Started By
Message
Pervs win again
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:07 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:07 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:10 am to 3nOut
Not sure how I feel about this.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:12 am to 3nOut
Welp, I'm off to photograph some undercarriages.....
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:13 am to cokebottleag
Ditto. I mean girls who dress and sit in a way where you can take a picture like that know good and well what they are doing when they are walking out the door.... But I don't like a ruling that lets a despicable act slide.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 8:13 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:23 am to 3nOut
If that one man ruins skirt wearing I'm going to Boston and whipping his arse..
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:30 am to 3nOut
quote:
I don't like a ruling that lets a despicable act slide.
The judges made it clear in their ruling that they didn't like making it.
Here's what they said in their ruling:
"At the core of the Commonwealth's argument to the contrary is the proposition that a woman, and in particular a woman riding on a public trolley, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in not having a stranger secretly take photographs up her skirt. The proposition is eminently reasonable, but (the law) in its current form does not address it,"
But they really didn't have much choice if they wanted to do what the law said rather than what they wanted it to say.
Here's the section of the law used to charge him:
Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The victims weren't nude or semi-nude and they were in a place of public accommodation, so they lacked the reasonable expectation of privacy.
The legislature just didn't anticipate some perv would be taking panty pics on the bus.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:37 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
The victims weren't nude or semi-nude and they were in a place of public accommodation, so they lacked the reasonable expectation of privacy.
The legislature just didn't anticipate some perv would be taking panty pics on the bus.
yeah i read that part and understand why the ruling went the way it did, but it still stinks.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:41 am to 3nOut
They'll push a change in the law that includes a provision for 'beneath clothing that would prevent cursory photographing or videotaping' and this will amount to nothing.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 8:47 am to 3nOut
quote:
yeah i read that part and understand why the ruling went the way it did, but it still stinks.
What really should have happened is when he was caught, the men on that bus should have whipped his arse.
quote:
They'll push a change in the law that includes a provision for 'beneath clothing that would prevent cursory photographing or videotaping' and this will amount to nothing.
Yeah, it is an easy fix.
This post was edited on 3/6/14 at 8:48 am
Posted on 3/6/14 at 9:15 am to 3nOut
I think people should just stick with camel toe pics.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:00 am to 3nOut
Ohio - finger guns are dangerous;
Minnesota - freezing girls in their wet bathing suits is okay;
Massachusetts - okay to photograph up women's skirts.
Has common sense in the North been frozen to death this Winter?
Minnesota - freezing girls in their wet bathing suits is okay;
Massachusetts - okay to photograph up women's skirts.
Has common sense in the North been frozen to death this Winter?
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:01 am to AirDawg
quote:
Where did you drudge this up?
Um, it has been on every major news site for at least a day and is still on the front page of both foxnews.com and cnn.com.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 10:46 am to AirDawg
quote:
Posted by AirDawg Where did you drudge this up?
Saw it on the news at the gym.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 11:14 am to Kentucker
quote:
Ohio - finger guns are dangerous;
Minnesota - freezing girls in their wet bathing suits is okay;
Massachusetts - okay to photograph up women's skirts.
Has common sense in the North been frozen to death this Winter?
Just really bizarre rulings going on right now.
Call me crazy, but I feel like you have a reasonable amount of privacy under your own clothing protecting your "private parts".
Posted on 3/6/14 at 1:15 pm to 3nOut
I don't approve of what the guy did but a HUGE kudos to the judges, IMO. Now days it seems rare that the actual laws get enforced. Too many judges prefer to put their own interpretation on the law and distort it.
I wish the SCOTUS would enforce the letter of the law again.
I wish the SCOTUS would enforce the letter of the law again.
Posted on 3/6/14 at 6:08 pm to 3nOut
Thread is useless without pics.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 8:13 am to deltaland
quote:
Thread is useless without pics.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News