Every donation counts!
Posted on 02/07/2015 2:45:01 PM PST by Dallas59
An Oregon judge has acquitted a 61-year-old man who admitted taking photographs up the skirt of a 13-year-old girl as she shopped at a Target store in suburban Portland, lawyers in the case said Friday.
Washington County Circuit Court Judge Eric Butterfield ruled on Thursday that Patrick Buono did not break the law when he surreptitiously took the pictures of the girl in January 2013, said his defense attorney Mark Lawrence.
"He did not deny it and he feels real bad about it too, by the way," Lawrence said.
The girl did not notice his actions, Lawrence said, but another woman in the store alerted officials and film from surveillance cameras later confirmed Buono's act.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
No laws against voyeurism in OR? Maybe no laws were broken there, but that dirty old man’s nose should have been broken by a man in her family.
He’s prolly giving the pics to the judge.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/us/massachusetts-upskirt-photography/index.html
Yup this has happened before. Last time, the legislature passed a bill right smartly.
“It would seem to me that this person could be prosecuted under existing Peeping Tom laws.”
He was prosecuted under Oregon’s ‘peeping tom’ law.
Now, suppose you were the school photographer that took a group shot and one of the girls crotch accidentally showed under her skirt. Would you send him to jail?
I heard one lawyer say the judge could be charged for Kiddie porn and wreck less endangerment of the welfare of the child.
I know States, including Oregon and Feds have locked people up on those charges before.
If the D.A. refuses to do his or her job, then the D.A. needs to be fired for incompetence.
Hopefully, since the story is going viral the FBI will step in and nail this pervert.
But if he had taken that same shot while she was in her home, he’d be serving time. Upside down world.
No, because he was participating in a normal consensual function. He was not seeking to circumvent an individual’s normal assumption of privacy.
If he tried to hawk the merchandise afterwards for unapproved purposes, he would have opened himself up to being charged IMO.
Thank you Trisham.
i agree, TexasGator... there needs to be a law in the books addressing this... i cannot believe there isn't by now... cell phone cams and upskirting has been around a long time now...
It has to do with the law. It was written to cover that.
Evil runs rampant in America. And judges and politicians are in front leading the way.
They interviewed the dad on the news last night. Typical wussy lefty.
so you are saying there is a law... and TexasGator knows it, so i take it that you know it too... but then you say you do not know state law... you are pulling a tactic right out of the liberal playbook by saying TexasGator must be okay with looking up 13-year olds' skirts... your assumption is not based on logic, evidence... it is based on emotion... what the guy did was wrong... disgusting... and there should be a law on the books... surprised there isn't as of yet...
This is not the first court to rule this way, but it is totally perverted and sickening
The wind is an act of God or a force of nature. It is not a perv with a camera who will likely send the pics to all his sicko perv internet buddies.
I am 51 and have a 13 hear old daughter.
Where are those men who value moral law over mans sinful perversion?
Hopefully the perv gets a man made shortcut to hell.
Sorry, I cannot fathom letting this go as a dad.
See post 45.
I looked at the MA law. Appear there is still that ‘expectation to privacy’. I don’t see how it is different. Additionally, it only refers to nude or partially nude. Maybe there is another statute?
“Partially nude”, the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola.
(b) Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils another person who is nude or partially nude, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, when the other person in such place and circumstance would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being so photographed, videotaped or electronically surveilled, and without that person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 21/2 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Ch. 272, Section 105
“No, because he was participating in a normal consensual function.”
Oh. She gave her consent to have her crotch photographed?
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.