Posted on 02/07/2015 2:45:01 PM PST by Dallas59
Oh, woops! He ran in front of my car and the parking lot was wet. So I backed up and then the car went into forward when I was trying to put it into park.
Oh, woops! He ran in front of my car and the parking lot was wet. So I backed up and then the car went into forward when I was trying to put it into park.
The guy’s a “judge”! From OREGON! What did everyone expect?
I know some guys would pound the creep into the pavement. Invasion of privacy is no longer valid.
Is beating a pedophile to death with a baseball bat illegal?
Just asking.
Seems like it’s child pornography as well.
In a just world he would be aquitted and then beaten to a pulp on the courthouse steps by the family while the cops watched.
Lets collect pictures up the skirts of judges starting with the women on the supreme court down to the most lowly judge and see what they say after they are posted.
“Don’t tell me there is no such law. That’s horse$hit and you know it. I don’t know State law”
I’ll be the last one to try to tell you something that you already admit that you don’t know.
You have to define “pornography” first. Which this clearly does not full under. Exploitation probably. But it’s legal to take videos/pictures of people without their consent in Oregon. Isn’t it?
This needs to be addressed in the legislature.
If I had a 13 year old daughter and caught a guy doing that, what the judge said would be the least of his worries.
Well to me reeks of corruption.
I’m not buying for one second that they cannot charge him.
My bet is the Judge threatened to spill the beans on certain people.
Thus, they come up with this horse$hit.
No one is buying the B.S. EXCUSE of why they have to let him go. Everyone knows... they are lying.
It sounds like the prosecutor is the one that dropped the ball. Charged him with a crime he didn’t commit, instead of charging for the crime he did commit. If I walk up to your kid and belt him in the mouth, I will be found not guilty of jaywalking, tax evasion or sexual assault. The judge may have been in the right on this one.
“I’m not buying for one second that they cannot charge him.”
He was charged. He wouldn’t have been in front of a judge if he hadn’t.
Millstone. Neck. Deep blue sea.
It would seem to me that this person could be prosecuted under existing Peeping Tom laws. The Peeping Tom invades someone’s space and captures photos even though they did not consent to participate in the proceedings.
Isn’t this the exact same thing?
I’m all for giving the charged a fair break, but this guy knew he was doing something he should have been doing. This incident involving a minor should warrant the man a stiff prison sentence. He should also be required to register as a sex offender.
Well said.
“The judge may have been in the right on this one.”
The judge found the actions appalling but not illegal.
It hinged on ‘expectation to privacy’ and the defense argued against an expectation to privacy when wearing skirts. Examples were given such as wind blowing a skirt up, etc.
Don’t forget that precedence generally involves a judge expanding existing law to cover an infraction of a new variety.
This is essentially a Peeping Tom violation. The man should stand trial for invading the privacy of another person for lewd and lascivious intent.
The girl had a reasonable expectation that she was dressing in an appropriate manner, and it is clear his man went out of his way to defeat her attempt to be modest.
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.