ChicagoLand Fishing Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
Yeah, watch out for guys wearing mirrors on their shoes. :-?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
I'm sorry, but that's plain wrong, and I find it a shame our courts don't find that a crime! :)3

I'm thinking I would be going to jail myself if I caught someone doing that to my daughter, or maybe even someone else's daughter! :)29
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
Of course I found it rediculous at first...
Then I figured the courts found that being in a Target was like driving on the road.
We assume some risk just being on the road, even insurance companies look at it this way.
But then I thought more about what they said is the law.
Reasonable expectation of privacy.
They're saying reasonable doesn't include being able to expect some moron isn't taking pictures up a girl/woman's skirt at a checkout?

In other words wearing a skirt in a store means a girl/woman assumes the risk that someone may take pictures under their skirt.
After all it's a guys right. :eek:

By finding him guilty they would be infringing on the guys rights :roll:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,655 Posts
A man accused of using a camera to take pictures under the skirt of an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl at a Tulsa store did not commit a crime, a state appeals court has ruled. :eek: :evil:
Wouldnt that be considered premeditated,at least????
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,116 Posts
OK, I have no problem with protecting his "right" to take those pictures, as long as they don't then infringe on my "right" to beat the holy living hell out of him for doing so! :roll:

On a more serious note, I'm surprised that her being only 16 wasn't more of a factor... :evil:
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
I sent this to my 17-year old.
She said the guy with the camera wouldn't have made it to court. LOL
And she didn't mean because of me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
that judge should be tossed off the bench. I wonder what would have happened if it were the judges daughter???? and the lawyer should be shot, along with the rest of them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
936 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
My first thought was the judge probably does it and did not want to be called a hypocrite when he gets caught breaking a sex law.

No wonder our children are being preyed upon, with morons like this overseeing our laws. :)29
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
So let me get this strait- If I am at Target and some guy gets down on the floor so he can take a picture up my daughter skirt, and I cave his face in - I am in big trouble because of there was no reasonable expectation of privacy?

Do you think the judge understands what that guy is going to do with those pictures? :)11
 
G

·
As a photographer let me assure you that thanks to one perv in particular taking pictures or video on private property is not only illegal but is considered a felony offense when a minor is involved.

Should this happen to one of your own this particualr attorney is an expert in Civil rights law and loves to cut the bollocks off those who do the offenses and get you money for your loss of rights.

Janice M. Pintar

http://www.madufflaw.com/civil/

The manager and owner of the location should be notified and insist that Police investigate the crime and obtain store video surveilance for the store to prosecute undercorporate illegal surveillance and recording devices under industrial espionage laws, then the State laws vary, 2 crimes now, then there is this Federal law. You can also loophole the law in Illinois under the proviso of the department of professional regulation requiring a license to do covert surveillance on private citizen.

S.1301
Title: A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit video voyeurism in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen DeWine, Mike [OH] (introduced 6/19/2003) Cosponsors (3)
Related Bills: H.RES.842, H.R.2405
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 108-495 [GPO: Text, PDF]
House Reports: 108-504
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY AS OF:
12/23/2004--Public Law. (There are 3 other summaries)

Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a "private area" as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.)

Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

The last line means that you can cell phone video and audio record, record or videotape public officials without consent in public as they do their jobs or off the clock in activities.) You can also freely post that to the internet.

WI and Hawaii are the toughest while Mass. does not like thier public and police officials being taped. just another fascist state in my opinion.

It's immoral and illegal to photograph or record someones private areas without consent, especially on private property.

Its nice to versed on your rights under the law and hold others accountable who violate your privacy when reasonable expection is desired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
381 Posts
/wtf ......I think we should all kick in for the fees involved with entering this guy in Jeopardy....How could we lose?.....He knows EVERYTHING!!!!!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
digitalbluecat said:
Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

The last line means that you can cell phone video and audio record, record or videotape public officials without consent in public as they do their jobs or off the clock in activities.) You can also freely post that to the internet.
I would read that last line to mean the prohibition doesn't apply rather than that group can be photographed.
In other words correctional, lawful law enforcement, or intelligence folks CAN take your picture.

It's speaking to the prohibition of taking pictures of those areas of someones body.
The last line says that prohibnition is not applicable to those groups of people.
i.e. they are not prohibited from taking those pictures.

If it meant what you said it would be saying you CAN take a picture of itelligence activities correctional's underwear.

It's speaking to acitivities, not people.
 
G

·
There are several controversial websites that while they are disdained by the Public Officials they expose are none the less within the Constitution to provide video or pictures of Public officials doing their work or in compromised situations. They are under public scrutiny and taking that ability away from the citizen is the next step to a Fascist society.
Being caught on tape is the risk of their folly.

One should consider the consequences of the process though, as it is likely the Official will be retaliatory to the individual with a camera, so its more common that the documentary will be covert and posted to the web and news services. Discretion is required or complete disclosure to the Official if the record is to be preventive in nature. We all smile and behave when we are under the lense. No?

I could hardly imaging myself filming a correctional officers underwear or their private parts, that would get me a beating for sure! :eek:

In the reverse the Homeland Security act gives officials nearly unlimited discretion to film or tape anything they want without Constitutional oversight. The People agreed to that in Congress.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,722 Posts
And with that, the topic becomes political.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top