Hoofbite
Draft Pick
- Messages
- 4,231
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/us/massachusetts-upskirt-photography/index.html?c=homepage-t
Jokes aside, this is just fucking odd.
The legal system is really reminding me more and more of the NFLs instant replay system. Rather than be used to correct errors the instant replay system is basically used to scrutinize good plays, looking for any reason at all to take those plays away.
"Oh, well technically if you try to get up off the ground and lose possession you really haven't completed the catch"
"As this is a scoring play we are going to review it and make sure there isn't any aspect, influential to the outcome or not, that doesn't pass the 300 frames/sec interrogation"
"Well the law says that the person need be naked in order for this to be a crime".
Look at the explanation,
How does that make any fucking sense? By that explanation it's perfectly legal to sneak a cam up someone's skirt and snap pics, even if there's no underwear there so you get pics of a nicely trimmed snatch..........but if that chick were to sit across from you and spread her legs to show you the beef curtains, then you're committing a crime.
How in the blue hell can you stipulate that the private parts be in plain view. If it was in plain view, the chick would probably would be putting it out there for you to see. Photos of exhibitionists break the law but photos of unsuspecting everyday people don't?
That's like criminalizing the act of watching your neighbor intentionally flash you through the windows but not outlawing the act of looking through someone's windows as they shower because it wasn't in plain site and as a result you had to invade someone's privacy to see it.
Or does this mean that it's illegal to take a picture of some ditz who doesn't know she has her pussy openly showing, but not illegal to slide your phone under a woman's skirt and into a position to see her pussy without her being neither aware of it, or so careless that she's just giving it away.
Just entirely fucking stupid.
I think the legal system at times is entirely too slavish to the explicit wording of the law and as a result this shit happens. You can't possibly have a law in place that accounts for every single possible variable. So now they'll write a law for this but because of the strict verbiage this asshole will put a mirror on his shoe and his defense will be that he wasn't looking up her skirt, he was looking down at his shoe.
And he'll probably get off, after getting off.
At what point can we just call it like it is? Dude was a scumbag and invaded someone's privacy. Why is that not enough by itself? Why must someone's private be partially nude and visible to the public to qualify?
What the fuck is the point in even calling them "privates" in the first place if they're free for public viewing? Shit, can you look through force? If the person isn't partially nude, taking a gander at gunpoint might just fly for this judge.
I bet you anything this judge is just a fucking nasty-looking wench whom nobody would have ever dared to try and get pussy shots of.
It's just unbelievable that this shit happens. Almost as dumb as teenage girls being charged with child porn for sending nudes to their boyfriends of the same age. 16 year old can consent to intercourse in some states, can't willfully distribute pictures to her would-be partner. Meanwhile Peeping Tom can snap beaver pics of anyone he wants without consent so long as he had to put in a little work for it by getting under her dress.
Jokes aside, this is just fucking odd.
The legal system is really reminding me more and more of the NFLs instant replay system. Rather than be used to correct errors the instant replay system is basically used to scrutinize good plays, looking for any reason at all to take those plays away.
"Oh, well technically if you try to get up off the ground and lose possession you really haven't completed the catch"
"As this is a scoring play we are going to review it and make sure there isn't any aspect, influential to the outcome or not, that doesn't pass the 300 frames/sec interrogation"
"Well the law says that the person need be naked in order for this to be a crime".
Look at the explanation,
How does that make any fucking sense? By that explanation it's perfectly legal to sneak a cam up someone's skirt and snap pics, even if there's no underwear there so you get pics of a nicely trimmed snatch..........but if that chick were to sit across from you and spread her legs to show you the beef curtains, then you're committing a crime.
How in the blue hell can you stipulate that the private parts be in plain view. If it was in plain view, the chick would probably would be putting it out there for you to see. Photos of exhibitionists break the law but photos of unsuspecting everyday people don't?
That's like criminalizing the act of watching your neighbor intentionally flash you through the windows but not outlawing the act of looking through someone's windows as they shower because it wasn't in plain site and as a result you had to invade someone's privacy to see it.
Or does this mean that it's illegal to take a picture of some ditz who doesn't know she has her pussy openly showing, but not illegal to slide your phone under a woman's skirt and into a position to see her pussy without her being neither aware of it, or so careless that she's just giving it away.
Just entirely fucking stupid.
I think the legal system at times is entirely too slavish to the explicit wording of the law and as a result this shit happens. You can't possibly have a law in place that accounts for every single possible variable. So now they'll write a law for this but because of the strict verbiage this asshole will put a mirror on his shoe and his defense will be that he wasn't looking up her skirt, he was looking down at his shoe.
And he'll probably get off, after getting off.
At what point can we just call it like it is? Dude was a scumbag and invaded someone's privacy. Why is that not enough by itself? Why must someone's private be partially nude and visible to the public to qualify?
What the fuck is the point in even calling them "privates" in the first place if they're free for public viewing? Shit, can you look through force? If the person isn't partially nude, taking a gander at gunpoint might just fly for this judge.
I bet you anything this judge is just a fucking nasty-looking wench whom nobody would have ever dared to try and get pussy shots of.
It's just unbelievable that this shit happens. Almost as dumb as teenage girls being charged with child porn for sending nudes to their boyfriends of the same age. 16 year old can consent to intercourse in some states, can't willfully distribute pictures to her would-be partner. Meanwhile Peeping Tom can snap beaver pics of anyone he wants without consent so long as he had to put in a little work for it by getting under her dress.
