Pervert videotapes a girl's butt in Time Square

[Sea Moose]

is it wrong that i watched that video again, just so i could stare at her butt?

 

[Vette73]

is it wrong that i watched that video again, just so i could stare at her butt?

Oh wait, we were not supposed to watch it again... and only for the butt part... :whiste:

 

[eits]

Wow, nice ridiculous leap of logic there.

Your second point is senseless given that the shoot is being shot in a public place.

uh, no. if someone says something to the effect of "she was asking for it" for doing something and CLEARLY not "asking for it", then it's applicable. she didn't go out there and wear some miniskirt, try to draw attention to herself, and then strip for people or anything. she just wanted to, most likely, get some senior photos. she was dressed in modest attire and point ballet shoes.

she wasn't "asking for it". this dude tried to take away her choice in the matter and violated her without her consent. that is kinda close to rape... it's just that instead of using his body, he tried using a video camera.

 

[Jeeebus]

Also, your last sentence made no sense unless you intended to contradict your original point.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between the terms "latter" and "former"

 

[Sea Moose]

uh, no. if someone says something to the effect of "she was asking for it" for doing something and CLEARLY not "asking for it", then it's applicable. she didn't go out there and wear some miniskirt, try to draw attention to herself, and then strip for people or anything. she just wanted to, most likely, get some senior photos. she was dressed in modest attire and point ballet shoes.

she wasn't "asking for it". this dude tried to take away her choice in the matter and violated her without her consent. that is kinda close to rape... it's just that instead of using his body, he tried using a video camera.

Fail.


He was trying to videotape the chair. Bitch and goober got in the way

 

[rudder]

uh, no. if someone says something to the effect of "she was asking for it" for doing something and CLEARLY not "asking for it", then it's applicable. she didn't go out there and wear some miniskirt, try to draw attention to herself, and then strip for people or anything. she just wanted to, most likely, get some senior photos. she was dressed in modest attire and point ballet shoes.

she wasn't "asking for it". this dude tried to take away her choice in the matter and violated her without her consent. that is kinda close to rape... it's just that instead of using his body, he tried using a video camera.

Except the law allows people to be violated by a camera to a certain extent when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

The United States enacted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 to punish those who intentionally capture an individual's private areas without consent, when the person knew the subject had an expectation of privacy. Additionally, many state laws address the issue as well.

Which is not really applicable here since there was no vulva showing (his improper image would need to include naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast).

There is no time or place where you can legally violate someone with a penis.

This whole thread just goes to show you why the guy did what he did. To elicit a response from people. That is how he makes money.

Again we have learned from this incident:

1) guy acted like a creep
2) guy legally allowed to act like a creep (whether this is right or wrong morally is of no consequence)

 

[eits]

Except the law allows people to be violated by a camera to a certain extent when no reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

The United States enacted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 to punish those who intentionally capture an individual's private areas without consent, when the person knew the subject had an expectation of privacy. Additionally, many state laws address the issue as well.

Which is not really applicable here since there was no vulva showing (his improper image would need to include naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast).

There is no time or place where you can legally violate someone with a penis.

This whole thread just goes to show you why the guy did what he did. To elicit a response from people. That is how he makes money.

Again we have learned from this incident:

1) guy acted like a creep
2) guy legally allowed to act like a creep (whether this is right or wrong morally is of no consequence)

i understand that, but it's still wrong. and all those who are defending this guy and calling the bike dude a douchebag are almost as disgusting as the creep who was taking videos of the girl.

 

[Sea Moose]

 

[Regs]

I would normally agree etits, but the girl was almost spread eagle in the middle of manhatten. You're right about what society can usually tolerate and what the law enforces however, but the ends do not justify the means if we all of sudden became a police state. Usually there is a timely progression of how we go about enforcing behavioral expectations. 10 years from now our society, like everything else, will become more sensitized - folkway becomes a more, then the more will become norm. Just like how smoking took decades to become a sanctioned offense and as you might of all ready noticed, the sanctions intensify as time grows.

 

[Bill Brasky]

LET GO OF MY CAMERA, GOOBER. YOU OLD BlT!

 

[darkswordsman17]

uh, no. if someone says something to the effect of "she was asking for it" for doing something and CLEARLY not "asking for it", then it's applicable. she didn't go out there and wear some miniskirt, try to draw attention to herself, and then strip for people or anything. she just wanted to, most likely, get some senior photos. she was dressed in modest attire and point ballet shoes.

she wasn't "asking for it". this dude tried to take away her choice in the matter and violated her without her consent. that is kinda close to rape... it's just that instead of using his body, he tried using a video camera.

Wow...just wow. You're seriously comparing this to rape?

this:rape::chiropractor:doctor

i understand that, but it's still wrong. and all those who are defending this guy and calling the bike dude a douchebag are almost as disgusting as the creep who was taking videos of the girl.

Don't you mean rapist?

 

[zinfamous]

Doesn't anyone realize that the biker had the same right to stand between the creepy guy and the girl as the creepy guy had to videotape her? He should have just stood there and said, "Oh am I blocking your shot? I apologize, but I have every right to stand here."

but the ave. biker doesn't understand the subtle attitude. The biker's most common outward expression of personality whilst wearing the uniform is "dickscarf."

So, I'm guessing he was incapable of playing the straight role. ...But I forgive him his dickscarfery in this case.

 

[zinfamous]

lol. There needs to be a version of Godwin's Law for probability of someone saying "I guess you think it's okay for scantily clad women to be raped" whenever an argument breaks out like this.

long before Godwin played on the internet, there was the fallacy of the slippery slope and the straw man.

no new version of anything is needed.

 

[BoberFett]

*ridiculous display of stupidity snipped*

Let me guess, you're a Christian? One of those denominations with a stick lodged permanently up your rectum? Southern Baptist maybe?

If morality was objective we wouldn't have a problem with illegal Mexicans picking vegetables. We'd just have our slaves do it for free.

 

[theeedude]

If he's following them I'm not sure that he's within his rights anymore, and if they had a permit, then it is possible that he was disturbing them doing what they were granted the right to do by the public office.

It wouldn't be harassment for the cop to ask him to stop and is well within the legal rights of the people to request the cop to do. The cop, likewise could say, tough luck, no permit deal with it or leave yourselves or if they have a permit could just ask the guy to stop and possibly leave, and then depending on the guys' actions from there determine what the best way to handle the situation is.

I agree that if they wanted privacy they should have done the shoot somewhere else, but that doesn't mean they should have to put up with someone screwing with them. They were smart enough to not escalate the situation themselves and just walk away and the situation apparently stopped.

He's not screwing them, he's videotaping stuff happening at Time Square, which he is free to do, just as they are free to continue doing what they are doing. And the cop has no legal right to interfere with this guys rights, he can ask for it as a favor, but he can't order it, and if he proceeds to violate this guy's rights, he's going to walk into a middle of a PR shit-storm and possibly a civil rights lawsuit. Why? For the benefit of some broad who wants to lift her legs in times square without tourists taping it?

 

[preslove]

Again, IT'S IN FREAKING TIMES SQUARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't put your crotch over your head in times square if you don't want to be videotaped.

If I were in times square and some women started doing that I would definitely take pics/video for the novelty.

 

[zinfamous]

Let me guess, you're a Christian? One of those denominations with a stick lodged permanently up your rectum? Southern Baptist maybe?

If morality was objective we wouldn't have a problem with illegal Mexicans picking vegetables. We'd just have our slaves do it for free.

eh, not even close. perhaps you stay away from the scads of religion vs science threads?

anyhoo, not sure where you'd get that assumption from my comments after I expressly mentioned that YOUR confusion is perhaps do to the mistaken assumption that "morality is defined by religion." funny how you turn that back on me, after I had so clearly established that as a possible source of your misunderstanding of objectivity.

 

[BoberFett]

eh, not even close. perhaps you stay away from the scads of religion vs science threads?

anyhoo, not sure where you'd get that assumption from my comments after I expressly mentioned that YOUR confusion is perhaps do to the mistaken assumption that "morality is defined by religion." funny how you turn that back on me, after I had so clearly established that as a possible source of your misunderstanding of objectivity.

Then I can only assume that YOUR confusion is based on a complete misunderstanding of the word "objective."

Go back to grade school son, you're not ready for the real world.

 

[darkswordsman17]

He's not screwing them, he's videotaping stuff happening at Time Square, which he is free to do, just as they are free to continue doing what they are doing. And the cop has no legal right to interfere with this guys rights, he can ask for it as a favor, but he can't order it, and if he proceeds to violate this guy's rights, he's going to walk into a middle of a PR shit-storm and possibly a civil rights lawsuit. Why? For the benefit of some broad who wants to lift her legs in times square without tourists taping it?

Actually, he was screwing with them, its what the guy does is go around and screw with people, and that was his intention here. He might have a legal right to do what he did, but likewise, nothing I said for them to do was illegal in any way either, so what's your point?

 

[coolVariable]

Doesn't the girl kind of look like Hayden Penitentiary?

 

[eits]

Wow...just wow. You're seriously comparing this to rape?

this:rape::chiropractor:doctor



Don't you mean rapist?

comparing, yes. equating, no.

learn the difference.

 

[ccblazer44]

Too bad the goober and the cameraman didn't fight and mess each other up, they both would have deserved it and the video would have been better.

 

[ccblazer44]

Damn she does have a nice ass though. She's really poppin it out at 1:37.

 

[pcslookout]

I prefer this over the girl that throws live puppies into a river. This is still wrong too but I guess you could say it was a public street. It is almost impossible to tell someone to not take a picture. Even if they do it wouldn't matter.

 

[meltdown75]

huh. random.