Florida Court: It's OK to Look up a Woman's Skirt with a Mirror, as Long as It's a Public Place

GlennSacks.com ^ | 5/20/08 | Glenn Sacks

[stylin19a]

yikes...where did I say "I think" they should have used 804.15 ? I just wondered why they didn't...

You big goof. My question should have read, "What is the legal definition of a mechanical viewing device ?"

Try this with Florida's legal definition of an "imaging device"

"Imaging device" means any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device; still camera; camcorder; motion picture camera; or any other instrument, equipment, or format capable of recording, storing, or transmitting visual images of another person.

Yeah, I know, it's a reach.

Go ahead and get the last word in, cause I'm really done. I mean it this time.

[Polybius]

Strawman ? I don't think so. You said it.

No, I stated the fact that the legal stardard is the "reasonable person". Your substitution of the phrase "social outrage" for the legal phrase of "reasonable person" is a creation of a Strawman on your part.

( you are outraged by the decision, aren't you?)

Whether I am or not is irrelevant to the legal standard of the "reasonable person".

I paraphrased your quote: The point is that, by totally ignoring what is considered "reasonable" by society

Again, you are avoiding the actual legal phrase and definition at all cost in order to maintain the Strawman you created.

What part of "Reasonable PERSON" do you have trouble reading?

A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

[messierhunter]

"yikes...where did I say "I think" they should have used 804.15 ? I just wondered why they didn't...

Yeah, gee, there's no contradiction, there's no backpeddling mincing of words here at all. Nope. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

"Yeah, I know, it's a reach."

It's not just a reach, it's a wholesale fabrication. Now you forward peddle again to the defense of 804.15, right after you said you wondered why they didn't use it, which was in turn right after you said you didn't think they should have used it... Now you've resorted to selective word choices (and still you think my interpretation of 804.14 was somehow wrong, let alone just plain bad) in order to fabricate a new definition of "imaging device." A mirror by itself is not capable of recording, storing, or transmitting images. It does not do any one of those three things. It reflects light, and contrary to your screwed up vocabulary, a reflection off a flat mirror is not a transmission, not even close. It is at best a re-direct, but it does not send out a signal, it does not focus the light for reception at a receiver, it merely changes its course.