“Former teacher Brian Presken, 32, was accused of using a mirror to look under a woman’s skirt last summer at Barnes & Noble Booksellers on Airport Boulevard in Pensacola.
“Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken’s accuser didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.
“The law under which Presken was charged states, ‘It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.’
“Snowden said the statute her client is charged under — 810.14 — doesn’t define the phrase ‘reasonable expectation of privacy.’
“Judge George J. Roark III agreed and dismissed the charge Friday afternoon.”
The feminists are up in arms over this case, and at least as it is explained in this newspaper article, I can’t blame them. A woman goes to a Barnes & Noble bookstore, a man apparently uses a mirror to look under her skirt, and his attorney argues that it’s okay because she was in a public place and thus “didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy”?!
That is an outrageous claim, but defense attorneys say all sorts of things, so I don’t worry about that too much. What is troublesome is that the judge agreed and dismissed the charges. Do they really expect us to believe that just because a woman is in a public place it is okay to use a mirror to look up her skirt?
Another interesting part of the story is this — “Assistant State Attorney Greg Marcille said the ruling will not be appealed. ‘We intend to ask the Legislature in next year’s session to consider amending the statute to cover situations such as what occurred in this case.’”
Here we have a quirk in the law, and the legislature will probably fix it ASAP. While I would agree with Marcille in this case, it shows you what good politics feminism is, and how quickly legislators and officials often respond to women’s concerns. The full article is Voyeurism charge tossed (Pensacola News Journal, 5/17/08).
Vanessa Valenti of www.feministing.com wrote about this decision with considerable dissatisfaction in her recent blog post ‘Peeping Toms’ gain popularity in the courts.
|
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
lieweary said,
May 20, 2008 at 8:41 pm
anti armchair generals said,
Interestin article and ruling, even if one disagrees with the judge. Since the statute is gender neutral, i assume gay men could be prosecuted for looking with mirror under “Scottish Kilts”
What about entrappement or prosecuting those who expose their underwear in public, Marilyn Monroe’s immortal image of her skirt up was supposedly caused by wind from storm drain. Some say that a fan was used to lift her skirt.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=marilyn+monroe&um=1&ie=UTF-8
How about Jennifer Anniston running across a fiel in a sport skirt and other girls pl,aying games with skirs instead of pants. Law should be made more specific so it would not be left to the whims of prosecutors who have charged family members for taking pictures of their children or grandchiildren and charged with child abuse.
May 20, 2008 at 8:52 pm
lieweary said,
May 20, 2008 at 9:47 pm
amfortas said,
I can also see AAG’s point about women deliberately exposing men to lewd displays. That is a matter of their choice of course but it does ‘invade’ a man’s sensibilities too. Why this particular fellow saw a need to use a mirror when so many women wear skirts so short that they show what they had for breakfast whenever they sit down, beats me.
I think it is incumbent upon men who are trying to cope with and change the feministing of our society to develop strategies for dealing with such women. Perhaps drawing attention to it would go a long way. EG: telling a publicly displaying woman, in a loud voice, that her taste in knickers is excellent and inviting her to show everyone else in the restaurant rather than just you.
May 20, 2008 at 9:51 pm
DrDamage said,
IMO, while what he did _should_ have been a crime (assuming, of course that he did it), this is not the standard upon which courts must rely. Courts interpret the law. Where a law is so vague as to allow differing interpretations, as this one is, the courts _must_ find in favor of the defendant. the alternative is a court system usurping the role of the legislature by misusing laws with vague language such as this to invent law out of thin air.
May 21, 2008 at 2:59 am
The Man On The Street said,
TMOTS
May 21, 2008 at 6:03 am
anti armchair generals said,
I trust Glenn Sacks can explain it better than I,but as I said photo prosecorsa are required to report offensive pictures to authorities. While this was a mirror. many innocent parents or relatives have been charged for baby pictures. The article raises awareness.
What is tricky when paparazzis take a picture of Brittany Spears without under pants. Does she have a “reasonable expectation” for privacy?
May 21, 2008 at 11:16 am
jackal1994 said,
During the broadcast they were detailing the story of a guy who died on an oil rig in Wyoming.
My understanding is it was February, icy, and there was no railing (where there should have been one. There was a strong sideways wind, and over the edge he went.
Apparently this guy struck something on the way down because there was a fist-sized hole in his head.
Osha inspected the sight and issued 7 violations. The fines totalled $7000.00
Also during the broadcast they said the compensation was to the family was incredibly small (but they didn’t say how much).
Also, they said there are 9 Osha inspectors for the whole state of Wyoming. 5 of which are dedicated to the capitol of Cheyenne.
Now, ISN’T IT FUNNY that the legislators will (likely) be “moving with all possible speed”, because some creepoid got a panty peek on some chick at a book-store, but safety for men has dragged on for over a half century.
The simple fact is sexism against men is A) more widespread, B) more invisible (i.e. Raymond), C) more ingrained, D) affects men more deeply (i.e. sexism against men is deadly, sexism against women is a nuissance), E) more insidious (”aren’t your balls big enough to take it” rejoinder to the boys are stupid tee shirts), F) and entails more double-standards (like the english retailers commercial shown on you-tube about men winding up in emergency rooms because they bought their wives a bad xmas present).
I don’t know about the rest of you but I have been on feministing.com forums beating herds of dead horses over male disposability.
If anybody wants to join the discussion, my name there is Jabes1966.
May 22, 2008 at 1:42 pm