patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,362,416 comments by 15,737 users - AD, clambo, goofus, Karloff, Misc, Robert Sproul online now
Oregon judge: Upskirt photos of teen at store not illegal
2015 Feb 6, 12:21pm 3,914 views 10 comments
by zzyzzx follow (9)
Comments 1 - 10 of 10 Search these comments
what a sick fuck. it's because of this judge's ruling that we have become a nation of disgusting beings.
MAGA
2015 Feb 6, 2:24pm
An Oregon judge has ruled that a 61-year-old man did nothing illegal when he crouched in the aisle of a Target store and snapped photos up a 13-year-old's skirt.
An out of work Realtor?
Ceffer
2015 Feb 6, 2:36pm
The good news is the 61 year old perv took an upskirts shot of the judge in the courtroom, and the judge WASN'T wearing underwear, so he is going down anyway.
Strategist
2015 Feb 6, 5:50pm
HILLSBORO, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon judge has ruled that a 61-year-old man did nothing illegal when he crouched in the aisle of a Target store and snapped photos up a 13-year-old's skirt.
This is when I would support illegally framing the pervert. And changing the dumb law.
Strategist
2015 Feb 6, 5:51pm
The good news is the 61 year old perv took an upskirts shot of the judge in the courtroom, and the judge WASN'T wearing underwear, so he is going down anyway.
Please don't show the picture. I don't need to see an old judge's asshole.
Ceffer
2015 Feb 6, 5:53pm
The good news is the 61 year old perv took an upskirts shot of the judge in the courtroom, and the judge WASN'T wearing underwear, so he is going down anyway.
Please don't show the picture. I don't need to see an old judge's asshole.
He's a lawyer. I think technically everything that shows is asshole.
Dan8267
2015 Feb 6, 10:15pm
"Sure, she's in a public place. But she had an expectation of privacy that a deviant isn't going to stick a camera up her skirt and capture private images of her body," Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said.
And there's the fundamental problem. We Americans have lost our right to privacy. If the state can take images of your privates, so can citizens. The judge was right that the 61-year-old wasn't breaking any laws. The entire problem is that he wasn't breaking any laws.
We've been in need of strict privacy laws in the country since the 1970s. And until there is massive public outcry for such laws, things will only get worse.
Y
2015 Feb 7, 7:48am
and went right to charging his iphone...
After the ruling, Buono shook his lawyer's hand and hurried from the courtroom.
Strategist
2015 Feb 7, 8:04am
"Sure, she's in a public place. But she had an expectation of privacy that a deviant isn't going to stick a camera up her skirt and capture private images of her body," Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said.
And there's the fundamental problem. We Americans have lost our right to privacy. If the state can take images of your privates, so can citizens. The judge was right that the 61-year-old wasn't breaking any laws. The entire problem is that he wasn't breaking any laws.
We've been in need of strict privacy laws in the country since the 1970s. And until there is massive public outcry for such laws, things will only get worse.
Cameras keep getting smaller and more powerful. Eventually they will be the size of a shirt button, where anyone can stick one in a bathroom or someone's home and and no one ever finds out. Laws will catch up, but how do you prevent someone from breaking the law.
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-judge-upskirt-photos-teen-store-not-illegal-193507250.html
HILLSBORO, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon judge has ruled that a 61-year-old man did nothing illegal when he crouched in the aisle of a Target store and snapped photos up a 13-year-old's skirt.
It was lewd and appalling, but not outlawed, Washington County Judge Eric Butterfield said.
"From a legal point of view, which unfortunately today is my job to enforce, he didn't do anything wrong," the judge said Thursday.
Patrick Buono of Portland didn't dispute using his cellphone to take upskirt photos on Jan. 3 at the store in suburban Beaverton, The Oregonian (http://bit.ly/1zXl9hx) reported.
But his defense lawyer, Mark Lawrence, argued Buono didn't violate the laws against invasion of privacy and attempted encouraging child sexual abuse, a child pornography count.
The privacy law bans clandestine photography in bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and tanning booths, but the Target aisle was plainly public, Lawrence said.
Upskirt sightings can occur by happenstance, he said, citing a famous photo of Marilyn Monroe with her dress flying up. And that could happen to someone riding up an escalator, taking a spill or exiting a car, he said.
"These things are not only seen but video-recorded," Lawrence said. "It's incumbent on us as citizens to cover up whatever we don't want filmed in public places."
The privacy law also specifies nudity, and the girl was wearing underwear, Lawrence said.
The prosecutor conceded that the lack of nudity was a "live issue in this case," but he argued the charge applied.
"Sure, she's in a public place. But she had an expectation of privacy that a deviant isn't going to stick a camera up her skirt and capture private images of her body," Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said.
As for the charge related to child sex abuse, Lawrence said, the girl was not engaging in sexual conduct, which that statute specifies.
Maloney said Buono took the photos hoping they would be explicit.
Butterfield said the teenager's private parts were covered, and her conduct was not sexual.
The judge called his decision to acquit Buono "upsetting to say the least."
After the ruling, Buono shook his lawyer's hand and hurried from the courtroom.