Ok well the legal definition is different, so that is worth factoring in to your own definition. That doesn’t even work for traditional physical assault, as in some jurisdictions you can be charged with assault for threatening it as well.
If he just really wanted to expose himself to a stranger? Maybe lewd behavior or something? He’s in his own home and there’s nothing illegal about just being naked in your home
Just is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that first sentence. As I mentioned in another reply, being naked in your home (which is relevant to public nudity/indecency laws, not sexual harassment or assault laws) can be illegal if viewable from public spaces. Just because he may not be eligible to be charged for public indecency, doesn’t mean he can’t be charged with another offence.
He’s gross and deserves to lose his account, but what else do you think should happen?
Some form of sexual harassment/assault charge, even if minor, unless he can demonstrate with evidence there’s a reasonable explanation for him being naked when he knows a stranger is approaching his home. Maybe a small fine/community work but most importantly the charge establishes a history of sexual offences if his offending develops into a pattern or escalates in the future.
Read my comment again. I said “the threat of physical escalation”.
She had to walk in his home to see him naked. Public indecency laws don’t apply. His home isn’t a public space, even if he left the door open.
He’s probably a pervert, I’m not arguing against that. But people are allowed to be naked in their home. And if you go into people’s homes, even for your job, you might see them naked. It’s gross if it’s on purpose, but it’s absolutely not sexual assault.
Read my comment again. I said “the threat of physical escalation”.
??? I did and my reply was “that’s your definition. The courts dont operate under your definitions” but polite.
She had to walk in his home to see him naked.
Source? Even if she did after, the door was open. After he instructed her to “leave it at the door”.
Public indecency laws don’t apply. His home isn’t a public space, even if he left the door open.
Im just going to paste what I already replied to you in another thread
But, “exposure can be deemed indecent if visible from public areas, such as a street or neighbor’s yard,”
You do seems to be trying very hard to argue this behaviour is fine and appear to be doing your absolute best not to understand the myriad of information I’ve presented to you as being indicative of this man being a potential sexual offender. Yo yo’ing from “being naked in your house isn’t illegal” to “this doesn’t meet my definition of sexual assault” despite both of those being incorrect contextually and arguably irrelevant.
I’m not jumping in on either side, but specifically going to point to this specific issue of confusion where YOU are confused.
The other person said “threat of physical escalation”, you responded “in jurisdictions you can be charged for threatening it as well”. In other words, what you said did nothing to contradict what they said, hence why they told you to re-read what they said. Because from their perspective, your evidence for how the courts don’t necessarily align with their definitions doesn’t actually say anything meaningful because you basically just agreed with them lol
Ok well the legal definition is different, so that is worth factoring in to your own definition. That doesn’t even work for traditional physical assault, as in some jurisdictions you can be charged with assault for threatening it as well.
Just is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that first sentence. As I mentioned in another reply, being naked in your home (which is relevant to public nudity/indecency laws, not sexual harassment or assault laws) can be illegal if viewable from public spaces. Just because he may not be eligible to be charged for public indecency, doesn’t mean he can’t be charged with another offence.
Some form of sexual harassment/assault charge, even if minor, unless he can demonstrate with evidence there’s a reasonable explanation for him being naked when he knows a stranger is approaching his home. Maybe a small fine/community work but most importantly the charge establishes a history of sexual offences if his offending develops into a pattern or escalates in the future.
Read my comment again. I said “the threat of physical escalation”.
She had to walk in his home to see him naked. Public indecency laws don’t apply. His home isn’t a public space, even if he left the door open.
He’s probably a pervert, I’m not arguing against that. But people are allowed to be naked in their home. And if you go into people’s homes, even for your job, you might see them naked. It’s gross if it’s on purpose, but it’s absolutely not sexual assault.
??? I did and my reply was “that’s your definition. The courts dont operate under your definitions” but polite.
Source? Even if she did after, the door was open. After he instructed her to “leave it at the door”.
Im just going to paste what I already replied to you in another thread
You do seems to be trying very hard to argue this behaviour is fine and appear to be doing your absolute best not to understand the myriad of information I’ve presented to you as being indicative of this man being a potential sexual offender. Yo yo’ing from “being naked in your house isn’t illegal” to “this doesn’t meet my definition of sexual assault” despite both of those being incorrect contextually and arguably irrelevant.
I’m not jumping in on either side, but specifically going to point to this specific issue of confusion where YOU are confused.
The other person said “threat of physical escalation”, you responded “in jurisdictions you can be charged for threatening it as well”. In other words, what you said did nothing to contradict what they said, hence why they told you to re-read what they said. Because from their perspective, your evidence for how the courts don’t necessarily align with their definitions doesn’t actually say anything meaningful because you basically just agreed with them lol