Posted on 03/06/2014 7:28:04 AM PST by edcoil
BOSTON (CBS/AP) – Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that a man accused of secretly snapping photos up a woman’s skirt on an MBTA train did not break the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.cbslocal.com ...
I guess the judge is a shutterbug to.
Don’t wear kilts...................
Well it all depends on your perspective —
If you DO wear a kilt on the MBTA, you'd best be sportin' a pistol in your sporran, laddie. Else you'll be riskin' a good beating.
What part of a man’s brain would agree that this is sound judgment?
So it would be okay if I took photos of your wife’s panties by using a camera I deliberately placed on my foot aimed up at her concealed private parts for self-pleasuring later? Right, judge?
The guy must be a liberal sexual deviant on the side. A lot of judges are.
Then it shouldn’t be illegal to beat the holy hell out of anyone caught taking such photos.
Under The Scotsman’s Kilt
A Scotsman clad in kilt left the bar one evening fair
And one could tell by how he walked he’d drunk more than his share
He staggered on until he could no longer keep his feet
Then stumbled off into the grass to sleep beside the street.
chorus:
Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
He stumbled off into the grass to sleep beside the street.
Later on two young and lovely girls just happened by,
And one says to the other with a twinkle in her eye
You see yon sleeping Scotsman who is young and handsome built
I wonder if it’s true what they don’t wear beneath their kilt.
Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
I wonder if it’s true what they don’t wear beneath their kilt.
They crept up to the sleeping Scotsman quiet as could be
Then lifted up his kilt about an inch so they could see
And there behold for them to view beneath his Scottish skirt
Was nothing but what God had graced him with upon his birth
Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
There was nothing there but what God gave upon his birth
They marveled for a moment then one said we’d best be gone
But let’s leave a present for our friend before we move along
They took a blue silk ribbon and they tied it in a bow
Around the bonnie spar that the Scot’s lifted kilt did show
Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
Around the bonnie spar that the Scot’s lifted kilt did show
The Scotsman woke to nature’s call and stumbled toward a tree
Behind a bush he lifts his kilt and gawks at what he sees
Then in a startled voice he says to what’s before his eyes
He said, “Lad I don’t know where you’ve been but I see you won first
prize”
Ring ding diddle diddle i de o
Ring di diddle i o
He said, “Lad I don’t know where you’ve been but I see you won first prize”
This means I can’t wear a skirt anymore but more especially neither can my elementary aged daughters.
Modest women will all be wearing shalwar khameez (dresses with pants underneath).
Only women who want to have their privates photograhed will wear skirts.
Mae West: Lad, is that a pistol in your sporran, or are you just happy to see me?
CC
The judge agreed with the Prosecutor, and stated "...that while the prosecution’s “proposition is eminently reasonable,” the current writing of the law that Robertson was charged under does not cover that particular circumstance."
The law, as written, has 5 criteria:
That the defendant willfully photographed, videotaped, or electronically surveilled; the subject was another person who was nude or partially nude; the defendant did so with the intent to secretly conduct or hide his photographing activity; the defendant conducted such activity when the other person was in a place and circumstance where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in not being “so photographed”; and the defendant did so without the other person’s knowledge or consent.
The judge is correct in this matter, and a different ruling would be judicial activism, which we all protest, methinks. They are currently advocating rewriting the law, or adding another to cover these circumstances.
If it were the Judge’s daughter or wife,
it would be different.
THEN it would be an assault and battery.
Simplest solution is to pass a law to prohibit looking up skirts. What used to be common sense now has to have legislation, for we have abandoned our moral principles and underpinnings. Nothing is "immoral" anymore.
This means I can’t wear a skirt anymore but more especially neither can my elementary aged daughters.
+++++++++
Out here in Leftafornia the girls appear not to know what a skirt is. They understand “jeans” and they understand “shorts” but somewhere along the line they failed to learn that girls wear dresses.
AFAIK, this is a universal truth at least in the “wear anything you like except skirts or dresses” public schools.
Unfortunately it would be a 2500 page law. Then we’d have to look at it to see what was in it...
Since we have lowered the value of human lift to that of animals, if we start sniffing each others butts like dogs, the court should also find that legal.
Around here we still wear skirts to Church especially. And in the summer that’s way more common than elsewhere just because they’re cooler than either pants or shorts. My kids love to wear dresses in the summer. And they can, just not when we go to the store or church anymore.
Precisely. If the women in question had wanted everyone to see their panties and crotch in same they’d have not worn skirts to begin with and made sure to sit immodestly.
“Burquas ho!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.