Busted in the buff

Remove all ads!

I've never made coffee in the buff. Of course, that may have something to do with never having made coffee (I don't like coffee), or with never having lived alone (lived with my parents until I was married, though I did walk around naked some once married).

All in all, the mother should be charged with tresspassing and contributing to the delenquency of a minor (for tresspassing) and the guy should go free. The police should contact his work place and explain the whole situation, in as much detail as requested.

I agree with DMC that, over all, the issue depends on where it can be seen from, but I get the impression this was probably a back-yard window, which probably means there wasn't any ready visibility from public property. Invading someone's property and seeing something you find offensive is, well, invading someone's property. I don't care if you hopped a fence or broke down a door, you're committing a crime.

 

If you trespass and find out that someone is committing a crime or planning one it's one thing but trespassing and peeping on somebody is another matter altogether. I wouldn't want anyone to spy on my dishevelled mane before I had a chance to brush my hair and take my morning shower.

What about tea then?

I'm beginning to think that it's rather uncommon to fix some hot morning beverage in the buff.

Can't say that I've spend such a night with a supermodel...

 

The wife and I always made coffee in the nude. If your a total klutz, then I wouldn't recommend it, but otherwise your in no danger. Trolling your home naked is envigorating, trust me. Talk about giving yourself a sense of freedom! And with a hot cup of joe added to the mix, early in the morning, a most excellent experience.

 

Making coffee nude is no big deal -- bacon, making bacon nude would be more impressive.

I've done all sorts of household chores nude -- the bathrooms are a lot easier to clean when you're nude. But I do draw the line at the use of power tools.

Doing stuff around the house nude has only backfired on me once ... I was living with my father and step-mother, they weren't home and I had just gotten out of the shower when I realized I needed to do some laundry. So I grabbed an armful of clothes and proceeded to the garage to load the washer. Now it had rained the night before and our garage would get water in it from time to time, but I really didn't think much of wet floor. I loaded the clothes, put in soap and shut the lid.

I leaned over the washing machine and turned it on -- that was when I found out the washer needed repair and had an electrical short.

 

OK, I just had a real close look at the video again. The lawyer arguing that "people have a right to not be exposed to others' nudity even if the other is in his own house" is, well, an utter douchebag. No other words for it.

As for the complainant, well, what kind of idiot whore is out walking with her kid at 5:00am, cutting across private property, and looking in other peoples' windows? She must be a moron with a brain the size of a pea. I really want to see how this shakes out (pun definitely intended.

 

I do love tea, but that's after my shower, and I get dressed after the shower. Shower is first thing for me (that's what wakes me up), so pretty much bedroom to shower is the only option.

Well, stupid idiot may work, but that's two words (and you need them both).

Let's put it this way. If the defendant had been a young woman and the complaintant a man with his son, the complaintant would be arrested as a peeping tom, no question.

 

Isn't that redundant? An idiot is by definition a stupid person.

Interesting, I can't help thinking you're quite right with this assumption.

 

No, he isn't. A man, even with with his son, in such a situation likely would not have complained

It takes a puritan prude as I called it, or in BoV's words, anal-rententive virgins. Which brings up an interesting question: If the complainantant was a virgin, whose child was she with?

I see your point; I do close curtains when I want my privacy. I simply don't accept that nekkid guy not having done that, in his home, makes him a criminal worthy of police intervention.

Curtains or no curtains, the simple fact is that the complaintant is an idiot, and the police reacted like a bunch of overzealous thugs.

What I see is that when one suggests that he had alternate options, like closing the curtains, the pretty natural suggestion derived from that is that he acted culpable or negligent. But it is totally irrelevant whether he acted culpable or negligent because being naked in his four walls is not a crime anyway. He can commit non-criminal acts like making coffee culpable or negligent all he wants and all day long - it doesn't matter. And that doesn't even take into account whether the guy even had suitable curtains in the first place (he hasn't - they only cover the upper fourth of his kitchen window, which is pretty typical for kitchens).

If one probably correctly assumes that, with curtains, the lady wouldn't have seen him and thus wouldn't have called the police another natural suggestion is that, because he could have averted it, he ought to have averted it. No! I fail to see how he in any way was obliged to do that. That reasoning then would also suggest that that nut was right. No! The nut is and remains a nut! She, just like her kid, can be expected to survive the view of a naked man making coffee in his kitchen without psychological scars, much more so when they're passing by his house. And if she doesn't the police is not the right place to go to, a psychiatrist would be the better place to seek help.

Oh, and he ought to consider suing bis knuckle dragging police department. Iirc they called his work and told them that they arrested him for indecent exposure. They owe him an apology. Looking the story up, I found this bit on the nut:

Now then I take back everything I wrote. The man is obviously a pervert and guilty.

 

Sounds like the police are playing CYA. They are out to screw this guy, if they can get away with it.

 

Oh yes, and they will proceed just in order to not lose face.

 

It used to be that idiot meant incapable of learning while stupid meant unwilling to learn. Nowadays, it's just redundancy for the sake of emphasis.

Well, if he's gay... and the son's adopted... maybe...

As for the guy in question, I do hope he wins his case (or better yet the judge throws it out) and proceeds to sue the police, and charge the woman with tresspassing.

 

Perhaps that's why Dostoyevsky didn't write a book entitled Hey Stoopid.

 

How else do you get millions of dollars for putting a cup of coffee between your fat a** thighs and spilling all over yourself???

The wife and I are naked more often than clothed at home...sometimes our cats flop down in the blinds on our sliding glass door (so they can soak up some rays) and this drives both of us nuts, so we'll open the blinds a bit. Sometimes Jessica walks around the house butt naked or only wearing very skimpy panties with the blinds fully open. Our neighbor's bathroom and bedroom windows are directly across from the afore mentioned door. Should they choose to open their blinds and look out, they'd get more than they bargained for! IMO, it's *my* house, and in my house, I choose to be comfortable. If you choose to look in to my house, and you don't like what you see...the shift your F***ING gaze elsewhere!

I wonder what she would have done if it was a clean shaven, totally ripped male model? She'd probably pull out her phone, take a pic or a video and sell it to anyone willing to buy....

You speak the truth my friend! Even if both viewers were uber-gay, they probably still wouldn't have complained.

Dude, I wonder about you sometimes...

 

And neither would uber-lesbians. If anything they would have taken pointers for emulating manly behaviour.

 

There's a lot more that particular case than that. The reason MDs got screwed by the jury on that one was because they kept lying to the jury about prior complaints about people being burned by how hot MDs kept their coffee. If they had been honest and showed the least regard for the complaints that had already been filed they probably would not have gotten that kind of judgment against them. The judge lowered the fine anyway, like a good corporate-loving citizen.

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

 

Hot Coffee?

People in America actually go to court because the coffee they are served at McDonalds is too hot?

That is so preposterous. I mean you can feel the heat, you know it's a hot beverage and that you shouldn't gulp it down. Everybody knows you have to be careful with such beverages and not spill them all over you.

I'm flabbergasted, I actually thought it was a joke until I saw CtR's post.

 

So is spending 7 days in a hospital from coming into raw contact with their beverages. I did want to add that there are some decent, responsible corporations who do get screwed everyday by unfair lawsuits. But MDs isn't one of them....

 

I didn't want to sound judgmental but from my perspective it seems to be a very strange lawsuit. You'd think anyone would know that hot coffee is potentially scalding. People injure themselves everyday without necessarily blaming a company for their clumsiness.

If I break a bottle of Jack Daniel's, am I entitled to sue the company because their bottles break too easily? Or do I have to hurt myself with the glass to be able to sue them for millions of dollars? For the record I'm not sarcastic, in fact I wouldn't be that surprised if you told me it's already been done.

For the record I certainly hate MDs even more than you seem to do. I don't understand why people all over the world actually enjoy to eat at one of their restaurants. I live in the French capital of gastronomy and you'd think we'd know better than to eat the crap they pass up as food.

 

Suppose they made the bottle so thin that it was very easliy broken and you injured yourself?