Pervert videotapes a girl's butt in Time Square

[thegimp03]

As stated by everybody else, the guy was a creep but had every right to do what he did.

 

[BoberFett]

There is an objective definition of morality that a majority of rational humans can accept.

Fortunately for the world, history is full of people far smarter than you debating philosophy. Only in the mind of a zealot is morality objective.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Lol

 

[sjwaste]

The most thing illegal in that video was the cyclist - both for touching the guy's camera and running over his foot. Could be construed as assault quite easily. While the camera man was very odd, he was within his rights, and frankly, a girl doing something like that in Times Square should expect something like that to happen.

Good luck getting those charges to stick. A NYC cop is going to be pissed off that he can't get to some real crime because you decided to call him over for that. Then, you're lucky if a magistrate will even charge the guy. It's a total waste of an ADA's time. Civil action? No damages.

I love when people make the "because he can" argument, as though that's all that it takes to be right in this world. Yeah, he was within his rights to be taping. Should he have? Probably not - he was pissing off the people who were clearly trying to shoot something else. A little civility goes a long way. This guy had none.

 

[Triumph]

Someone has to feed the internet's porn addiction.

 

[eits]

why do people care? it's not like her cooter is visible...

some people have a fetish for that shit

 

[dainthomas]

That ass was unreal.

 

[eits]

Who cares if it was a photoshoot? If you don't want people to see your crotch, don't parade your crotch in public, simple as that. The fact it could be posted all over the internet is irrelevant.

you think she has total control of what her clothes do in certain positions? the photographer was just trying to get a shot (NOT of her crotch... so, guaranteed, it wasn't even really a concern).

not even that, but it's just wrong for some drolling pervert to focus on a girl's butt with a video device without her consent. guaranteed if he said, "excuse me, pretty girl... i'm going to be video recording your ass the entire time you do this and, hopefully, your shorts will create a little opening so i can see your crotch and record that too... then, this video will be mine to do whatever to and with it, including spread it all over the internets... is that ok?" she'd probably reject the idea.

i can't believe some of you nasty fucks are siding with the pervert on this one. what if that girl was your sister, daugher, or girlfriend? you seriously think it'd be ok?

grow the fuck up... just because she's a cute girl doesn't make it ok.

 

[eits]

It's a long thread so let me summarize:

1. Chick is hot, though too old to be true pedobear material.
2. People generally agree guy is creepy.
3. People generally agree guy has legal right to be creepy.
4. People generally agree goober is a douchebag.
5. BoberFett was likely molested by an attorney at some point in his life.

I think that about covers this thread.

but he wasn't being a douchebag. anyone who thinks he was is a douchebag. the guy was just trying to protect some poor girl's dignity against a pervert.

 

[Deeko]

Good luck getting those charges to stick. A NYC cop is going to be pissed off that he can't get to some real crime because you decided to call him over for that. Then, you're lucky if a magistrate will even charge the guy. It's a total waste of an ADA's time. Civil action? No damages.

Its on film. The cop doesn't need to be there for it. As far as civil goes - the cyclist committed both assault and battery. He can be (successfully) sued for that alone, it doesn't matter if he broke something or not.

Fact is - even if the gooberator is a douche, he did not commit a crime - the cyclist did.

 

[Deeko]

i can't believe some of you nasty fucks are siding with the pervert on this one. what if that girl was your sister, daugher, or girlfriend? you seriously think it'd be ok?

I'm sorry eits, but its laughable when people resort to this. You're trying to inject emotion to overcome logic. The logical facts are that the cameraman committed no crime and the cyclist did. If you want my opinion - if my sister or girlfriend were doing something like that in public, in Times fucking Square no less, I'd tell her its her own damn fault for doing it there, and that they should know better.

Then again - my sister is a strange former punk teenager type, and I wouldn't date someone so naive. And when I have a daughter, I won't raise her to be either. So I guess your hypothetical won't apply to me anyway.

 

[sjwaste]

Its on film. The cop doesn't need to be there for it. As far as civil goes - the cyclist committed both assault and battery. He can be (successfully) sued for that alone, it doesn't matter if he broke something or not.

Fact is - even if the gooberator is a douche, he did not commit a crime - the cyclist did.

It's on film, ok. So you want the guy to make a citizen's arrest and bring the guy in himself? Or just ask him nicely if he'll walk with you to appear before the magistrate? I'm not really sure you understand criminal procedure, or at least not how it actually happens.

As for the civil claims, what exactly would be the demand for damages? You're right, he could sue, and a judge could award nominal damages. Wouldn't even cover the filing fee. Going to be pretty hard to get any kind of punitive damages there.

Again, you seem to like the technically correct answer. That's great, but this isn't a first year torts or crim exam. In the real world, the camera man was an asshole and wouldn't get shit.

By the way, I'm not barred in NY, but a quick scan of the NY Penal Code tells me that NY recognizes a crime of harassment in the first and second degree. You can look it up yourself, but the camera man's actions appear to fit the black letter. And no, I don't think he would be arrested for it any more than the cyclist's actions would lead to the same.

EDIT: What's wrong with a little bit of civility, and leaving people alone when they clearly don't want to be bothered. NYC is a big place with lots of public areas, this guy can go someplace else and be a creep there.

 

[purbeast0]

with this thread being 4 pages long i expected something a tad more than that crappy video.

 

[Deeko]

It's on film, ok. So you want the guy to make a citizen's arrest and bring the guy in himself? Or just ask him nicely if he'll walk with you to appear before the magistrate? I'm not really sure you understand criminal procedure, or at least not how it actually happens.

As for the civil claims, what exactly would be the demand for damages? You're right, he could sue, and a judge could award nominal damages. Wouldn't even cover the filing fee. Going to be pretty hard to get any kind of punitive damages there.

Again, you seem to like the technically correct answer. That's great, but this isn't a first year torts or crim exam. In the real world, the camera man was an asshole and wouldn't get shit.

By the way, I'm not barred in NY, but a quick scan of the NY Penal Code tells me that NY recognizes a crime of harassment in the first and second degree. You can look it up yourself, but the camera man's actions appear to fit the black letter. And no, I don't think he would be arrested for it any more than the cyclist's actions would lead to the same.

EDIT: What's wrong with a little bit of civility, and leaving people alone when they clearly don't want to be bothered. NYC is a big place with lots of public areas, this guy can go someplace else and be a creep there.

Oh come on - if you "clearly don't want to be bothered" you shouldn't be doing things like that in Times Square, ya know, one of the most public places in the world. And small claims court fee isn't that high - he'd easily cover it in court if he wanted to.

You think he was harassing the girl? Please, you are trying to make claims that its a stretch to call the obviously criminal cyclist the criminal he is, yet you want to call this harassment? Wow. Just wow.

 

[Jeeebus]

I'm sorry eits, but its laughable when people resort to this. You're trying to inject emotion to overcome logic. The logical facts are that the cameraman committed no crime and the cyclist did. If you want my opinion - if my sister or girlfriend were doing something like that in public, in Times fucking Square no less, I'd tell her its her own damn fault for doing it there, and that they should know better.

Then again - my sister is a strange former punk teenager type, and I wouldn't date someone so naive. And when I have a daughter, I won't raise her to be either. So I guess your hypothetical won't apply to me anyway.

so change the hypothetical. at what point do you find what this guy was doing objectionable? your girlfriend lying next to you on the beach... he stands by her feet focusing in on her crotch. your daughter at the playground on the swing... him standing in front of her with his camera. etc. etc.

Yes, of course there's the famous "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" from Evelyn Beatrice Hall/Voltaire, but frankly I'm not sure they were equating political speech with weirdos filming girls' crotches.

It's already been said, but there's a difference between what's technically legal and what society will generally tolerate. I'd like to think that a creepy guy filming a ballerina's crotch is more the latter than the former.

 

[Jeeebus]

he'd easily cover it in court if he wanted to.

Unlike sjwaste, I am a member of the NY Bar (not that I think it's particularly pertinent to your statement). Filing fees in small claims court are $15. Tell me what his damages are that would easily cover the fee. Shoeshine? That's about the only "damage" I can think of.

 

[sjwaste]

Oh come on - if you "clearly don't want to be bothered" you shouldn't be doing things like that in Times Square, ya know, one of the most public places in the world. And small claims court fee isn't that high - he'd easily cover it in court if he wanted to.

You think he was harassing the girl? Please, you are trying to make claims that its a stretch to call the obviously criminal cyclist the criminal he is, yet you want to call this harassment? Wow. Just wow.

Brother, there are no damages to claim. You saw the video. If you want to sue someone in tort for assault or battery, you probably need damages. Yes, you could technically get a de minimis judgment for like $1 - it happens from time to time. But seriously, if you were drafting the pleading here (civil), what claims would you make and what damages would you seek? There was obviously no injury to person or property, so please tell me where you'd get punitive damages out of this?

Looks like it's $15 to file in small claims in NYC. Probably costs twice that much to have the guy served. I don't think a judge awards even that in this case.

Anyway, you don't seem to be addressing my points as much as you just want to scream that you're right and I'm wrong. Did you look up the harassment statute? I mean, you're harping that the cyclist is guilty of a crime according to the black letter - I'm just doing the same with respect to the camera man.

Neither claim appears to be meritorious. The difference between my position and yours is that I am being realistic regarding it.

 

[JMapleton]

She's underage, so it may or may not be legal.

But if I was there and somehow related to that girl I would smash that guy's jaw up.

 

[BUTCH1]

no, you shouldn't be surprised.

i actually appreciated the biker, but then, i'm all about knights in shining armor saving a damsel in distress.

Your joking right? if this girl was just walking along the street and some creep starting taping her then yea, but lets face it, she's bent over a chair with a tight pair of shorts on with her (fine) ass just sitting there blaring out "look at me", WTF did she expect?..

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Your joking right? if this girl was just walking along the street and some creep starting taping her then yea, but lets face it, she's bent over a chair with a tight pair of shorts on with her (fine) ass just sitting there blaring out "look at me", WTF did she expect?..

Let's see - maybe not to have some obese, middle-aged asswipe take zoomed shots of her crotch? Is that really too much to ask?

 

[sjwaste]

Your joking right? if this girl was just walking along the street and some creep starting taping her then yea, but lets face it, she's bent over a chair with a tight pair of shorts on with her (fine) ass just sitting there blaring out "look at me", WTF did she expect?..

I can't believe I'm getting to use this line with this avatar, but there's a fine line between stupid and clever. It might run in between leering and videotaping.

 

[SP33Demon]

EDIT: What's wrong with a little bit of civility, and leaving people alone when they clearly don't want to be bothered. NYC is a big place with lots of public areas, this guy can go someplace else and be a creep there.

You can just as easily say the same thing about the girl: why can't she go someplace else like a private studio to be professionally photographed if she didn't want to be harassed? It's a chance you take when you're in public... if they were that concerned with who taped it then they would have brought security. They didn't.

 

[zinfamous]

Fortunately for the world, history is full of people far smarter than you debating philosophy. Only in the mind of a zealot is morality objective.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

hahahahaha

HA

uh, wrong.

no, just....lol. wrong

HAHAHAHAHAHA. hahah.

you have a fat poopy-face head!




see? I simply re-applied the entire context of your retort in a language that 98% of us will understand.

try again, sir.

 

[zinfamous]

but he wasn't being a douchebag. anyone who thinks he was is a douchebag. the guy was just trying to protect some poor girl's dignity against a pervert.

oh, I think he was being a douchebag....but appropriately so in this case.

 

[duragezic]