Thursday, March 13, 2008
Taking a picture up a girl's skirt is NOT a crime?
4 comments
In a Target store in Oklahoma, a 16-year-old girl was shopping. Unbeknownst to her, a 34-year-old peeping tom was using this opportunity to slip his camera under her skirt and snap pictures. The man was caught, but ultimately, was not found guilty in a court. Why? Because the girl was not in a "private" place.
Excuse me, but shouldn't a girl expect men to stay out of her skirt in ANY place, regardless of whether or not it's "private"? This man would have been convicted only if he snapped a picture of her in a bedroom or a bathroom, but sticking a camera up a girl's skirt is perfectly fine in the middle of a Target. Sigh.
Full story here.
Ferrante, now 34, was charged under a "Peeping Tom" statute that requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy." Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt. In January 2007, Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert ordered Ferrante's felony charge dismissed. That was based upon a determination that "the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy," according to the appellate ruling issued last week.
Excuse me, but shouldn't a girl expect men to stay out of her skirt in ANY place, regardless of whether or not it's "private"? This man would have been convicted only if he snapped a picture of her in a bedroom or a bathroom, but sticking a camera up a girl's skirt is perfectly fine in the middle of a Target. Sigh.
Full story here.
Posts
March 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM
What the fuck??
Anything underneath a girl's skirt IS private. This is disgusting.
March 13, 2008 at 11:57 PM
I know, seriously.
Thanks for commenting, Katie! :D
March 14, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Just another example how women are supposed to accept that they are there for the sexual use of men. Sick.
March 14, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Go figure. Let's keep in mind that the girl was also 16, and therefore a minor. You think they'd try a little harder to get this guy found guilty on something related to that.
And just for the record, isn't Oklahoma also the state where that representative was bad mouthing gays?