BillyVance 34 #1 February 7, 2015 How is this not illegal? http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/oregon-judge-taking-photos-up-girls-skirt-not-illegal/ar-AA95oKA What's worse is this was a 61 year old man taking pics up a 13 year old girl's skirt! If I caught someone doing that to my girl, I don't honestly know what it will take to keep me from punching him in the fucking face and smashing his camera-phone. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #2 February 7, 2015 BillyVance How is this not illegal? Here's the law that the prosecutor tried to apply: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700 I guess "above the hemline of one's skirt" wasn't explicitly listed under "Places and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #3 February 7, 2015 I don't see how taking an upskirt" photograph falls under that statute. Am I missing something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #4 February 7, 2015 champu ***How is this not illegal? Here's the law that the prosecutor tried to apply: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700 I guess "above the hemline of one's skirt" wasn't explicitly listed under "Places and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy." I'm pretty sure you're going to see a new law in Oregon fairly soon. It's amazing how much it can take, and at other times, how little it can take to be a registered a sex offender. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #5 February 7, 2015 AndyBoydI don't see how taking an upskirt" photograph falls under that statute. Am I missing something? No, you're not missing anything. I don't think that statue applies to what he did either. I was just lamenting the language of the law and trying to answer Billy when he asked "How is this not illegal?" I could have worded my post better. The answer to "How is this not illegal?" is always, "Because there's no law making it illegal." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #6 February 7, 2015 champu ***I don't see how taking an upskirt" photograph falls under that statute. Am I missing something? No, you're not missing anything. I don't think that statue applies to what he did either. I was just lamenting the language of the law and trying to answer Billy when he asked "How is this not illegal?" I could have worded my post better. The answer to "How is this not illegal?" is always, "Because there's no law making it illegal." What really bothers me the most is the girl's age that the man targeted. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #7 February 7, 2015 Everyone agrees that this guy did a scummy thing. For whatever reason, Oregon doesn't have a law that directly addresses this. The prosecutor was forced to use a law that didn't really apply, and the judge was forced to find the guy not guilty. The answer, obviously, is for Oregon to pass a law against this, like other states have. http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/justice/massachusetts-upskirt-bill/ The problem is that these laws have to be drafted very precisely in order to survive judicial review. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-upskirt-law-overturned-20140919-story.html I'm sure the Oregon legislature will tackle this problem very soon, with all the publicity this case is getting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 307 #8 February 14, 2015 i have read about this also, and i have to chime in here. does oregon not have a law that makes it illegal to take pictures of a 13 year old's privates? how is that not considered child porn? maybe the language of that one law does not cover this, but how does child porn not apply here?_________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,062 #9 February 14, 2015 Hi Andy, QuoteI'm sure the Oregon legislature will tackle this problem very soon, with all the publicity this case is getting. Today's newspaper says that the legislature will enact a new law soon. However, today this is the news: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/oregon-governor-resign-over-ethics-scandal-n305966 Just another man, in a very long list, of men brought down by a woman. I have nothing against women. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #10 February 14, 2015 JerryBaumchenHi Andy, QuoteI'm sure the Oregon legislature will tackle this problem very soon, with all the publicity this case is getting. Today's newspaper says that the legislature will enact a new law soon. However, today this is the news: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/oregon-governor-resign-over-ethics-scandal-n305966 Just another man, in a very long list, of men brought down by a woman. I have nothing against women. Jerry Baumchen QuoteOregon Secretary of State Kate Brown will become governor once Kitzhaber steps down. She will become the nation's first openly bisexual governor. Lets get this party started! Oooh maybe too much - wait sweetie, not the microphone . . . it's not one of your toys!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #11 February 16, 2015 champu ***How is this not illegal? Here's the law that the prosecutor tried to apply: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700 I guess "above the hemline of one's skirt" wasn't explicitly listed under "Places and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy." You have to read the entire statute - which is what the judge did. Assuming the girl was wearing underpants, it would appear not to fit the statute's specific definition of "nudity". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #12 February 16, 2015 Andy9o8 ******How is this not illegal? Here's the law that the prosecutor tried to apply: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700 I guess "above the hemline of one's skirt" wasn't explicitly listed under "Places and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy." You have to read the entire statute - which is what the judge did. Assuming the girl was wearing underpants, it would appear not to fit the statute's specific definition of "nudity". If it did, there would also be a big problem at swimming pools and beaches.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #13 February 16, 2015 kallend *********How is this not illegal? Here's the law that the prosecutor tried to apply: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700 I guess "above the hemline of one's skirt" wasn't explicitly listed under "Places and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy." You have to read the entire statute - which is what the judge did. Assuming the girl was wearing underpants, it would appear not to fit the statute's specific definition of "nudity". If it did, there would also be a big problem at swimming pools and beaches. The judge's ruling was correct. The gap in the law is real, and it has to be up to the legislature to fill it in. That said, the prosecutors, when they were filing the charges, might have tried harder to find an Oregon statute to fit the misconduct. I don't like over-charging by prosecutors, but I don't approve of laziness, either. From my quick online search, it looks to me like maybe, maybe, maybe either Oregon's harassment statute or its disorderly conduct statute might have fit. If I'd been the DA I'd have included those 2 charges and at least given it a shot. DAs don't don't know ahead of time what judge will get the case when they file charges. Maybe some judge in that county might have been persuaded by a good argument on either harassment or disorderly conduct. (Though this judge might still not have been.) The guy (the perv) is lucky he got the benefit of the perfect storm of Oregon statutes, an unimaginative charging DA and an intellectually honest judge. On a human level, I do sympathize with the girl. Even though the ruling was correct, I'm sure she and her parents feel the overall system failed her. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 307 #14 February 16, 2015 the system did fail them._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #15 February 16, 2015 Andy9o8You have to read the entire statute And you have to read the entire thread. I already clarified I agree that the statute doesn't apply. My comment about the hemline was making light of the shortcomings of the language of the statute. I further agree that the definition of nudity in the statute makes it doubly non-applicable to this case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #16 February 16, 2015 >the system did fail them. The system worked correctly; it did exactly what it is supposed to do, which is uphold the law. Many people don't like this law. Fortunately, they can change it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,062 #17 February 17, 2015 Hi Bill, Quotethey can change it. Everything that I am reading is that this legistature will. It is just that right now this state is dealing with a governor who is resigning on Wed & a new governor being sworn in. It's a big upheaval and things need to get calmed down. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 307 #18 February 17, 2015 the system may have worked correctly, i did not argue that at all. but the system failed THEM, and that is a fact. whatever happened to the intent of the law, not the letter?_________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #19 February 17, 2015 sfzombie13the system may have worked correctly, i did not argue that at all. but the system failed THEM, and that is a fact. whatever happened to the intent of the law, not the letter? "Intent of the law" means the intent of the legislature that drafted the law. A key part of a legislature's due diligence is assuring that its intent is reflected in the legislation that it drafts, or to timely update legislation to assure that the legislative Letter evolves at the same pace that legislative Intent does. It's also a basic tenet of statutory interpretation that laws that are very specific are to be interpreted strictly, and not loosely. When the letter of the law is very specific and not ambiguous (like here), the letter must be followed, or the trial court will get reversed on appeal. Thus, the proper target of popular dissent should be the legislature, not the court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 307 #20 February 18, 2015 thanx for the explanation. and why, pray tell, is it not illegal to attempt to take a picture of a 13 year old girl's private parts? i would have thought that somewhere, in some fashion, that it could be considered child porn. unless i am sufficiently mistaken on that point as well._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #21 February 18, 2015 >why, pray tell, is it not illegal to attempt to take a picture of a 13 year old girl's >private parts? Well, underwear in this case. Probably because it's never been an issue before and so no one has passed a law against it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CygnusX-1 42 #22 February 18, 2015 What we need to do to prevent this is to pass a law forcing our young women to dress from head to toe in a robe. Or outlaw all skirts. They can only dress in pants. This is how you stop this behavior. It will be much easier to arrest women who do not abide by the dress code then to try and find all the hidden cameras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #23 February 18, 2015 sfzombie13thanx for the explanation. and why, pray tell, is it not illegal to attempt to take a picture of a 13 year old girl's private parts? How do you know that the girl was not wearing underwear? What aren't you telling us?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie13 307 #24 February 18, 2015 exactly!! how was it known she had underwear on? this alone should be enough to warrant a charge of attempting to create child porn. this is why we need to enact sensible laws and get rid of lawyers, as well as ban them from ever holding political office._________________________________________ Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #25 February 18, 2015 kallend***thanx for the explanation. and why, pray tell, is it not illegal to attempt to take a picture of a 13 year old girl's private parts? How do you know that the girl was not wearing underwear? What aren't you telling us? So I'm sitting down eating my Hawaiian BBQ yesterday, minding my own business when a 12-14 year old girl sits down 10 ft opposite of me. She's wearing a dress and starts picking on her 8 year old brother, I don't think her mother taught her how to act with a drees on. Her legs were wide open the dress is everywhere. It was the most uncomfortale thing to have to see. The only thing I thought to do was get on my phone and surf, it was then I reallized, that to the casual observer , I was clicking away on her. Weird situation, I never hope that happens again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
