# Police: Man shooting Target shoppers upskirt arrested



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

What a creep.

The girl captured on video continues shopping as the man lurks closely behind. Ismael Duarte was shopping nearby and saw the man use the same tactic on his 15 year-old-daughter and another girl. He jumps into action, video captures him tackling Ibarra.

Duarte also feels if he hadn't stepped up, Target's security would not have.

"All they did was stand behind, and that's very disappointing," said Duarte.

https://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/police-man-shooting-target-shoppers-upskirt-arrested


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

What a scumbag.....


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I am going to keep my mouth shut on this topic. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

If found guilty,only a "misdemeanor"? they need to change that! Thats' why the father said he wished he had done more.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Obviously the guy is a creep but I'm curious as to just what crime he was charged with. Here in Maine the nearest I could come up with is Disorderly Conduct, so long as he did not physically touch her.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> I am going to keep my mouth shut on this topic. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.


Speak up man


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Some states have specific laws about the subject. 
It’s sorta like the drone problem taking pictures in a public place from a unexpected spot


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

muleskinner2 said:


> I am going to keep my mouth shut on this topic. Wouldn't want to offend anyone.


Good luck with that.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Twp.Tom said:


> If found guilty,only a "misdemeanor"? they need to change that! Thats' why the father said he wished he had done more.


Just exactly what punishment would you be happy with ?


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Just exactly what punishment would you be happy with ?


I am not normally a very violent person, that being said, if it was my daughter- I probably would have booted him in face while he was scrambling for his phone on the ground! I know it would be wrong,and I would be ready to face the consequences for assault. (I have no criminal record, and have never done anything like this*). Ok , maybe two boots to the face*(make it worth my while)


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

To me it's an invasion of privacy. If women can't wear a dress without some deviant trying to take pictures under the skirt, than post them on the internet, it's a sick world. I'd end up in jail for assualt if some sick creep tried it.


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

Great now we have to teach girls "hunny, if there is a strange man standing close to you, be careful he isn't taking photos of you, get away from him as quickly as you can and tell security"
Nice world. 
reinforces my desire to hide in nature and completely disconnect from society (which isn't possible for me, so I will just avoid the news except for what I end up reading here )


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Situations like this is why I have three lawyers and two bail bonds men in my phone....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

TripleD said:


> I have three lawyers and two bail bonds men in my phone....


That must be a BIG phone.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Twp.Tom said:


> I am not normally a very violent person, that being said, if it was my daughter- I probably would have booted him in face while he was scrambling for his phone on the ground! I know it would be wrong,and I would be ready to face the consequences for assault. (I have no criminal record, and have never done anything like this*). Ok , maybe two boots to the face*(make it worth my while)


 Lol
Ok I could agree with ya on that. 
I’d rather take a boot in the face than a year in jail.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I don’t know how to come down on this one. 
I kind of feel like I want to be outraged. 
But in the end I don’t think he’s gonna see anything in there he could see at the beach if she was in a swimsuit. 
And the dress in the video looks like it could very well blow around in the breeze show you everything he’s gonna see anyway. 
So some one please explain why it seems so much worse.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I don’t know how to come down on this one.
> I kind of feel like I want to be outraged.
> But in the end I don’t think he’s gonna see anything in there he could see at the beach if she was in a swimsuit.
> And the dress in the video looks like it could very well blow around in the breeze show you everything he’s gonna see anyway.
> So some one please explain why it seems so much worse.


Choice of the woman. Why is the creep taking the picture if he can go to the beach to see what he craves. It's for the creep a power play, he wants to take the woman's choice from her.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So some one please explain why it seems so much worse.


If you have to ask you can't understand.
But you know that.
This is just you being you.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That must be a BIG phone.


I'd bet you all five would at least call me back by lunch..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> Choice of the woman. Why is the creep taking the picture if he can go to the beach to see what he craves. It's for the creep a power play, he wants to take the woman's choice from her.


 But what if the wind blows it? 
We can’t throw the wind in jail can we?
She chose to wear the skirt is not the wind stairs ,Hills and getting in and out of car or things like that just part of making that choice?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> But what if the wind blows it?
> We can’t throw the wind in jail can we?
> She chose to wear the skirt is not the wind stairs ,Hills and getting in and out of car or things like that just part of making that choice?


Choice of the woman. IMO it's a bit telling that anyone would make excuses for this behavior.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Wasn’t there s recent post on a shoe cam ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> Choice of the woman. IMO it's a bit telling that anyone would make excuses for this behavior.


Why should the angle somebody else sees from be the choice of a woman ?
What about the rights of little kids ,midgets , and the disabled?
I met a man once in Venice Beach California who was mobile by virtue of laying on a skate board. His arms were barely long enough to reach the ground to propel himself in that position.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> Choice of the woman. IMO it's a bit telling that anyone would make excuses for this behavior.


Has someone done that ?
Or are you ready to be outraged and looking for a excuse ?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Has someone done that ?
> Or are you ready to be outraged and looking for a excuse ?


LOL, are you looking for an excuse to ignore the creepy behavior? Hmmm.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> LOL, are you looking for an excuse to ignore the creepy behavior? Hmmm.


 How about ignoring your 
Prejudices and having a calm and logical conversation. 
I mentioned quite early on that I am out raged by this behavior but I would like to discuss why it is such an outrages thing. 
Don’t you ever want to know why something occurs. ?
Or is “its a woman’s choice “ your answer to everything?


----------



## wdcutrsdaughter (Dec 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> How about ignoring your
> Prejudices and having a calm and logical conversation.
> I mentioned quite early on that I am out raged by this behavior but I would like to discuss why it is such an outrages thing.
> Don’t you ever want to know why something occurs. ?
> Or is “its a woman’s choice “ your answer to everything?



no really has been pretty clear : it's CREEPY 
and I am adding - it is a violation of personal space

AND 
if it out rages you why don't you share why?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> How about ignoring your
> Prejudices and having a calm and logical conversation.
> I mentioned quite early on that I am out raged by this behavior but I would like to discuss why it is such an outrages thing.
> Don’t you ever want to know why something occurs. ?
> Or is “its a woman’s choice “ your answer to everything?


If your outraged, search your feelings for why and you can answer your own question.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> no really has been pretty clear : it's CREEPY
> and I am adding - it is a violation of personal space
> 
> AND
> if it out rages you why don't you share why?


 You are right it is creepy. 
But I don’t think there’s a law against creepy. 
The Munsters made good money being creepy. 
The reason I haven’t told you why am out raged is I’m not sure why. That may be why I want to explore? 
So why is it creepy ?
I think we can define creepy in this context as it makes you uncomfortable. I wonder why that is? 
How can it be a violation of personal space? He wasn’t really that close to her and it didn’t seem to be upsetting her.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> If your outraged, search your feelings for why and you can answer your own question.


 No I can’t and that’s bugging me.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

wdcutrsdaughter said:


> no really has been pretty clear : it's CREEPY
> and I am adding - it is a violation of personal space
> 
> AND
> if it out rages you why don't you share why?


Nothing creeper than a dude crawling around on the floor, sneaking up behind a girl and taking pictures for his very questionable enjoyment.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> How about ignoring your
> Prejudices and having a calm and logical conversation.
> I mentioned quite early on that I am out raged by this behavior but I would like to discuss why it is such an outrages thing.
> Don’t you ever want to know why something occurs. ?
> Or is “its a woman’s choice “ your answer to everything?






AmericanStand said:


> I don’t know how to come down on this one.
> I kind of feel like I want to be outraged.
> But in the end I don’t think he’s gonna see anything in there he could see at the beach if she was in a swimsuit.
> And the dress in the video looks like it could very well blow around in the breeze show you everything he’s gonna see anyway.
> So some one please explain why it seems so much worse.


You weren't outraged sorry, and that's creepy.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

coolrunnin said:


> You weren't outraged sorry, and that's creepy.


Lol have you alway thought you could read minds?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> Nothing creeper than a dude crawling around on the floor, sneaking up behind a girl and taking pictures for his very questionable enjoyment.


 It does seem creepy. 
Why ?
Why is his enjoyment questionable?


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Seems to me it would be like a theft of privacy. Don't know a better way to explain it. Like coming home and finding the house has been broken in to.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

One hammer, one anvil, two testicles, problem solved.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol have you alway thought you could read minds?


Read your own words.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> But what if the wind blows it?
> We can’t throw the wind in jail can we?
> She chose to wear the skirt is not the wind stairs ,Hills and getting in and out of car or things like that just part of making that choice?


The wind didn't blow her skirt up and if there was a breeze, can you be sure she wouldn't handle the situation like most women and simply hold it down? I've worn skirts/dresses of various lengths and design and like most women, I've never flashed the public but if I had, it would be my fault. 

The chance of a breeze doesn't give someone the right to shove a camera up their skirt and take a picture without her consent. 

I struggle with the idea that it's easier to blame the woman for her perfectly acceptable wardrobe choice, who did not consent to upskirt photos than to blame the guy who invaded her privacy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol have you alway thought you could *read minds*?


One only has to read your posts.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> The chance of a breeze doesn't give someone the right to shove a camera up their skirt and take a picture without her consent.
> 
> I struggle with the idea that it's easier to blame the woman for her perfectly acceptable wardrobe choice, who did not consent to upskirt photos than to blame the guy who invaded her privacy.


 Dont struggle I think the woman was blameless in the situation. 
But the man didn’t shove the camera up her dress either. 
He did place the camera at a unusual angle relative to the woman. 
Not one that it would be inconceivable to obtain in other common situations. 
I think where the creepy is coming in is the sneaky behavior. 
It seems like he was so close it would be hard to miss obvious efforts to remain close to her. But it did seem like he was trying to conceal is true objectives 
We only had a few seconds of video to judge from so it seems like we are taking off a lot from it 
But I’m guessing that it is a learned response to have reservations when someone is being sneaky


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> He did place the camera at a unusual angle relative to the woman.
> *Not one that it would be inconceivable to obtain in other common situations*.


Still digging the hole, I see


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

whiterock said:


> Seems to me it would be like a theft of privacy. Don't know a better way to explain it. Like coming home and finding the house has been broken in to.


 Yeah I think that’s kinda it. 
And like someone else said a matter of personal space. 
But at the same time it appeared to me that he was a few feet from her. 
I know there are states That have laws against this sort of thing how do they define the crime?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

All three pages here about how justified a father is to beating up a pervert that was peaking on her bathroom activities. Instant justice is the call of the day. Anyone advocating a more measured approach is criticized for siding with the creep. Anvil and testicles.
A couple days ago, a far more serious situation, a man trying to break into a young girl's locked toilet stall at a gas station. The enraged father, following these three pages of suggested behavior, knocked the pervert on the ground and kicked him to death. Well, how's that working out? Pervert's family outraged. Protective father sits in jail for Second Degree Murder.
https://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/video/17773718/

You still advocate instant justice?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I just did some reading across the Internet and while Some of you were giving me a ration of poo for having a difficult time expressing what the problem is I have discovered that in many states lawmakers cannot write a law that criminalizes the problem! .
Apparently the problem is balancing voyeurism laws against public expectation laws.
You are allowed to see what you Can see in a public place and that’s a reasonable standard.
It’s not voyeurism to look at what is being publicly displayed.
And that is the problem ;defining what is publicly displayed.
I’m more than willing to let all you people that seem to think you know all about it go ahead and define it. I can even forward your definitions to state legislatures that are struggling with the problem to help them out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

haypoint said:


> All three pages here about how justified a father is to beating up a pervert that was peaking on her bathroom activities


People tend to overreact.
Beating the guy was stupid, no matter how "macho" some pretend to be.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> No I can’t and that’s bugging me.


You first said you wanted to be outraged. 
Then you said you were outraged. 
Doesn't sound like you know what you are except confused.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I just did some reading across the Internet and while Some of you were giving me a ration of poo for having a difficult time expressing what the problem is I have discovered that in many states lawmakers cannot write a law that criminalizes the problem! .
> Apparently the problem is balancing voyeurism laws against public expectation laws.
> You are allowed to see what you Can see in a public place and that’s a reasonable standard.
> It’s not voyeurism to look at what is being publicly displayed.
> ...


Ok, I am going to put this issue in a file quite similar to the one having a right to burn our flag.... It is at least tacky and disgusting but most likely making it illegal would violate someone's rights. Therefor I think in order to protect everyone's rights, anyone convicted of beating the crap out of some lowlife that does it should be fined a maximum of $3.00.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Doesn't sound like you know what you are except confused.


That's because it's all an act.
It makes it hard to keep up because it constantly changes, while ironically somehow managing to remain the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> AmericanStand said: ↑
> I just did some reading across the Internet and while Some of you were giving me a ration of poo for having a difficult time expressing what the problem is *I have discovered* that in many states lawmakers cannot write a law that criminalizes the problem! .


Show your examples.



> I’m more than willing to let all you people that seem to think you know all about it go ahead and define it. I can even forward your definitions to state legislatures that are struggling with the problem to help them out.


Post them here with the links to the source.
If you found them that should be simple to do.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> You first said you wanted to be outraged.
> Then you said you were outraged.
> Doesn't sound like you know what you are except confused.


 Yep sure am. 
The out rage in me is a feeling .
It’s rare for me to have a feeling Of outrage with no logical basis as I followed the logic I found it difficult to be mad at anybody. 
The guy is a little creepy but if I didn’t except people have a right to be different I probably would not hang around here. 
He never really went up under her dress or even crowded her personal space.
I think what bothers us is that he violated her expectation of privacy. But you really can’t expect privacy in a public place. 
I’m not shaming her but I think She expected more privacy than she had. 
As WR pointed out if her skirt had blown up she probably wouldn’t hold it down if she was going up escalator she may have a little tight against your body if she was walking along the top edge without any chose to walk further from the edge. 
The ladies are gonna have to help me out here but I suspect When wearing a dress women expect a cone of privacy. 
I don’t know how you would define that expected private space. 
Obviously his behavior went be you done the excepted normal but how do we define that?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> Good luck with that.


I am biting my lip, and drawing blood.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

I think I've come up with a new business, selling panties with a picture of Rosie O'donnell face picture on the butt and Vladimir Lenin on the front.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

4tu said:


> I think I've come up with a new business, selling panties with a picture of Rosie O'donnell face picture on the butt and Vladimir Lenin on the front.


Is that designed to prevent up skirting by breaking the camera?


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> Is that designed to prevent up skirting by breaking the camera?


well in my opinion it is, others mileage may vary.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> All three pages here about how justified a father is to beating up a pervert that was peaking on her bathroom activities. Instant justice is the call of the day. Anyone advocating a more measured approach is criticized for siding with the creep. Anvil and testicles.
> A couple days ago, a far more serious situation, a man trying to break into a young girl's locked toilet stall at a gas station. The enraged father, following these three pages of suggested behavior, knocked the pervert on the ground and kicked him to death. Well, how's that working out? Pervert's family outraged. Protective father sits in jail for Second Degree Murder.
> https://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/video/17773718/
> 
> You still advocate instant justice?





Bearfootfarm said:


> People tend to overreact.
> Beating the guy was stupid, no matter how "macho" some pretend to be.



Yes, that went too far for what happened in the store.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...ters-bathroom-stall-qt-19th-dunlap/997281002/



> You still advocate instant justice?


The key word here being *justice.
*
Since he didn't actually succeed in assaulting her, killing him wasn't justified.
Possibly he was drunk or high and wanted in the bathroom, not caring who was in there, it's impossible to know.

If this was something he did often, then he definitely needed to be stopped, but not like that.

But back to the original topic.........


AmericanStand said:


> I don’t know how to come down on this one.
> I kind of feel like I want to be outraged.
> But in the end I don’t think he’s gonna see anything in there he could see at the beach if she was in a swimsuit.
> And the dress in the video looks like it could very well blow around in the breeze show you everything he’s gonna see anyway.
> So some one please explain why it seems so much worse.


Well, I think that was explained already, about it being a woman's choice - what she shows, to whom and when.
If she's at the beach, she probably chose her apparel and it was whatever she was comfortable wearing in public.
I guess nobody actually addressed the "blame" on the wind blowing while in a skirt..........

While I'm advised against assessing "blame" towards God, I will say He's probably partly responsible by default.
And while I'm eternally faithful to my wife, I have on occasion given thanks to the Lord for His beautiful creations and the opportunity to catch glimpses of them on a warm summer day.

*Ahem*
*Glimpses* that is, not stalking, staring, leering or making rude gestures or comments.
And *that* would be the difference.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A few years ago, a guy kidnapped a boy, raped him over the span of a few months. The guy was caught and the boy released. When the Cops were bringing the rapist back for trial, the father was at the airport and shot the criminal. Justified?

Guy gets knocked to the ground. Does he risk a wrestling match and having the gun turned on him? How far away must an attacker be that when you shoot them, they die before they charge you and turn the gun on you?

When your life is in danger, giving a stranger the benefit of doubt is poor advice.

I'm beginning to see that I favor deadly force when attacked. More so than most. The incident where a road range incident ended at a stop light in heavy traffic. Young angry guy jumped out of his truck and confronted old guy pinned in by traffic. When the young guy reached into the car, grabbing the man, the man shot him through the door, killing the assaulter.
Younger guy starts an argument in a theatre with an old guy. Young guy throws a box of popcorn in his face. Thinking he was about to be assaulted, losing his glasses, fired one round from the legal pistol in his coat pocket, killing the assaulter.
I think these guys went to prison. Yet I support such street justice.
Detroit Chief of Police advises people to arm themselves and protect themselves, because Cops often can only be there after the shooting/robbery.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Yep sure am.
> The out rage in me is a feeling .
> It’s rare for me to have a feeling Of outrage with no logical basis as I followed the logic I found it difficult to be mad at anybody.
> The guy is a little creepy but if I didn’t except people have a right to be different I probably would not hang around here.
> ...


You typed a whole lot there to simply blame the girl for leaving the house. We are all entitled to our opinion no matter how much I think you are wrong.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

haypoint said:


> All three pages here about how justified a father is to beating up a pervert that was peaking on her bathroom activities. Instant justice is the call of the day. Anyone advocating a more measured approach is criticized for siding with the creep.* Anvil and testicles.*
> A couple days ago, a far more serious situation, a man trying to break into a young girl's locked toilet stall at a gas station. The enraged father, following these three pages of suggested behavior, knocked the pervert on the ground and kicked him to death. Well, how's that working out? Pervert's family outraged. Protective father sits in jail for Second Degree Murder.
> https://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/video/17773718/
> 
> You still advocate instant justice?


As far as I am concerned, threatening someone's child should both legally and philosophically constitute grounds for thoroughly eliminating the threat. Same thing if a threat reaches into your automobile.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Ok, I am weak. I tried to keep my mouth shut, but I just cant.

In every jurisdiction I am aware of in the US, there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain. The two exceptions I am aware of are a bathroom, and a dressing room.

I watched the video. As far as I could see, he did not touch her or her clothes. And it didn't look like she was even aware that anything was happening. In a perfect world he deserves a butt whooping for being rude. We do not live in a perfect world, we live in a world governed by laws, administered my imperfect humans.

So, he did not attack her, and he did not commit a lewd act.

If I were the officer who responded to this call. I would interview the suspect, if he was willing to talk to me. Then I would interview the victim. Last I would interview all of the witnesses. If the victim or any of the witnesses would give a written statement, that they were offended, or frightened by what they saw. I would charge him with disorderly conduct. In my experience he would spend the night in jail, then see a Justice Court judge the next day. If he pled guilty he might be fined $100.00 dollars. If he chose to go for a jury trial, and were found guilty he might get a week in jail.

I would refer the second incident involving the fifteen year old, and her father who did actually assault the suspect, to a persons crimes detective for further investigation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> In every jurisdiction I am aware of in the US, there is no expectation of privacy in the public domain.


Then you are simply unaware of the statutes that apply and confused about what "expectation of privacy" means.
It's really not hard to look them up.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> You typed a whole lot there to simply blame the girl for leaving the house. We are all entitled to our opinion no matter how much I think you are wrong.


 If that’s what you got out of what I wrote you may have accidentally read it backwards. 
No way is she to “blame”.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you are simply unaware of the statutes that apply and confused about what "expectation of privacy" means.
> It's really not hard to look them up.


Yep, the "man" was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor, with penalty of up to a year in jail. Cops are asking for info of any others having been through the same with this "man", to charge him.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

What exactly was he charged with ?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Detectives with the Cypress Police Department arrested Ibarra Wednesday and booked him on a charge of invasion of privacy.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/201...kles-upskirt-photo-suspect-at-cypress-target/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I took a look at the California Penal Code that would apply to this and it seems like the man has at least two defenses.
You might want to check this out. 
https://www.shouselaw.com/invasion-of-privacy


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I took a look at the California Penal Code that would apply to this and it seems like the man has at least two defenses.
> You might want to check this out.
> https://www.shouselaw.com/invasion-of-privacy


Thanks, that one made the case. Dude broke the law and what with his mugshot all over the news, he's toast. Maybe help other idiots make better decisions when it comes to doing stupid.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Just because there are laws doesn't make it right decent or even sane, or that it promotes a sick cultural underbelly, like the collection of soft child pornography they trade it and use it for self gratification how long before they do an act that corners them into harming a child. not punishing bad behavior promotes it and makes it become a cultural norm I was in California when it became a ticketable offense and people started to smoke pot on the beach a few even blew smoke into the faces of police. once we allow this all that can come from it is worsening and more invasive acting out.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

4tu
It sounds like you are promoting the thought police?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Yep sure am.
> The out rage in me is a feeling .
> It’s rare for me to have a feeling Of outrage with no logical basis as I followed the logic I found it difficult to be mad at anybody.
> The guy is a little creepy but if I didn’t except people have a right to be different I probably would not hang around here.
> ...


That was a typo on my behalf. There is no reason to believe the woman intended to show anyone what was under her skirt and said she'd likely manage in wind, just as most women have for ages and still protected their modesty and dignity but I didn't see any hint of a breeze in the store so I really don't feel that brings anything to the discussion. 

We teach our children about speaking to adults if someone exhibits inappropriate behavior and it seems that once we become adults, women are expected to tolerate the same behavior we've been raised to believe was wrong. 

At what point would you consider an odd camera angle or a photo without consent something more than simply creepy. Would an odd camera angle under a dressing room curtain, at a urinal or at a hole bored in a wall adjoining a hotel room be simply creepy or something more?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

I would like to offer a compromise on this issue: I will accept random men having the 'right' to take pictures up the skirts of the women and girls in my life so long as I have the right to put them in the hospital for doing so. Problem solved.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> I would like to offer a compromise on this issue: I will accept random men having the 'right' to take pictures up the skirts of the women and girls in my life so long as I have the right to put them in the hospital for doing so. Problem solved.


Nope, you do not have that right! You should have to pay the three dollar fine just like anyone else. (If you are short on cash at the time, call me, I'll help what I can)


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, you do not have that right! You should have to pay the three dollar fine just like anyone else. (If you are short on cash at the time, call me, I'll help what I can)


$2.50 and you have a deal!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I played semi pro baseball as a younger man with a guy who I thought was a decent enough fellow. I'll call him Tom. The guys on our team all socialized together from time to time so we had been to his house, met his wife, etc. Woke up one morning a few years later to the news that Tom had come home from 3rd shift one morning and found another man in bed with his wife. After a brief and loud discussion, Tom grabbed a shotgun from down the hall, came back and killed the guy as he sat on the edge of the bed next to Tom's wife.
Tom went to prison, I believe on a 25 year sentence. Tom's wife, well she divorced him, remarried some guy who owned several Ford dealerships and her and their kids took his last name. She lives a very nice life. The guy who was shot? Just a local from a bar down the road. There are several ways to interpret the event, but it is pretty certain a lot of folks lost that day whether for justice, vengence, lust or loneliness.


----------



## Twp.Tom (Dec 29, 2010)

You shouldn't have called him "Tom"!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

He may have been paroled by now, but I doubt he has left the country.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> At what point would you consider an odd camera angle or a photo without consent something more than simply creepy. Would an odd camera angle under a dressing room curtain, at a urinal or at a hole bored in a wall adjoining a hotel room be simply creepy or something more?


 I think it’s reasonable to expect privacy in a enclosed room. 
So if you have to bore a hole in the wall to see in it it should clearly. Be a invasion of privacy. 
Bath room stalls should be private but I have discovered they are not always. 
I’ve given this some thought 
The imagine the view of a five-year-old two steps behind someone on the escalator you can’t say he is doing something wrong if he looks forward and that is up. 
It’s really only the area under you that you can hope to control and not even that if you walk over a grate. 
So my thought is if you dont want something to be seen cover it up. 
Dresses and skirts are not really a full cover , just shade. 

And a piece of advice from my great grandma you really don’t need to worry about somebody seeing your underwear as long as you have them on


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> I played semi pro baseball as a younger man with a guy who I thought was a decent enough fellow. I'll call him Tom. The guys on our team all socialized together from time to time so we had been to his house, met his wife, etc. Woke up one morning a few years later to the news that Tom had come home from 3rd shift one morning and found another man in bed with his wife. After a brief and loud discussion, Tom grabbed a shotgun from down the hall, came back and killed the guy as he sat on the edge of the bed next to Tom's wife.
> Tom went to prison, I believe on a 25 year sentence. Tom's wife, well she divorced him, remarried some guy who owned several Ford dealerships and her and their kids took his last name. She lives a very nice life. The guy who was shot? Just a local from a bar down the road. There are several ways to interpret the event, but it is pretty certain a lot of folks lost that day whether for justice, vengence, lust or loneliness.


Sounds like the wife did ok.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Sounds like the wife did ok.


Not really, she gets to live with herself. No matter where she goes or what she does she's destroyed lives. That can't be a good thing.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> I think it’s reasonable to expect privacy in a enclosed room.
> So if you have to bore a hole in the wall to see in it it should clearly. Be a invasion of privacy.
> Bath room stalls should be private but I have discovered they are not always.
> I’ve given this some thought
> ...


I disagree with your position that because a woman wears a dress, someone has the right to photograph what’s under it but if you chose that position, do you feel it’s also okay to take up skirt photos of a 5 year old.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

I've known all sort of good people, and all sort of worthless riff-raff in my life. Some people are just no count, and there's nothing to be done other than lock them up forever. The problem with a Minority Report or an Orwellian Thought Police sort of thing is that after cleaning up the riff-raff, then they would start in on every innocent person who wonders "What if..."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I prefer the good people myself, but then some of the riff raff can be fun too.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Dude.... A guy that worked for me killed a woman in a drunken argument. For some odd reason, the police let him stay loose, hoping he'd eventually run his mouth, or something. At any rate, a few days after he killed her, he called me on the phone, the pilot light was out on his furnace. I went over there, and he was motioning me to go down the stairs, into the basement. And I was like "No way" He finally agreed to go down first, and I went along with that. Couple hours later, a detective was banging on my door, and wanted to know what was said. I didn't know what to make of all that, but eventually there was an offer made if I'd ask him what happened, and record it.

That whole thing didn't sit well with me.

Weird crap.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> I disagree with your position that because a woman wears a dress, someone has the right to photograph what’s under it but if you chose that position, do you feel it’s also okay to take up skirt photos of a 5 year old.


 Not exactly what I’m saying. 
More like it’s ok to photograph what can be seen in public. 
As for the five year old comment come on you know better than what you are implying. 
If you are asking is it ok to take a picture of a five year old in public I suppose it is but I can’t see the motivation. 

Truth be told I don’t understand the motivation to go to so much trouble to see a little more leg in any of these cases.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Not exactly what I’m saying.
> More like it’s ok to photograph what can be seen in public.
> As for the five year old comment come on you know better than what you are implying.
> If you are asking is it ok to take a picture of a five year old in public I suppose it is but I can’t see the motivation.
> ...


Why would it be okay to take upskirt photos of an adult woman, who's not publicly displaying her underwear as she neatly crouches to look at something while ensuring her bum is covered but not okay to take an upskirt photo of a child? There's a much greater chance the 5 year old with display her bottom the public by bending straight over or not keeping her knees together on an escalator than than the woman you claim 'might' do similar. 

Obviously you feel upskirt photos of a child has a greater creep factor so it would be helpful to know why you chose to justify photographing under a woman's skirt and what age you feel women lose their rights to protect their own modesty. 

If all you want to see is a bit more leg and you feel it's public domain, why not just walk up to the woman and simply ask her if she'll raise skirt and provide a better view?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ve given this some thought


I don't believe you have.
I think this is all just an act.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> More like it’s ok to photograph what can be seen in public.


If you have to stick a camera up under her skirt in order to see anything at issue, can you make a reasonable argument that you are seeing what is seen in public.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Hi 


wr said:


> Why would it be okay to take upskirt photos of an adult woman, who's not publicly displaying her underwear as she neatly crouches to look at something while ensuring her bum is covered but not okay to take an upskirt photo of a child?


 I don’t think that’s ok. 
But how about answering a couple of questions I’ve asked a few times and none seems to want to answer 
In public what is your zone of privacy where it is not reasonable to take a picture from? 
Where is it reasonable to take a picture from ?
Is the zone where someone can look the same ?
No one seems to like my idea but nobody seems to be offering their own up.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> If you have to stick a camera up under her skirt in order to see anything at issue, can you make a reasonable argument that you are seeing what is seen in public.


Indy tell me what you mean by under ?
If you mean within what a arborist would call a drip line I totally agree.
But if you mean below her hem and a distance from her that seems like a more public zone.
But you said Up Under. 
To me that sounds like within her skirt. And I can’t see any excuse for placing hand inside someone’s clothes. 
I’m pretty sure you have a reasonable right to privacy within your cloths.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Hi
> 
> I don’t think that’s ok.
> But how about answering a couple of questions I’ve asked a few times and none seems to want to answer
> ...


I'm not fond of the idea of my picture being taken by anyone but if it happens, I believe a reasonable distance to properly photograph another would be approximately 3+" away and if someone feels they need to have a look, they can do the same from about the same distance. 

The person in the video was not taking a picture of a woman, he was taking a picture of what was under her skirt and she gave no indication she wanted what's under her skirt photographed . If someone someone feels so strongly that they need to see 'a bit more leg' or what's under a woman's skirt or dress, do you not agree that it would be appropriate to walk up and ask. I suspect they don't because they believe the response will be unfavorable. 

I would ask you to answer your own questions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think personal space varies. 
Walking down a lonely highway late at night in the dark my personal space is probably 200 feet. 
However I think I’ve made it clear That the radius directly below your clothing and body should be private even in the most crowded of situations


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Why don't we all just walk around naked? Weather permitting of course


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

gilberte said:


> Why don't we all just walk around naked? Weather permitting of course


Because I would terrify people and give them bad dreams for the rest of their lives!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> Because I would terrify people and give them bad dreams for the rest of their lives!


Im pretty sure I’d be arrested for littering if someone saw my wrinkled hide along the road.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I don't walk around naked in public because I don't want to shame other men.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heck... I gots to turn myself in. I sent away $.99 fer a set of those x-ray glasses. They dint work but I did try to use them round about 1964 or so...

They turned out to be fake glasses that someone put a tiny hole in the plastic where the lenses was supposed to be...


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

This guy was obviously out of line. And I bet most of the holier-than-thou guys have been also, perhaps to lesser degrees. I mean, we have all looked at women when they would not want us to because they are not attracted to us. That makes us perverts and creeps.

We guys are told we objectify women, because we like to look at their bodies. Yet they seem to like to show themselves off.

Females seem to be wired to expose their bodies to males. How else do you explain the urge to wear dresses, low cut shirts, yoga pants, etc. Can't say I've ever had the urge to show my legs off.

So when females do display themselves to attract men, and we look at them, most of us are considered perverts, or creepy, or whatever. Unless, of course, we are one of the few they want to attract.

Would it really be that hard for girls and women to wear pants or long dresses or something? Somehow it is considered demeaning to look at them when they expose themselves, and it is considered demeaning to have them cover up.

When they offer the opportunity by exposing themselves, there will always be extreme perverts who will take advantage. So if is that traumatic for someone to look at them in inappropriate ways, might want to take measures to prevent.

After all, as we see on the news, and as feminists will tell you, men are dirty and disgusting animals.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Hi
> 
> I don’t think that’s ok.
> But how about answering a couple of questions I’ve asked a few times and none seems to want to answer
> ...


It's ok to take a public photo of random passers by from a standing position at the same level they are standing. Exceptions to this would be if a wind kicked up and was revealing anything that would normally not be exposed. It's about common decency and respect. If you don't grasp that basic concept we have any number of isolated "sinkholes" here in the Kentucky karst system, some several hundred feet straight down that could use a bit of filler.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

DJ in WA said:


> This guy was obviously out of line. And I bet most of the holier-than-thou guys have been also, perhaps to lesser degrees. I mean, we have all looked at women when they would not want us to because they are not attracted to us. That makes us perverts and creeps.
> 
> We guys are told we objectify women, because we like to look at their bodies. Yet they seem to like to show themselves off.
> 
> ...


I've heard tell that it's Darwinian or some such. Women try to look attractive to snare a mate so they can have children. Men lust after them to spread their seed and populate the earth with children. Oh well.................


----------



## RazrRebel (Apr 16, 2013)

Yvonnes Hubby got it right. I was reading it all wondering who would get it. It's a decline in our morals as to what's right or wrong anymore. Give a little here, and there, next thing you know its fine everywhere. Look at what is considered normal, and acceptable these days. Most of us on this forum are older, and remember how things used to be. Some still think that's the way it should be, me included. Some giving in a little, some a lot. It's gotten to where people has forgotten common decency, and replaced it with whatever they think is right. I try not to argue over religion, but believe it or not, our entire country was founded on Christianity. When we started leaving Christ out of everything this is what we get. A five page discussion on whether or not it is okay to take a picture up a womans skirt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

RazrRebel said:


> A five page discussion on whether or not it is okay to take a picture up a womans skirt.


Really only one has implied it's ok, and that's just because he likes to disagree with most everything.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

In many states it is perfectly legal to photograph what is under a woman's skirt or dress while she is in an otherwise public location.
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/arti...-legal-for-creeps-to-photograph-up-your-skirt
What's funny is it is illegal in Scottland, maybe because men don't like having their junk posted on the internet.
https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/06/upskirt-photos-sexual-offence/
http://helloflo.com/perfectly-legal-take-upskirt-photos-america/

It is crazy that a woman cannot expect privacy under her clothing. And even more crazy that some people think a woman is asking for someone to photograph her private areas just because she is wearing a dress or skirt. I personally do not know what I would do if I saw someone doing that to my daughter or any other woman other than yelling at the creep.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> In many states it is perfectly legal to photograph what is under a woman's skirt or dress while she is in an otherwise public location.
> https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/arti...-legal-for-creeps-to-photograph-up-your-skirt
> What's funny is it is illegal in Scottland, maybe because men don't like having their junk posted on the internet.
> https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/06/upskirt-photos-sexual-offence/
> ...


I'm not certain of the outcome, but it would be an interesting afternoon. Of that I am certain!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's ok to take a public photo of random passers by from a standing position at the same level they are standing. Exceptions to this would be if a wind kicked up and was revealing anything that would normally not be exposed. It's about common decency and respect. If you don't grasp that basic concept we have any number of isolated "sinkholes" here in the Kentucky karst system, some several hundred feet straight down that could use a bit of filler.


 Must I raise the camera to my eye or is it ok to use my old brownie that is normally held at waist level and viewed from above. 
Do I have to be 6 feet tall or does the same rule apply to children and midgets ?
What about if I’m sitting in a wheel chair or table ?
What if I don’t see the wind kick up till I’ve triggered the shutter ?

How about this simple rule that I’ve lived by all my life. If you don’t want it seen cover it up !
I was raised that it’s wrong to expose your legs to the unsuspecting so every day I get up and put on a pair of pants.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not certain of the outcome, but it would be an interesting afternoon. Of that I am certain!


 Lol I can’t imagine a worse way to spend your day. 
Just cause I defend rationality and freedom doesn’t mean I want the supposed benefits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I defend rationality


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol I can’t imagine a worse way to spend your day.


Then don't let me catch you taking inappropriate photos of the women I hold dear.... Which with just very few exceptions is all women.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> In many states it is perfectly legal to photograph what is under a woman's skirt or dress while she is in an otherwise public location.


That's mainly because it's only relatively recent that we have had cameras to easily get away with it. 

Vague wording in older statutes don't always cover unforeseen future contingencies.

Common sense *should *apply, but laws are based on specific wording alone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's mainly because it's only relatively recent that we have had cameras to easily get away with it.
> 
> Vague wording in older statutes don't always cover unforeseen future contingencies.
> 
> Common sense *should *apply, but laws are based on specific wording alone.


And those very specific words will be twisted, spun, rearranged and distorted beyond recognition in a court room.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> View attachment 68966
> View attachment 68966
> View attachment 68966
> View attachment 68966
> View attachment 68966


And he doesn't want the benefits from rationality either.. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And those very specific words will be twisted, spun, rearranged and distorted beyond recognition in a court room.


I don't really have a problem with that.
The words mean what they mean, and people can see through the charades in most cases.
I think the laws should be followed just as they are worded, starting with the Constitution.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

no really said:


> And he doesn't want the benefits from rationality either.. LOL


I always liked "benefits".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then don't let me catch you taking inappropriate photos of the women I hold dear.... Which with just very few exceptions is all women.


Lol if you ever catch me taking upskiets you have my full permission to return me to the nuthouse I’ve escaped from.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't really have a problem with that.
> The words mean what they mean, and people can see through the charades in most cases.
> I think the laws should be followed just as they are worded, starting with the Constitution.


That would be a great place to start!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

RazrRebel said:


> A five page discussion on whether or not it is okay to take a picture up a womans skirt.


Nope I don’t think so. 
I think we are all in agreement that it’s wrong to take a picture up a woman’s skirt. 
Sadly we have spent 5 pages castigating those who dare to try to define what should be criminal about it. 
Only 2 and 1/2 definitions of what a upskirt photo is have been offered. 
Shame on all of you that haven’t offered up a definition while offering up scorn for wanting to discuss the problem. 
Let me make this clear the lawmakers seem to be having a hard time defining the problem in a way the courts can tolerate. 
If you are not willing to think about it and offer a definition that would help solve the problem you are part of the problem.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Apparently all of us here in the man in the video or just not with the times. 
My niece in junior high laughed at a discussion of a guy crawling around on his knees. 
Her reply was “why doesn’t he just use a selfie stick like everyone else does “
Now she is a cute little thing and when I pointed out to her that it’s one of my objections for her wearing short skirts like she likes to. She again looked at me like I was an idiot and pointed out that that is why girls wear shorts under their dresses except for the ones that don’t. 
So once again the ingenuity and common sense of Americas young people has dealt with new technology without a problem.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

If people, (that includes men and women) knew that there was a real price to be paid for rude behavior, there would be a lot less rude behavior. Looking under a ladies skirt without written permission, should earn you fifty lashes on the court house lawn. Second offenders should be hung on the same lawn. We give child molesters two or three years in prison, and then release them to rehab. As long as we allow this, why should we even get upset about someone who was just looking? 

And why do we even lock up child molesters? Are they an endangered species? Are we worried we will someday run out of child molesters? We put them in a prison where they have to be kept separate from the general population, so they won't get killed. And then we turn them loose. Someone explain to me, how this is a good system.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Apparently all of us here in the man in the video or just not with the times.
> My niece in junior high laughed at a discussion of a guy crawling around on his knees.
> Her reply was “why doesn’t he just use a selfie stick like everyone else does “
> Now she is a cute little thing and when I pointed out to her that it’s one of my objections for her wearing short skirts like she likes to. She again looked at me like I was an idiot and pointed out that that is why girls wear shorts under their dresses except for the ones that don’t.
> So once again the ingenuity and common sense of Americas young people has dealt with new technology without a problem.


Should a woman have to wear shorts under her skirt to protect herself from creepy people with selfie sticks?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Common sense *should *apply, but laws are based on specific wording alone.


My guess is that a man could learn some common sense as he spends the following couple of days crapping his teeth if I catch it.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> Should a woman have to wear shorts under her skirt to protect herself from creepy people with selfie sticks?


 Of course not .
But obviously when going to public places she should cover anything she does not want scene in those public places.
Everyone has the right to walk around bare butt naked if they so desire.
But realistically they can’t go out in public and expect privacy .


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

We wore shorts under our dresses/skirts when I was in school. Girls were not allowed to wear pants so we had to wear shorts if we didn't want our underwear to be seen while we were playing. But a woman shopping in Target is not the same as a little girl hanging upside down on the monkey bars or flying high on the swings. 

I think I would beat someone with a selfie stick if they used one near me.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Danaus29 said:


> I think I would beat someone with a selfie stick if they used one near me.


Nope, I'm not touching that one with a 10 ft...............


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Selfie stick ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Danaus29 said:


> I think I would beat someone with a selfie stick if they used one near me.


Lol I feel that way and I wear pants
There’s just something aggravating about a selfie stick.


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

AmericanStand said:


> 4tu
> It sounds like you are promoting the thought police?


no just reminding people that there are some that have no common sense or respect for their fellow man and in that there are some that will kill if you disrespect them unfortunately there is a segments of society that are so stupid that everything we buy has to have health and safety warning labels.

all I know is idealists are really idiots just trying to be intellectually agreeable inclusive and fair, and we all know that any power structure abuses it's power and citizens abuse each others rights when left to their own without rule of law.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

A bit different story but...when my daughter was 15, she was raped by a 19 year old. After getting the story out of her, while she was in a pediatric psych ward because she was cutting herself and was going to commit suicide from the extreme guilt, we filed a police report. She ran with a group of girls, that, to get into their "group", you had to sleep with one of the older guys, our daughter chickened out at the last minute, so they spiked her drink. She woke up to him on her, while she screamed and fought, the other 2 girls were in the living room, they did nothing.

Follow the law you say? I did just that...it took them over A YEAR to charge this animal, many court appearances, and to get him charged and deported, I took a lesser plea for my daughter, who in this time, was seeing a counselor and trying to deal with what happened to her and all the things that happened when one is raped (ie: doctors appt to see if you have an STD, pregnancy, etc.), I had this animal laugh at me one court date as we were leaving as it was yet again postponed. I finally got him arrested, INS was there to deport him in handcuffs, he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, and cannot, legally, come back to the states, where his family has since immigrated from Belize. His parents wanted to give me a letter, crying and begging me to not do this to their son, all I could manage to say is, "he broke the law of MY country, should of raised him better". 

We found out he had done this to 7 other girls of our daughters age and younger in Illinois and left, hence why he was in Texas, his parents wanted to get him out of the state. Through my lawyer I called several of those girls, but none of them wanted to write a statement as they were too afraid of what may happen to them and their daughter. 

During the year long court process we were threatened many times, coming home from work to threats of they would slit my horses throat in the pasture where I boarded them, they would grab my son in school when he was coming home and he would "disappear" if we continued with the charges, our house egged as well as our vehicles, used condoms in the yard, our daughter harassed so badly and so scared to go back to school that we sent her to Dallas to live with a friend of ours and his wife, as he was a police officer there and could better protect her. 

Did it cross my mind to put this animal out of his misery? Sure it did. Many, many times....but we let the law handle it. That was one of the longest years of my life....and I myself suffered emotionally through all this as my husband was active duty Army at the time and often gone for weeks to months on deployment. So my view is, sometimes it's best to put a "rabid animal" out of it's misery instead of leaving it to harm or hurt someone else.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I liked your last paragraph, not what happened to your daughter. It is terrible that the criminal is allowed to harass and threaten their victims. I don't know if I could have set back and let the law take it's course. If you don't mind me asking, how is she now? I hope she has been able to work through the horror.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Sometimes the laws of physics are much more effective than the laws of legislature.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

Danaus29 said:


> I liked your last paragraph, not what happened to your daughter. It is terrible that the criminal is allowed to harass and threaten their victims. I don't know if I could have set back and let the law take it's course. If you don't mind me asking, how is she now? I hope she has been able to work through the horror.


Thank you for asking about her...our daughter still gets nightmares around the time of the attack, though not so often anymore. She has a hard time standing by anyone with dark skin or who resembles this animal and at times has issues being touched or in close proximity. 

I admittedly did threaten him the time he laughed at me, I stepped in front of him and looking him right in the eye told him I would see him in hell before he EVER did this to another young girl. I also felt NO remorse when his parents were crying....still don't to be honest.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Don’t you suppose he is still doing it where he is at now ?
It’s a shame you can’t deport criminal aliens to a jail in their home country.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Don’t you suppose he is still doing it where he is at now ?
> It’s a shame you can’t deport criminal aliens to a jail in their home country.


I would like to hope not...or if he has, someone put him down and he disappeared into the jungle of Belize.....


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Grey Mare, I agree the guy was an animal and admire what you did.

What happened to the girls who required her to sleep with a guy, spiked her drink, then did nothing as she was raped.

Sounds like they are animals.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

DJ in WA said:


> Grey Mare, I agree the guy was an animal and admire what you did.
> 
> What happened to the girls who required her to sleep with a guy, spiked her drink, then did nothing as she was raped.
> 
> Sounds like they are animals.



and what color was their skin ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

And what about the girl that created the situation ? Should she share any of the blame and punishment?


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

The other two girls who were in the living room got nothing...that was part of the deal we struck was that for a lesser plea but still get deported...if it had gone to court, all of them were going to collaborate that it was our daughter who wanted it and her life picked through. We felt it better, for her emotional state, that we didn't have it go in front of a jury. 

So...again, I can hope that karma got them back...but yes AmericanStand...they ALL should of been help accountable. But sometimes you have to take the victim into account, as well as their emotional and physical well being.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Grey Mare said:


> The other two girls who were in the living room got nothing...that was part of the deal we struck was that for a lesser plea but still get deported...if it had gone to court, all of them were going to collaborate that it was our daughter who wanted it and her life picked through. We felt it better, for her emotional state, that we didn't have it go in front of a jury.
> 
> So...again, I can hope that karma got them back...but yes AmericanStand...they ALL should of been help accountable. But sometimes you have to take the victim into account, as well as their emotional and physical well being.


Hate to hear these kinds of stories. In my area (south central Kentucky) we have a tremendous cave system known as ky karst system. Mammoth cave being a part thereof. These various caves occasionally have a shaft that extends from caverns hundreds of feet underground up to the surface creating what are commonly called sinkholes. Many of them are in remote areas or on the back fields of large farms. More than one cow has wandered too close and simply disappeared never to been seen or heard from again. Lot of old timers used them for generations to dispose of their trash. Seems a shame every area doesn't have such a convenient means at their disposal to dispose of unneeded trash.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Grey Mare said:


> The other two girls who were in the living room got nothing...that was part of the deal we struck was that for a lesser plea but still get deported...if it had gone to court, all of them were going to collaborate that it was our daughter who wanted it and her life picked through. We felt it better, for her emotional state, that we didn't have it go in front of a jury.
> 
> So...again, I can hope that karma got them back...but yes AmericanStand...they ALL should of been help accountable. But sometimes you have to take the victim into account, as well as their emotional and physical well being.



Sorry to beat this to death, but as I read your post, it sounded like several girls and guys, and the girls were requiring your daughter to sleep with one of the guys in order to be with the group. And so the girls spiked her drink and set up the whole rape.

So it sounds like the danger is still there. Sounds like the girls are running the show, and they will just pick another guy for the next victim.

Kind of like hiring a hit man and then the victims family only going after him, not those who set it up. Pretty good strategy for the girls - they get some guy to do the raping, and they get off free. 

In general it seems in our society females get off easier, despite being equally evil at times. Somehow we can't seem to hold them accountable.

If you were worried about your daughter's emotional state, why go after the guy? Why not leave them all alone?

Note to girls out there: When girls require you to sleep with a guy in order to be their "friend", run away as fast as you can! They are evil animals. As bad as any gang members anywhere.

Evil is not restricted to males, contrary to what feminists and the media and the schools and other indoctrination centers will tell you.


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

DJ in WA said:


> Sorry to beat this to death, but as I read your post, it sounded like several girls and guys, and the girls were requiring your daughter to sleep with one of the guys in order to be with the group. And so the girls spiked her drink and set up the whole rape.
> 
> So it sounds like the danger is still there. Sounds like the girls are running the show, and they will just pick another guy for the next victim.
> 
> ...


Do you have daughters? A wife? What if some scum bag went after them, held them down and raped them? Could you or would you walk away? Leave them be so as to do it again and again? Until you have dealt with something like this, it is easy to judge and to assume....


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> and what color was their skin ?


Doesn't matter what his skin color was....but since you seem so curious....the girls were a mix of black and hispanic....the guy, from Belize which I believe, is an off shoot of Spanish....curiosity satisfied now?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Grey Mare said:


> Doesn't matter what his skin color was....but since you seem so curious....the girls were a mix of black and hispanic....the guy, from Belize which I believe, is an off shoot of Spanish....curiosity satisfied now?



I'm not curious, just found it odd that you brought up skin color. If it doesn't matter, why did you bring it up ? Also let your daughter know that skin color doesn't matter and that rapists come in all colors and not to be afraid of brown people


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

If someone reminds her of the animal that attacked her and they happen to be black, there is nothing I can do or tell her, picture him....and whatever color you wish to insert. 

She already knows that, she has worked for the state police for many years....but until you are in that situation or deal with it, it is very easy to assume you might act a certain way or say something differently. I brought it up because it matters to my family, as that is what color he was. Don't like it, that is on you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DJ I think what Grey Mare Is trying to say is even though her daughter instigated the entire proceeding she backed out and thus bares no responcability for what happened after the backing out moment. 
The other girls and the man that lived up to their commitments are in the wrong because this is a case of a woman saying no to sex.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

No always means no. What is so hard to understand about consent?


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> DJ I think what Grey Mare Is trying to say is even though her daughter instigated the entire proceeding she backed out and thus bares no responcability for what happened after the backing out moment.
> The other girls and the man that lived up to their commitments are in the wrong because this is a case of a woman saying no to sex.


EXCUSE ME?! This WAS NOT MY DAUGHTERS FAULT!! WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU GET OFF SAYING SUCH?!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Grey Mare said:


> EXCUSE ME?! This WAS NOT MY DAUGHTERS FAULT!! WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU GET OFF SAYING SUCH?!


It absolutely wasn’t your daughter’s fault. It’s best not to engage in discussion with some members.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> No always means no. What is so hard to understand about consent?


My point exactly


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> DJ I think what Grey Mare Is trying to say is even though her daughter instigated the entire proceeding she backed out and thus bares no responcability for what happened after the backing out moment.
> The other girls and the man that lived up to their commitments are in the wrong because this is a case of a woman saying no to sex.


It could also be said that a young woman chose not to bow to peer pressure, made a wise decision to say no and as far as I'm concerned, sex to gain access to the 'cool' group is a pretty poor reason to justify drugging someone to have sex and I'm somewhat surprised that you would suggest that it's somehow okay to drug and sexually assault a woman because she changed her mind.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Grey Mare said:


> EXCUSE ME?! This WAS NOT MY DAUGHTERS FAULT!! WHERE IN THE HELL DO YOU GET OFF SAYING SUCH?!


 Never said that! In fact I explained why it wasn’t. 
Feeling guilty ?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> It absolutely wasn’t your daughter’s fault. It’s best not to engage in discussion with some members.


IMO that poster is trying to win the award for the most offensive post ever. It was vile.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

wr said:


> It could also be said that a young woman chose not to bow to peer pressure, made a wise decision to say no and as far as I'm concerned, sex to gain access to the 'cool' group is a pretty poor reason to justify drugging someone to have sex and I'm somewhat surprised that you would suggest that it's somehow okay to drug and sexually assault a woman because she changed her mind.


 I agree with you totally. 
I would never agree that it was ok to drug and assault anyone. 
Ever.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> IMO that poster is trying to win the award for the most offensive post ever. It was vile.


I am sorry I never ment to imply someone should be responses-able for their actions if they are a woman and it involves sex.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I am sorry I never ment to imply someone should be responses-able for their actions if they are a woman and it involves sex.


Sad, I feel sorry for you.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Good point.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

no really said:


> Sad, I feel sorry for you.


 Why ? Because I came around to your way of thinking ?
I thought you would be proud of me !


----------



## Grey Mare (Jun 28, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> DJ I think what Grey Mare Is trying to say is *even though her daughter instigated the entire proceedin*g she backed out and thus bares no responcability for what happened after the backing out moment.
> The other girls and the man that lived up to their commitments are in the wrong because this is a case of a woman saying no to sex.


Really?! You owe me an apology, but at this point...it won't matter....do I feel guilty? For what exactly?! For trying to protect my daughter? For having that animal deported? For picking up the pieces when it almost cost me my daughter?! What EXACTLY do I have to feel guilty for? I hope you NEVER have to face this with your own child.

What you said above over steps the basic manners or even a decent human being....THIS is unforgivable....


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> I am sorry I never ment to imply someone should be responses-able for their actions if they are a woman and it involves sex.


If I am correctly understanding, you are making an argument analogous with saying that if I don't havecbars on my windows and at least three locks on every door, I deserve to have my house burglarized.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

IndyDave said:


> If I am correctly understanding, you are making an argument analogous with saying that if I don't havecbars on my windows and at least three locks on every door, I deserve to have my house burglarized.


No not at all.
It’s more like if you cover your house in gas then set fire to your backyard it’s not really your fault if the house burns down.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> No not at all.
> It’s more like if you cover your house in gas then set to your backyard it’s not really your fault if the house burns down.


You do realize that if you follow this to its logical conclusion, you will be on the same page with another culture which requires women to dress in head to toe gunny sack and forbids them to leave the house without a male relative, and executes women who are raped for adultery.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I think there’s quite a distance from backing out on a commitment at the last second to wearing a burka.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I think there’s quite a distance from backing out on a commitment at the last second to wearing a burka.


You think many things that are simply wrong.
I believe it's mostly an act.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> I think there’s quite a distance from backing out on a commitment at the last second to wearing a burka.


The closest parallel which comes to mind is a long-gone older man who on one hand taught me a lot but on the other had values which weren't always compatible with mine. He was of the opinion that if you managed to get a female behind closed doors she was all yours until you were done with her, even if she were there for completely nonsexual purposes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> The closest parallel which comes to mind is a long-gone older man who on one hand taught me a lot but on the other had values which weren't always compatible with mine. He was of the opinion that if you managed to get a female behind closed doors she was all yours until you were done with her, even if she were there for completely nonsexual purposes.


I grew up in a time and culture where no lady would be caught alone behind closed doors with a man.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I grew up in a time and culture where no lady would be caught alone behind closed doors with a man.


True enough, but that doesn't change the fact that a man who won't take no for an answer is a good candidate for a .45 hole in the head.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> True enough, but that doesn't change the fact that a man who won't take no for an answer is a good candidate for a .45 hole in the head.


A 22 magnum would suffice and is less expensive.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A 22 magnum would suffice and is less expensive.


Perhaps, but a 185 grain Flying Ashtray leaves no question that the problem is solved.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

IndyDave said:


> Perhaps, but a 185 grain Flying Ashtray leaves no question that the problem is solved.


There is that.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> DJ I think what Grey Mare Is trying to say is even though her daughter instigated the entire proceeding she backed out and thus bares no responcability for what happened after the backing out moment.
> The other girls and the man that lived up to their commitments are in the wrong because this is a case of a woman saying no to sex.


For once I hope BFF is right as bad as it pains me to say that. Because if your schtick isn't an act, you are one hell of a waste of oxygen.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> For once I hope BFF is right as bad as it pains me to say that. Because if your schtick isn't an act, you are one hell of a waste of oxygen.


 What did I say wrong ? I think I clearly summed up grey mares position.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> What did I say wrong ? I think I clearly summed up grey mares position.


If you aren't smart enough to know, I have finally found my first person to use the ignore feature with. And that is saying something with the folks that have been through this forum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> AmericanStand said: ↑
> What did I say wrong ?



https://www.homesteadingtoday.com/members/americanstand.366995/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> If you aren't smart enough to know, I have finally found my first person to use the ignore feature with. And that is saying something with the folks that have been through this forum.


 Is there anything I said that you disagree with? Are you mad because I said it first ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> True enough, but that doesn't change the fact that a man who won't take no for an answer is a good candidate for a .45 hole in the head.


There was a time and a culture that had no problem raping drunk women who couldn't consent.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

There are still a lot of them. 
But not here,it’s just not acceptable.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Irish Pixie said:


> There was a time and a culture that had no problem raping drunk women who couldn't consent.


Very true. I recall a quote from the time of the Roman Empire, I believe by Ovid, but my memory isn't clear, but the statement was that a woman who passes out drunk "deserves to be mounted by any man in the room". I would like to think that behavior of this kind can be put behind us.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

IndyDave said:


> Very true. I recall a quote from the time of the Roman Empire, I believe by Ovid, but my memory isn't clear, but the statement was that a woman who passes out drunk "deserves to be mounted by any man in the room". I would like to think that behavior of this kind can be put behind us.


I was thinking back to within my lifetime, it's only been in the last 20 or so years that _most_ men have completely understood it's wrong to have sex with a woman that can't consent.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was thinking back to within my lifetime, it's only been in the last 20 or so years that _most_ men have completely understood it's wrong to have sex with a woman that can't consent.


I think that’s only in this country. 
And honestly just cause they pay lip service doesn’t mean they believe it.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

oneraddad said:


> and what color was their skin ?


Same as everyone's. A certain shade of brown.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I was thinking back to within my lifetime, it's only been in the last 20 or so years that _most_ men have completely understood it's wrong to have sex with a woman that can't consent.


Unfortunately, we STILL have an abundance of people that don't understand right from wrong, that's why the news never runs short of crime reports like rape, robbery, murder, etc.
*Fortunately* it's the courts we count on to decide that and judge those brought to trial.
This case is from our lifetime, 1962.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thomas_(1962)


----------

