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
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