A hammer, a blowtorch, and some pliers

[Canonista]

I've said it a million times. It's the guys with the cell phone cameras who are the perverts, not the digital SLR crowd. I hope to God he resists being taken into custody or just goes into a Florida swamp and does the honorable thing all by himself.

http://www.local6.com/news/14517399/detail.html


Man Sought For 'Upskirt' Photo Of 13-Year-Old At Wal-Mart

MOUNT DORA, Fla. -- Police in Mount Dora, Fla., are searching for a man caught on surveillance video using his cell phone to snap a photo up the skirt of a 13-year-old girl.


Officers said the girl was standing in the deodorant aisle of a Wal-Mart store in Mount Dora when a bald man walked up behind her.


The man is then seen extending his cell phone camera between the girl's legs and snapping a photo before walking off, police said.

Police said the girl realized the man was doing something behind her because the cell phone brushed against her leg.


She said when she spun around to see what was going on, the man told her, "Thanks, sweetheart."


The man was wearing a striped shirt and sunglasses on his head, police said.

Anyone with information concerning the incident is urged to call Crimeline at 800-423-TIPS.


Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

[heidibot]

*shudders*

That guy oughta be horsewhipped.

[Curtis N]

They'll catch him.
Problem is, it's not a serious crime and if he doesn't have any priors he probably won't do any time.

[gheesom]

thats horrible. The man deserves severe punishment for it.

[Cybnew]

waterboarding?

[S.Horton]

Id gladly pay the fine for kicking his a&& right on the spot, whether I knew the kid or not.

[Big WIll]

This world is ****ed up!

[rhys]

Hang on... Aside from acting indecently, what crime has actually been committed? If looking is now a crime (he went way beyond doing what all boys do which is looking up the stairwell when the girls are walking up the stairs). He did not harm the girl. He merely momentarily embarassed her. He should not have done it and needs a severe telling off. If however this is just the tip of a somewhat larger iceberg then I can see two things. First the guy needs a mental adjustment from being a bit juvenille or second, the guy could have a serious problem that needs him to be removed from society for a while.

[Curtis N]

That's the thing, Rhys. He's likely to be charged with one of those catch-all low-grade misdemeanors like "disorderly conduct" and fined a few hundred dollars.

But we're all probably thinking the same thing: What kind of sick S.O.B. gets his jollies by taking advantage of a 13-yr-old girl this way, and what else is he capable of? We'd like to see him locked up but that won't happen until he actually hurts somebody.

[20droger]

Locked up? Not what I hope for.

I'd much prefer to see him take a trip to the local vet, just like a "misbehaving" dog.

But hey, that's just me.

Be glad I'm not in charge of things.

[rhys]

That's the thing, Rhys. He's likely to be charged with one of those catch-all low-grade misdemeanors like "disorderly conduct" and fined a few hundred dollars.

But we're all probably thinking the same thing: What kind of sick S.O.B. gets his jollies by taking advantage of a 13-yr-old girl this way, and what else is he capable of? We'd like to see him locked up but that won't happen until he actually hurts somebody.

I believe in innocence until proof of guilt. I see too much of the mentality of "he could be X so let's do him in". It's not a very nice or very moral attitude. The purpose of the justice system is there to dish out revenge when somebody does something bad. What people are trying to do is to pre-empt that revenge which is IMHO a complete abuse of the system. Instead of getting our panties in a wad we should be doing something else. Instead of being so heavy handed what we need to do is to ensure that no child grows up thinking that paedophilia is normal. This brings us into moral education which for the past 50 years has been abandoned and we're now reaping the rewards.

In the old West, it was rough, hard and brutal. People by and large though respected each other and they all went to church and the church taught morality. Now that church is not trendy, morality is seen as being a church thing and rejected. What we need is an emphasis on morality - not just through the US but throught the whole world. The whole world has forgotten morality.

[Curtis N]

I believe in innocence until proof of guilt.So do I. And he'll have his day in court.

But what if he's found guilty? What if he admits to everything alleged, including the "Thanks sweetheart" part, and the image is found in his cell phone memory, and the judge says "guilty".

What should his punishment be?

[20droger]

Sadly, what his punishment should be will bear no resemblance to what hiis punishment will be.

And, if the image is found in his camera phone's memory, he should also be charged with possessiuon of child pornography. After all, "pornography" is largely in the mind, and it's pretty obvious what his mental intent was. If it weren't, he wouldn't have done what he did.

[rhys]

So do I. And he'll have his day in court.

But what if he's found guilty? What if he admits to everything alleged, including the "Thanks sweetheart" part, and the image is found in his cell phone memory, and the judge says "guilty".

What should his punishment be?

Why necessarily should he be punished? Why can't we investigate whether instead of custodial punishment we cannot rehabilitate him? I rather like the idea of letting the army straighten out the low-level crooks. Sure - they get used more as cannon fodder but at the end of that they come out as people with a purpose in life rather than aimless crooks.

[gheesom]

hes been caught on security camera with his phone between her legs, whether he said thats sweetheart or not, thats out of order!! The thought that the guy thinks thats ok.
I'm not religious at all, but I still have a value of what it right and what is wrong....
The guy is sick in the head.

[20droger]

Why necessarily should he be punished? Why can't we investigate whether instead of custodial punishment we cannot rehabilitate him? I rather like the idea of letting the army straighten out the low-level crooks. Sure - they get used more as cannon fodder but at the end of that they come out as people with a purpose in life rather than aimless crooks.
Perhaps.

But in this particular case, he's not a crook. He's a pervert.

Are you suggesting our military needs (or should even include) perverts?

[Curtis N]

Why necessarily should he be punished?Because he caused emotional distress and trauma to a 13-yr-old girl, just to get a bad picture of her underpants. He obviously has no regard for his fellow human beings.

The likelyhood of "rehabilitating" someone his age is quite low.

The punishment is intended to deter him from committing similar acts in the future, since his own sense of decency didn't stop him.

I don't know how effective punishment will be in his case. But publicity surrounding this and similar cases will deter some (not all) people with similar perversions from committing similar crimes.

We are dealing with a mental health issue here. Neither punishment nor attempts at rehabilitation are likely to be very effective in changing his behavior in the long term. Sadly, the only way to keep people like this from repeat offense is to keep them locked up. But that won't happen until he does something much more serious.

[rhys]

But you cannot just lock somebody up because they behave in a childish and immoral way. He has embarrassed the girl and that is all. I find certain political groups to be somewhat embarrassing - should we lock them up too? Ooh - what about the neighbours across the street whose nasty little dogs dump in our front yard, making our yard embarrassing. Should we lock the neighbours up and throw the key away?

No human soul is beyond redemption. Once we start saying "they cannot be reformed" then we have become as Stalin or Hitler.

[Pete]

Hang on... Aside from acting indecently, what crime has actually been committed? If looking is now a crime (he went way beyond doing what all boys do which is looking up the stairwell when the girls are walking up the stairs). He did not harm the girl. He merely momentarily embarassed her. He should not have done it and needs a severe telling off. If however this is just the tip of a somewhat larger iceberg then I can see two things. First the guy needs a mental adjustment from being a bit juvenille or second, the guy could have a serious problem that needs him to be removed from society for a while.

Rhys. If you saw someone taking photographs of your kids with the undeniable aim of sexual gratification, then I sincerely hope that you'd have the decency to be highly offended and disgusted at such behaviour.

[Curtis N]

But you cannot just lock somebody up because they behave in a childish and immoral way.Childish is one thing, immoral is something else. We have a plethora of laws that define our collective moral values, or the values of a community. There are a multitude of things I could do that would cause no real harm to anyone yet get me locked up. And taking pictures up the skirts of 13-yr-olds is simply not something we tolerate.

Further, I would submit that the girl suffered more than embarrassment. There will likely be serious psychological affects.

I agree that no person is beyond redemption. But governments of all kinds have historically been woefully inept at bringing about such redemption, especially among those who prey on children.

Locking up such people in the interest of public safety is a matter of pragmatism more than vengeance.

[rhys]

What is the difference between women and girls standing naked on a nudist beach being spied on from the dunes by boys and men with telescopes and video cameras with 20x+ zooms and one guy taking an indecent photo in a shop?

[20droger]

There is a huge difference (actually, several differences). But it is apparently pointles to delineate them.

Let us agree to disagree.

[BottomBracket]

But you cannot just lock somebody up because they behave in a childish and immoral way. He has embarrassed the girl and that is all.

I can't believe I read this. That person has done more than merely embarrass the girl. I understand that you like to play devil's advocate here, but if your arguments are based on that premise, then they really don't hold much water.

Perverts like this give all photographers a bad name. People don't only see him as someone with a cellphone camera, they see him as someone with a camera, period.

[Curtis N]

What is the difference between women and girls standing naked on a nudist beach being spied on from the dunes by boys and men with telescopes and video cameras with 20x+ zooms and one guy taking an indecent photo in a shop?A very important legal concept called "the expectation of privacy."

C'mon, Rhys. Did you watch that video? If this doesn't totally creep you out then you're missing something.

[rhys]

I can't believe I read this. That person has done more than merely embarrass the girl. I understand that you like to play devil's advocate here, but if your arguments are based on that premise, then they really don't hold much water.

Perverts like this give all photographers a bad name. People don't only see him as someone with a cellphone camera, they see him as someone with a camera, period.

I'm trying to inject some reality into a debate that looks like it's heading for a shoot-em-first-the-ask-questions conclusion.

In the 70s and 80s in Britain, this would not have been out of place. Lots of guys used to lurk underneath stairs that had gaps between the steps just to look through to see if they could see women/girls knickers. Nobody came to any harm. Nobody that wasn't already screwed in the head claimed that it injured them psychologically. In fact this whole "psychological injury nonsense" smacks of lack of moral fibre.

I am not saying it's right. The guy was wrong and out of place doing that. if the guy does it more than once or at the most twice then he definitely has a problem that needs to be addressed. If this is the worst that will happen to that girl throughout her entire life then she should consider herself to be very lucky indeed. She will have her crotch fondled by doctors every year as an adult and her breasts fondled by doctors every year when she's past 40.

Ok. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Yes - I've been stared at by queers when I've been having a shower. It does not feel great. I don't whine about it. I've found people peering at me through holes in cubicle walls in toilets while I've been taking a dump. Yes - that's nasty. Has it done me any harm - no! Did it outrage me - yes. Did it surprise me - no! Do I want those wierdos locked up - no because there are murderers, thieves and people who will do physical bodily harm that need to be in those jail spaces.


I'm sorry - this whole baying for blood thing just totally non-plusses me. There are far more important things than some wierdo getting his kicks out of photos of girls panties.

[heidibot]

Rhys, you clearly don't understand why sexual harassment is wrong. It's the act of harming someone else for momentary gratification. Experiences like this can mentally affect someone for the rest of their life, and what for? So this guy can feel good for a few minutes while he looks at the picture? He needs to be punished to deter him from harming others; that's why criminals get punished.

Victims of sexual crimes aren't scarred for life because they were "embarrassed". Embarrassed is when you fall down in front of a group of people or have a booger sticking out of your nose. This is a violation of someone's privacy.

The difference between someone being spied on at a nudist colony and someone going down to the store fully clothed, is just that - if she wanted people to look at her panties, she would've gone out in just her panties. I seriously doubt anyone at a nudist colony has any dillusions about no one seeing their privates.

[rhys]

Privacy does not exist these days. Go to any airport and be scanned by the body-scan machines. You're fully naked on screen - warts and all. The people watching do so because that's the job they chose to do. Watch the surveilance cameras in the streets following women in skirts - especially on windy days.

No privacy was violated. Any woman in a skirt knows the risks of wearing a skirt and by wearing one realises that it could blow up showing her panties at any moment. They know the risks of going up stairs or in glass-sided elevators. No privacy was violated unless the girl was not wearing panties!

[heidibot]

Well, hey, let's just legalize child pornography then. If those kids didn't want to be exploited, they wouldn't show their face to the world. Besides, someone could be peeking in the window when they take a bath, and hey, what can be done? That's just what people do.

[rhys]

Well, hey, let's just legalize child pornography then. If those kids didn't want to be exploited, they wouldn't show their face to the world. Besides, someone could be peeking in the window when they take a bath, and hey, what can be done? That's just what people do.

Look at webcam houses - you see plenty people in the buff, going about their every day business.

This is ridiculous. The guy just looked at the girls panties! He didn't fondle her. He didn't make overtly sexual advances. He took a picture of her panties. He'd probably have been just as happy taking a photo of a washing line load of women's panties. Let's not make this guy out as anything more than a wierdo.

I repeat I still do not see why everybody is baying for blood like a load of wolves.

If I walk down the street in a kilt then I kind of expect people to wonder what's underneath it!

[heidibot]

You're arguing under the assumption that I see nothing wrong with spying on nude people under certain circumstances. It's always wrong! If they're purposefully displaying themselves, that's a different story.

[BottomBracket]

Privacy does not exist these days. Go to any airport and be scanned by the body-scan machines. You're fully naked on screen - warts and all. The people watching do so because that's the job they chose to do. Watch the surveilance cameras in the streets following women in skirts - especially on windy days.

No privacy was violated. Any woman in a skirt knows the risks of wearing a skirt and by wearing one realises that it could blow up showing her panties at any moment. They know the risks of going up stairs or in glass-sided elevators. No privacy was violated unless the girl was not wearing panties!

You go to great lengths defending the action of the pervert, citing doctors, x-ray machines, the 70's, glass-sided elevators, nudist beaches, etc, while summarily dismissing that there was no harm done to the 13 year old girl, as she was merely embarrassed, as you say. It is clear that you will go to great lengths/arguments to defend the perpetrator, and we really can't do anything about that since that is your choice.

[heidibot]

The whole "it happens, therefore it's okay" argument is soooo wrong. I mean, if I tried to argue like that, my logic professor would tell me to shut up before I could even finish.

[Curtis N]

if the guy does it more than once or at the most twice then he definitely has a problem that needs to be addressed.More than once? More than twice? How about if he even considers doing it once he has a serious problem.

Good lord, man. It's not like he grabbed a picture of the woman who happened to be in front of him on an escalator. This was premeditated. He stood there and waited for someone else to pass by. He walked up behind her and stuck his phone so far under her skirt that it brushed her leg. He walked away with the words "Thanks sweetheart", and she was 13 years old.

Did I mention she was 13 years old?

There is a lot here that you simply aren't comprehending. The guy is a sicko, and the girl suffered much more than embarrassment.

Comparing this incident to nudist beaches or a trip to the doctor indicates you just don't get it.

[Mike McCusker]

One very important point we are missing here is the FACT that usually this is just the first step on a very dangerous ladder. Looking at pictures that he took will only satisfy this person for so long. Having arrested individuals with this sickness, I know that they will eventually graduate to unsolicited fondling of females and then go further in their quest for thrills.

[rhys]

One very important point we are missing here is the FACT that usually this is just the first step on a very dangerous ladder. Looking at pictures that he took will only satisfy this person for so long. Having arrested individuals with this sickness, I know that they will eventually graduate to unsolicited fondling of females and then go further in their quest for thrills.

I am a man. I have looked at porn magazines. Many of my friends have looked at porn magazines. Many of my friends and I while in high school tried our hardest to see the girls panties because it was naughty. Some even succeeded although I only ever heard tale of these successes. Has this made any of us into rapists, child molesters or perverts? I can categorically say that all of my friends including myself are now happily married. None of us has ever been in trouble with the law. We're all moral upright people. By the description you give we should all be convicted rapists, pedophiles and have criminal records as long as your arm. I can honestly say that outside of a loving relationship neither I nor any of my friends have fondled women (or men or animals for that matter).

[Psychobiker]

Looking at girls is fairly normal for teenage boys in coed schools, and checking out women when one is older...again, psychologically ingrained from millenia ago. Nudist beaches again - if you go there, you open yourself to being looked at somewhat naked.

But this recent event? Cut out his eyes with a tablespoon I say. And taking the picture - retention for later events no doubt. And she was 13!! ffs, I know that teenage girls are dressing more and more provocatively these days and consequentially would be more liable to advances, but this is just plain wrong.

L

[BottomBracket]

I am a man. I have looked at porn magazines. Many of my friends have looked at porn magazines. Many of my friends and I while in high school tried our hardest to see the girls panties because it was naughty. Some even succeeded although I only ever heard tale of these successes. Has this made any of us into rapists, child molesters or perverts? I can categorically say that all of my friends including myself are now happily married. None of us has ever been in trouble with the law. We're all moral upright people. By the description you give we should all be convicted rapists, pedophiles and have criminal records as long as your arm. I can honestly say that outside of a loving relationship neither I nor any of my friends have fondled women (or men or animals for that matter).

So to sum up all your arguments, you state that 13 year old girls wearing skirts are fair game for perverts with cell phone cameras? That it is ok to stick it up their skirts and snap a picture?

[Pete]

Rhys. I'm sorry that you find it impossible to comprehend the inapproriateness of this situation or your actions in defense of this pervert.

You fail to understand the fact that this is sexual misconduct toward a minor and the situation itself is sexually abusive regardless of the age or clothing of the woman invoved. Just because women might want to dress in short skirts doesn't in any way mean that they want (or expect) men to look up them.

Yes, you've probably looked at men's magazines, but the models inside them have given permission for them to be looked at (and got paid for that permission). We'll leave aside any exploitation in the porn industry, but it exists.

You need to understand that this voyeuristic behaviour is wrong. It's abusive.

Our youth need to be protected from such activities, we do that by punishing such behaviour as soon as it happens.

[Mike McCusker]

I am a man. I have looked at porn magazines. Many of my friends have looked at porn magazines. Many of my friends and I while in high school tried our hardest to see the girls panties because it was naughty. Some even succeeded although I only ever heard tale of these successes. Has this made any of us into rapists, child molesters or perverts? I can categorically say that all of my friends including myself are now happily married. None of us has ever been in trouble with the law. We're all moral upright people. By the description you give we should all be convicted rapists, pedophiles and have criminal records as long as your arm. I can honestly say that outside of a loving relationship neither I nor any of my friends have fondled women (or men or animals for that matter).

Wow, thats a reach. I hardly equate looking at porn magazines with this violation of the young girl's expectation of privacy. You apparently missed the point of my statement entirely..

[Mom27andblessed]

She will have her crotch fondled by doctors every year as an adult and her breasts fondled by doctors every year when she's past 40.




I'm sorry...I MUST disagree. I have delivered 7 children, never missed a yearly gyn exam, had my breast exams every year since age 20 and suffered a few extra exams on various occasions and NEVER EVER EVER has a doctor FONDLED me. There is a HUGE difference in a medical exam and fondling.

Seriously, this guy and others like him (including any doctors who FONDLE patients) need to be made to wear barbed wire underwear and take a lemon juice bath. SICK freaks...and I cannot imagine why on earth you would defend the pervert.

[Curtis N]

I am a man. I have looked at porn magazines.Were the subjects in those magazines women of majority age who posed for photographs and consented to being published, or were they 13-yr-old girls who were photographed without permission?

I am praying that at some point this will eventually sink in, though hopes are beginning to fade.

[Pete]

I think that the point has been made.

It would probably be a good idea to stop this here. Responding further will only serve to stir up more emotion...

[tylercooney]

I thought this was a joke when I saw the article. This is my hometown. I am at college in Tennessee now, but this really caught me off guard. I have two sister that live in Mount Dora, one is 16 and the other 11. sicko.

[forno]

Some very disturbing opinions here I have to say.

[Canonista]

I should add that in many states laws have been passed BECAUSE of situations like this which makes suruptitiously photographing someone with lewd intent a bigger crime than just being creepy.

In my state it's a felony to photograph a woman's breasts or any person's genitals without their consent. Don't take your camera to a nude beach in Michigan!

[the_incubus]

need to be made to wear barbed wire underwear and take a lemon juice bath.

i love that line.

The man has problems. Im gonna leave it at that.

[Big WIll]

i also love that line!

This has been an eye opening to the views of the POTN house hold.
I will stand with my original comment.

This world is ****ed up!

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Seriously, this guy need to be made to wear barbed wire underwear and take a lemon juice bath.

Remind me not to pi$$ this lady off!!!

Coming from a family of 7 children, I know how tough a Mom can be!

As to this idiot, a branding on his forehead would be good too. I have no "soft spot" for anyone who abuses children. Or others for that matter.