Sunday, October 25, 2009
The end of a man's castle
A man is standing in his kitchen, naked, making coffee. A woman, who happens to be married to a cop, walks across his lawn with her kid on their way to school, takes note of the man's "torso," and has him arrested. For standing naked in his own house. In addition to wondering what the hell the world is coming to when a trespasser calls the cops on somebody standing in his own kitchen in whatever state of dress or undress, Michelle Catalano poses an interesting thought experiment:
What if the tables were turned? What if Williamson were a woman and a man walked by the house instead of a woman? What if that man happened to look into the window, staring long enough to see that the woman inside was naked? Would he call the cops to say he was flashed? Probably not, because he would end up in handcuffs for being a peeping Tom. A woman looks in on a naked man and thinks he is committing a crime. A man looks in on a naked woman and she thinks he is committing a crime. Weird how that works.
Discuss among yourselves with as much wit as you can muster.
In the interests of full disclosure -- apparently a new requirement for bloggers in the Obama States of America -- I have actually made coffee in my underwear, so I have some skin in this debate. Fortunately, the only house with a view in to my kitchen is filled with French people who probably are not terribly troubled if they catch a glimpse of my "torso," but that is just good fortune. They might have been priggish cop wives. My castle, and if you do not want to see what is going on inside do not look in the goddamn windows.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Oct 25, 03:47:00 PM:
I think the poster named "Harry" at the source link has it right:
14. Harry: Have the woman and child arrested for trespassing. Next time shoot both.
I like to live where I can urinate off my porch without having to worry that my neighbors can see me.
By 
Mojo, at
Sun Oct 25, 04:01:00 PM:
It reminds me of an old joke....
A old woman calls the police to complain that her neighbor is walking around in his back yard naked. When they arrive, the cops can't help but notice that due to the hedge, no matter where in his yard he was you could never see anything below his waist.
When they point this out to her, she responds "stand on the chair!".
:-D
By , at
Sun Oct 25, 04:24:00 PM:
Churchill used to go about naked in Chartwell, once startling his young secretary as he walked by at the top of the stairs.
But then, upon reflection, I'm guessing the sight would startle most anyone.
;P
By , at
Sun Oct 25, 08:12:00 PM:
Of course, it's stupid that a trespasser would have any right to object to what she (or he) sees a person do in their own home, but WTH does Obama have to do with such nonsense? I seem to recall the prior administration wanted us all to spy on each other to make sure we weren't terrorists, but this one thus far has at least remained mum on the nosybody neighbor front AFAIK. Not to mention that the whole "tough on crime" business wasn't started by lefties.
IOW, it's not a partisan thing.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sun Oct 25, 08:44:00 PM:
drbfg - Obama wasn't connected to the incident, but to the statement about full disclosure. Listen louder.
"Full disclosure" was an interesting choice of phrase, TH.
Does bringing the dogs out to the run in your shorts count? I may be in trouble.
By , at
Mon Oct 26, 12:04:00 AM:
'My castle, and if you do not want to see what is going on inside do not look in the goddamn windows.' Amen TH.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Oct 26, 10:30:00 AM:
It's like people are still are surprised by double standards of behavior between men and women...
By , at
Mon Oct 26, 01:03:00 PM:
She was a cop's wife, and therefore part of the protected class of those "on the job" or "connected" to someone "on the job".
A run of the mill subject would have likely be ignored, or treated as a potential "perp".
By , at
Mon Oct 26, 03:13:00 PM:
A recent Iowa Supreme Court decision (State of Iowa v. Isaacs, 2008), vacated an indecent exposure conviction because the trespassing flasher, who was standing outside a woman’s window at her place of residence, was not actually seen by the woman (she refused to look, but simply called 911 instead). The high court reasoned that the responding police officer who actually witnessed the nudity (hence becoming the only “victim” of the exposure), was not subjected to such with any “intent to arouse”
Opposite facts; same disregard for the right to privacy in one's own home; equally nutty results from our nation's great legal minds.
