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 ...
“The wind is an act of God or a force of nature. “
It is ok to photograph the panties if the wind blows up the skirt?
Is it ok to photograph if the girl is sitting on the subway?
Or on the escalator above you?
Or walking over a glass ceiling?
“I heard one lawyer say the judge could be charged for Kiddie porn “
I heard several lawyers say that OJ was innocent, er, not guilty.
You are too trusting of the system instead of being skeptical as our founding fathers said we should be.
They always say oh there is nothing they can do. Hoping that you do not look into the law.
Then see post#45
They are pack of lying, trash, scum, filth, criminals preying on little children.
Again you are too trusting of the system and you are letting them play mind games when your gut tells you that what they are saying is a bunch of bull.
No. I was responding to “the wind”
I don’t even have a daughter. But if I saw someone doing that I’m sure he’d end up in the hospital and I’d be in handcuffs. I’m also pretty sure the several friends I have with daughters would come bail me out.
No, she tacitly gave her permission to be photographed in a group. When you’re taking the group shot, you can’t even keep every face in line before the shot. It’s only afterwards when you can study the photo when you know if you have gotten everyone in the shot, and hopefully smiling. You may not even notice the part of the girl in question that is revealed until much later. There’s no implied evil intent on the photographer’s part.
If he instructs actions that would cause the exposure on purpose, you might be able to go after him, but only if it was flagrant. Another-words, “Hey ‘girl’, how about uncovering yourself for me.” That would be problematic.
How about the photographer that captures swim team shots, or water polo shots? Sometimes those can go a bit south. Is the photographer there to score, or to fulfill a service to the team?
Generally speaking, he’s there to fulfill a service for the team. As long as he conducts himself professionally, he would be deemed acting according to his mandate.
That’s not what took place here. This guy’s sole goal was to capture illicit shots.
Take Note: If you see someone doing this just kick his ass. Let him try to press charges...
there’s not a jury in my state that would convict me.
The judge can’t make law. This isn’t illegal in Oregon.
I think the laws are Federal. Live sex shows with underage participants are legal in OR, I believe.
There was acase, again in Oregon, where a man set cameras outside his minor(girl)neighbor’s bedroom window. Not illegal in Oregon!!!!!
http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2014/sjc-11353.html
Stuff like this makes me glad I’m not a lawyer!
This case makes me think of how the girls dress here in SFL. You would think we have nothing but prostitutes here.
Leaving school the other day, my mouth just about dropped. Out of the bldg walks a young girl with her shorts hiked up so high there was about 3” of @$$ showing.
A lot of states have needed to address "upskirting" and the silent taking of photographs using muted phones.
Kind of recall some discussion on the federal level of making it impossible/illegal to mute the "camera click".
The law is wrong.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/justice/massachusetts-upskirt-bill/index.html
https://malegislature.gov/Document/Bill/188/House/H3934.pdf
The law on the books now is the amended law.
Hey, it’s Oregon. Nuff said.
Someone explain to me how what he did is different than a “peeping tom” who is looking through your bedroom window.
Is that next?.
If I ever seem someone trying to slip a box or package under one of my female family members... Drop kick time and I expect to hear glass breaking...
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.