Posted on 03/22/2008 4:33:51 PM PDT by wagglebee
Imagine taking your 16-year-old daughter to the store and having a pervert aim a camera up her skirt and take pictures. You would expect the man to be arrested, tried and convicted for being a peeping tom. But if you live in Oklahoma, you would be wrong. Only two out of the three steps in the process happened; the pervert was not sent to jail. (The American Heritage College dictionary defines a "pervert" as "one who practices sexual perversion" and "perversion" as "a sexual practice or act considered deviant." In my opinion, this man is a pervert.)
Instead, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled 4-1 to dismiss the charges because Riccardo Gino Ferrante and the young girl were both in a public place when he decided to photograph her private parts. The "brilliant" piece of judicial reasoning behind this travesty of justice goes something like this: The "Peeping Tom" statute requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy."
When did being in one's underpants while wearing clothing over them not constitute a reasonable expectation of privacy of your private parts?
The 16-year-old teenager was not Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton out and about town sans panties. Unlike those celebrities, the teen was not dressed for and ready to be photographed getting out of cars without a care as to who sees what they are purposely revealing. According to FoxNews.com, "Testimony indicated he followed the girl, knelt down behind her and placed the camera under her skirt."
This is the case of a young girl's sense of safety, privacy and decency being violated by a pervert with a camera.
If the young girl had turned around and kicked that man square in his private parts, she would probably have been charged with assault. I guess it would not have been considered self-defense against a pervert, as the appeals court says he did not commit a crime.
Isn't it interesting that the U.S. Supreme Court managed to find a right to privacy in the penumbras of the Constitution to support abortion, but the Oklahoma courts cannot find a right to privacy of your body parts while wearing clothing?
Ladies in Oklahoma, you might want to reconsider your wardrobe for spring and summer. Put away those billowy skirts and flowery dresses; you should probably follow Hillary Clinton's lead and wear pantsuits! You will be somewhat warmer than may be comfortable, but you will not be enabling those peeping toms to snap pictures as you are freely walking and enjoying the public spaces and properties around your state. Make it more difficult for the perverts and maybe they'll move on to Arkansas or Kansas.
Public schools, public libraries and government buildings are places that women will want to avoid. According to the appeals court, unless you are in a lady's restroom or locker room, views of your panties are fair game. Since the girl that was photographed without her consent was a minor, it seems that children in schools are also fair game. Perverts can have a field day snapping pictures of children at recess on the playground.
This brings up an equally egregious case in the Seattle area. Jack McClellan, a self-proclaimed pedophile, created a website for pedophiles wherein he posted pictures of young girls he had snapped at playgrounds, family-friendly events, or anywhere there were young girls gathered, and rated the locations on a scale of one to five hearts, a five-heart location being full of young girls. The website also provided a guide to pedophiles on how not to get caught. A Foxnews.com article quotes Rebecca Hover of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department as saying, "As disturbing and offensive as we find this, there's no evidence of a crime, or even suspicion of illegal activity."
That website has since been taken down by the Internet service provider. After moving to California and then back to Portland, Oregon, Mr. McClellan is considering starting up his old website again. The Foxnews.com article said about his first website, "McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his 'age of attraction' is between 3 and 11 years old."
What is wrong with our laws today that actually having your privacy violated in a most humiliating way is allowed, even of minors, as long as it happens in a public place?
It is a sad day indeed when a pervert has more rights than his victim.
Excellent point!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Actually, I'd expect the man to be taken to the hospital and for me to be arrested. I would then go for jury nullification.
That was my first thought when I heard about this the other day.
What man. Never seen him. I don't don't know who you're talking about. I'm sorry his family is worried about him but how would I know where he is?
I am more patient and wouldn’t immediately do anything to land in jail, but somewhere down the raod in time, this perp would be in the hospital with major injuries. The camera sticking out of one of his orifices would let him and would-be imitaters know the reasons behind his pain.
A good old-fashioned ass kickin was called for.
Given that she was a minor, why didn’t they get the perv for creating child pornography?
Imagine taking your 16-year-old daughter to the store and having a pervert aim a camera up her skirt and take pictures. You would expect the man to be arrested, tried and convicted for being a peeping tom.
No, I would expect him to be broken, bleeding and half dead if that was one of my girls.
Actually, I thought it was by far the worst part of the article. Probably 90+% of Americans can agree that photographing or peeping at women in this manner is wrong and should be punished, so why marginalize the argument by bringing up an irrelevant topic about which half of the country disagrees? Now all of a sudden instead of having 90% of the people on your side you’ve half of them thinking you’ve got some sort of agenda and that your article is suspect. They could just as easily have brought up gun control or the Iraq war and they would have been just as relevant to the topic.
You’re right.
“Isn’t it interesting that the U.S. Supreme Court managed to find a right to privacy in the penumbras of the Constitution to support abortion, but the Oklahoma courts cannot find a right to privacy of your body parts while wearing clothing?”
‘Excellent point!’
Here’s where these decisions end up, in due course (until the divine sanctions rain down):
Genesis 19:2-11
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
The blindness has been descending on our judicial system for some time, as cases like this indicate. I’m a bit surprised it has spread as far as Oklahoma. If this had been Massachusetts, the parents of the girl might have been successfully countersued by the perp for interfering with his rights. If any think that’s over-the-top, read up on the background to “Fistgate”:
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/Schools/fistarc.htm
I would be right along side of you in the jail cell after knocking the perverts teeth out. One thing I won’t mind being arrested for is beating up a scumbag who harms children.
In Oregon, we just had some freak actually whack off onto a womans leg, in the middle of a store, while her very young daughter was at her side. Sick SOB only got charged with a misdemeanor.
See, that's all I would need. One guy like you on the jury, who thinks I showd extreme restraint.
The 4 judges must have liked the pictures - it’s art, you see....
The United States is an insane asylum with no walls.
If you live in a southern or southwestern town or city, you might be able to “negotiate” with policemen about a particularly offensive perv. Policemen are often walking libraries of ways to exact non-judicial punishment when they know that the written law is insufficient.
You see, it is a very long route that a perp must take from point of arrest to standing before a judge. All sorts of things happen along that route, and a perp will meet all sorts of interesting people along the way.
If the arresting officer is given a special request, in a polite if indirect manner, they may go to some lengths to insure that the deviant neither enjoys his sojourn, nor is enthused about returning to police custody anytime soon.
The officer may make a little extra effort to insure that other police officers are aware of that particular degenerate, and what in particular makes him so anti-social.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.