appreciate that the guy didn't think anyone could see him, and IMO, I think all that needed to be done, was the officer to warn him that he was, and left it at that.

[Springfielder]

in any reasonable society, the woman should have been arrested for peeping.

The place is in serious need of an enema.

So walking on a sidewalk and glancing over at someone's house should now constitute peeping? That makes as much sense as the guy that got arrested.

And so far as "serious need of an enema", I agree. This forum needs a serious douching.

LOL

[nvrenuf]

Never would have happened in Springfield. We are constantly being told that if JSO didn't see it, it didn't happen.

[nvrenuf]

Um yeah, Virginia. Springfield, Virginia. Are we discussing all the Springfields throughout America in this forum subset?

[Dog Walker]

So what's the big deal about nudity?  If the woman wasn't a nutcase she should have laughed at the guy showing his rear end while thinking no one could see him.  Big whoop!

[ChriswUfGator]

Funniest thing, a woman was outside of the house across the street demanding that her daughter come out.  The daughter was over there at her boyfriend's "room." (not to get started on that topic   The man walks out and she is cussing him up and down.  Two police officers show up and facilitate the discussion between the two.  She says: "You are 33, she is 18!"

Anyway, after much arguing and quite a scene, the girl comes out and she and the mother walk home.  The guy goes back inside.  My wife and I walk over to talk to the police officers.  I recognized one of them and couldn't quite figure out where, so we had that discussion.  Then we were talking about how it was a lawful relationship etc. etc.  The police officer told us that it is lawful for 16-24 year olds to engage in a sexual relationship.  In other words a 24 year old man can have sex with a 16 year old girl and be within the law.  I thought this was interesting and would be worth sharing on this thread.

Yeah, that's the latest iteration of the law. It was discussed a few pages back, here;

So (2) 13 yr olds can have sex? Or it has to be 16 and over...

As long as they are both 16, or 17, or 18, etc...

but not a 16 yr old and a 17 yr old... well until it changes, it is something people need to be aware of. You sound like you are suggesting people blatantly DON'T follow the law because it is unfair.

There are a couple breakpoints. Which is one of the things that's so unbelievably stupid. The latest iteration of these asinine laws provides that a 16 or 17 year old can already have sex with someone up to age 24, without it being considered a crime. So like I've said repeatedly, the religo-nazi "age of consent" horse has already left the barn.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0794/SEC05.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0794-%3ESection%2005#0794.05

But a 15 year-and-11-month old and a 16 year old, or any other combination you can think of involving anyone over and under that arbitrary break point = "sex crime". A 24 year old and someone who is 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days old, = sex crime. Meanwhile, two 15 year olds = no crime.

It's all unjust. What's worse, they change these laws all the time, almost every two years there is some revision that makes these things even more asinine than before.

But the problem, they made no provision for the people who already got tripped on the old 18/15 laws, even though their conduct is now completely legal under our State's laws. I think thats really unfair. They're forced to stay on this sex offenders list for a "crime" that isn't even a crime anymore! And was ridiculous to begin with, even when it was considered a 'crime'.

Then unfair point #2 is that it just created another age "gotcha" between 15 and 16 year olds. Which ages make up like half of every high school, so let's not kid ourselves that they don't date, etc. 15 years 11 months 29 days vs. 16, and you've got a "sex crime".

[NotNow]

Also, nvrenuf, I'm not trying to be picky, but on your list I think the following were probably wrong place/time or age "gotcha" situations:

Rodrick Keith Young
Address: 1912 Walnut St
Crime: Lewd Or Lascivious Battery Victim 12-15 Years Old; F.S. 800.04(4); sex Offnder Fail Comply Registration; F.S. 943.0435(9)
Date of birth: 1981-09-09
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/23/2001   Lewd or lascivious battery victim 12-15 years old; F.S. 800.04(4)
0105234   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This kid was only 19 on the date of his final adjudication in May 2001. Then speaking realistically, the "offense" likely occurred at least a year or two prior to that, perhaps even longer. Once you waive speedy trial, things can really drag out. So looking at the information, the "offenders" birth date is September of 1981, and then taking the victim's age range according to the original charge under FS 800.04, it appears this was probably a 16 or 17 year old kid with a 15 year old kid. To put it in perspective, that's a high school freshman dating a high school junior or sophomore. Unless you have more information on this one, I doubt this was really a "sex crime".

Chavlis Taiwaun Williams
Address: 1616 Silver St
Crime: Abuse Of Child,Eng Sex Perfm; F.S. 827.071(2) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1975-12-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/12/1999   ABUSE OF CHILD,ENG SEX PERFM; F.S. 827.071(2) (PRINCIPAL)
9902368   DUVAL, FL
Adjudication Withheld

This one is also likely a wrong place/time situation. Apparently the judge agreed with me, considering the withhold of adjudication, in both this case and the one above.

This guy has a December of 1975 birth date, and an adjudication date of May 1999. As of the date of conviction, the kid was only 23, and the actual incident probably occurred at least a year or two or three prior to that date. The statute he was cited under at that time required only that the "victim" be <18. So in all likelihood, this could have been a 19 or 20 year old kid with a 17 year old kid. Again, unless you have more information on this one, I don't consider that a "sex crime".

Neil Christian Allen
Address: 1924 N Market St
Crime: Lewd Aslt/Sex Bat Vctm<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (Principal)
Date of birth: 1976-02-04
Based on this official offender page
Adjudication Date   Crime Description    Court Case Number    Jurisdiction & State   Adjudication
05/27/1999   LEWD ASLT/SEX BAT VCTM<16; F.S. 800.04(3) (PRINCIPAL)
9903919   DUVAL, FL
Not Available

Same deal as above. Looking at the dates, this could well have been an 18 or 19 year old kid with a 15 or almost-16 year old kid. I doubt this was really what most people would consider a "sex crime".

Also, as a side note, my date ranges are assuming the "incidents" (if you can call them that) were reported the same day as they occurred. Which is almost certainly not the case. Assuming you don't waive speedy trial, then it takes 6 months to get to trial, and it could still conceivably be a year or longer by the time sentencing rolls around. If the defendant does waive speedy trial, then all bets are off, and these things can really drag out awhile, depending on discovery, etc. So if you start adding the statute of limitations on top of all of that, then these "offenders" could very well have been (and, looking at the dates, quite likely were) very close to the "victim's" ages.

Again, unless there is some additional information, it would appear these aren't child molestation cases, or even what most normal people would consider a "sex crime".

Without trying to take a side, you don't know how wrong you are about these guys.  Whatever method you are using to pick out "non" cases, throw it out.