Erick Williamson, the Springfield, Virginia man arrested earlier this year for being naked in his own home was convicted of indecent exposure on Friday. The judge sentenced him to 180 days in jail, but suspended the sentence.
I’m still not sure how the conviction holds up, given that the two alleged witnesses had to actually look into Williamson’s house to see Little Erick and the Williamson Twins. So you now have to make sure no one can see into your home in order to be naked in it? How vigilant must you be?
Also . . . WTF?
Williamson denied standing naked in his doorway or front window and said he had no intent to expose himself to anyone. But [Judge] O’Flaherty wasn’t buying it and likened Williamson to bank robber John Dillinger, who also “thought he was doing nothing wrong when he walked into banks and shot them up.”
First, who the hell still invokes John Dillinger to make a point? Everyone knows that when you want a ridiculously inappropriate “they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong, either” analogy, you turn to the death camp guards in Nazi Germany. Methinks Judge O’Flaherty needs to get the latest Gilbert Outline for Bad Legal Metaphors addendum so as not to date himself in future rulings.
Second . . . seriously, what is wrong with this judge? Not seeing the harm in walking around your own house in the nude is akin to not seeing the harm in armed friggin’ robbery?