When people say the justice system is f*cked, this is what they mean.
A 61-year-old Oregon man just got off scot-free after crouching down and snapping shots up the skirt of a 13-year-old girl in a Target store aisle last January.
According to Washington County Judge Eric Butterfield, Portland resident Patrick Buono’s act was “lewd and appalling” but not necessarily illegal.
Say what?
This country will prosecute marijuana dealers and pot smokers with all sorts of ludicrous sentences thrown at them, but we’ll let an old perv violate the privacy of a 13-year-old girl for prurient reasons through some lame justification that one could just as easily accidentally, once in a while, catch a glimpse of someone’s underwear in public? Maybe it’s insanity to ask, but isn’t there a whole hell of a lot of difference between accidental glimpses and creepy old men crawling on the floor with cameras to sneak a peek up your daughter’s dress?
If we, as a society, cannot distinguish between the two we are in sad f*cking shape, no doubt. We’ll trump up any scenario we can to send a harmless pothead to jail, but we’ve got maroons allowing this kind of behavior, and still more in places like Utah where legislators have to second guess whether or not relations with unconscious partners is rape? No wonder it’s said this country is waging a war on women, and this is only the tip of the iceberg, best believe it.
Judge Butterfield stated Thursday:
From a legal point of view, which unfortunately today is my job to enforce, he didn’t do anything wrong.
Perhaps that is the wrong choice of words, your honor.
Certainly what Buono did was wrong. It was actually hella no bueno, but there is a certain ludicrous patriarchal interpretation of the law that suggests to you that what Buono did was not illegal because you fail to recognize the difference between an accident and malicious intrusion upon a young girl’s body. Shame on you, Butterfield.
(Image courtesy of Washington County via kptv.com)
According to the Oregonian, Buono didn’t even dispute his sliminess. He admitted to using his cellphone to do exactly what anyone on the street would say is wrong – taking pictures up a minor’s dress back on Jan. 3 at the Target in nearby Beaverton.
Now, it was bad enough when Texas ruled pics up skirts without a woman’s consent was legal, but that was also a slight against full-grown women. In Buono’s case, we’re talking about a little girl just entering puberty.
Yet Butterfield wants to argue nothing was “wrong,” nothing was illegal because the man did not engage her in physical intimacy, because she happened to be wearing undergarments, and because under some random circumstance it is theoretically possible that one might glimpse a woman or little girl’s underwear from time to time, so by all means, forget the personal bubble rule people respect every day by matter of rote and get down on your back, slide right under her, between her legs, and gawk away.
Oh, and sure, you can take pictures while you’re at it. What’s that? Video you say? Why sure.
If only Gary Glitter had been American, eh?
Buono’s cretin lawyer, Mark Lawrence, argued that Buono hadn’t violated any laws related to invasion of privacy and hadn’t encouraged the girl to engage in sexual activity, so no actual “abuse” took place.
Oh? But what impact might be pressed into a child who grows up with dirty old men constantly taking pictures up her skirts and dresses? Hell, you don’t even need grass on the field anymore. Just don’t touch ‘em, and hope they’re at least wearing a bra and underwear. You can do whatever you like then! It’s a dirtbag’s paradise!
Apparently, playing into the scuzz lawyer’s theory that undies pics of little girls is fair game, the local privacy laws prohibit such invasive photography from locker rooms, dressing rooms, bathrooms and tanning booths, but since the shopping aisle at Target is a public place the judge figured no harm, no foul.
But again, there is an enormous difference between glimpsing a crotch from afar when someone crouches down momentarily and getting down on the floor, yourself, in order to see up someone’s clothing. Right?
RIGHT?
To hammer home his point, the shameful lawyer cited the famous shot of Marilyn Monroe standing over a subway vent, as if that shot was not entirely staged anyway. He then pressed on to sight other ways one might catch a peek, such as riding up escalators, falling down, climbing out of a car.
Sounds like an iron-clad argument, doesn’t it?
So, because they can occur by happenstance, let’s start MAKING them happen. No need to wait around with your manhood in your hands, fellas. Just get down on the floor and have a look. Glue mirrors on the tips of your shoes – whatever works for you to catch a hot second look at that holy triangle.
Lawrence stated:
These things are not only seen but video-recorded. It’s incumbent on us as citizens to cover up whatever we don’t want filmed in public places.
Well, now it is, these days, thanks to our jester justice system.
And who’s video recording these things outside the random, deviant citizen, and the adult industry? Do we need to explain the difference between fantasy and reality, adult films and real life to these walking hormones?
Naturally, the prosecution led by deputy district attorney Paul Maloney argued:
Sure, she’s in a public place. But she had an expectation of privacy that a deviant isn’t going to stick a camera up her skirt and capture private images of her body.
Lawrence argued that the charges for sexual abuse could not stand because Buono had not engaged the girl physically in sexual conduct, but Malone countered that the images Buono hoped to capture would be as explicit as possible, which is entirely true.
If Buono was looking for something tame, he could have taken a picture of the girl from afar, of perhaps her smile even, which begs yet another question: Should strangers even have a right to blatantly take even non-explicit pictures of one’s children?
Sure, in a public place, they can show up in the background of people’s pictures incidentally without much fuss, but should strangers be able to take pictures of other people’s children when that child comprises the main intended subject of the photograph? Who wants strangers taking pictures of their children? Isn’t that creepy enough without crotch shots up a young girl’s skirt?
What’s next? Oh, this 13-year-old girl was asking for it by dressing that way?
That’s essentially what Lawrence argued, too, isn’t it?
It’s incumbent on us as citizens to cover up whatever we don’t want filmed in public places.
In the end, Judge Butterfield said his ruling to acquit Buono was “upsetting to say the least,” but played at being held hostage to the interpretable law, mumbling something about her hoo-hoo being covered and no sexual contact taking place.
Funny thing, though, your honor. The girl’s body was not just covered by undergarments, but by a skirt as well. Only, it seems it is okay to ignore that attempt to cover up for decency. Step right around the velvet rope, fellas — just so long as you don’t see the pink, you can invade all you like.
Once Buono was cleared to snap away as much as he likes in the future, he shook Lawrence’s hand and slithered from the court room.
What a world we live in. Perhaps women should start banding together and putting a new twist on an old slogan in terms these perverts will understand:
No justice! No piece!
H/T: theguardian.com | Featured image: via Flickr
If it had been my daughter, the old man wouldn’t be on trial for his perversion, I would for his death.
I’d likely be asking to help kill the guy. Or at least blind him.
His eyes would not be the organs I’d be removing.
Heh, I say his eyes, so that he may no longer have the privilege of sight…..if he survived.
Excuse me, but your daughter’s legs aren’t worth anything. If you would kill a man over worthless trash, I would support self defense, all the way up to lethal self defense. Stop being a feminist lawyer running dog.
You are overly angry and preoccupied with violence, and should repent your hate filled thoughts.
Do you have nothing better to do with your time?
Did your parents not pay enough attention to you growing up?
All true. So what?
We’re not talking about legs dipshit.
What are you talking about then?
Did you miss that part in school? About male parts and lady parts? We don’t all look like Barbie dolls down there, you know. Or maybe you don’t know.
Yes, my daughter’s legs aren’t worth anything. They are worth EVERYTHING! If some perverted old man was trying to take pictures of my daughters private areas, then he better be prepared to get his camera shoved so far down his throat, he will be able to see his shit as it leaves his bowels.
Don’t mind this troll. He talks more crap than a Louisiana politician.
Do you think you are over-reacting a little, what real harm has come to your daughter, here, besides your getting emotionally upset? I am emotionally upset by your violent threats. Should you be arrested now, for upsetting me, and I am a very sensitive person, who is easily upset, as you appear to be?
Idiot
No, David. You are missing the point. The point is, you are an a$$hat. No one gives a fk whether or not you overreact, underreact, or even breathe.
Is there no harm caused in teaching our young women that their body is not their own?
Good for you. Then, no other kids would be his future victims in this deranged kiddy-porn making. Your daughter is lucky to have a dad who would defend her from this kind of scum.
You are another sick stupid f***
You can do better. That says more about you than about me.
Trolling can and should serve a purpose besides telling the world you’re a dipsh*t. Finding humour in the idea of invading the physical and personal privacy of a child says a great deal about you, none of it good and certainly not humourous. And in your previous post, it’s ‘they’re’ not ‘their’, you ignorant dipsh*t.
Wow, cool fusion of fascist ideologies: a misogynist Christian fanatic.
How did you get all that, because none of it is true, but their polar opposites?
… says someone who is part of a cult that has killed millions throughout history in the name of an imaginary “god”. Violence is not answer, I will agree… but religious ignorance and stupidity isn’t either. The answer is fair punishment and treatment… which the judge did not issue out. Your comment makes me wonder about what you might be doing with your camera when you are out in public. Then again, I am sure you believe your “god” will forgive you for your perversions. Religion is a wonderful crutch to support your broken mentality on, is it not? 😛
I believe castration would be good…
So you don’t consider your family something worth defending. I feel really sorry for your family to have such a waste of skin as you being part of the family.
What a disgusting human being you are — telling this man his daughter’s legs “aren’t worth anything” and empathizing with pedophiles……This isn’t even about legs. It’s about a perverted degenerate getting his sexual jollies by snapping pics of littles girl’s private parts in the middle of Target. It’s child porn, and he should be charged with creating and possessing child porn. The dad who wants to help him see his own bowels moving with that camera is exactly right. Every victim needs a protector willing to show the abuser/molester his own bowels, if she/he is not able to do so, and the criminal justice system fails to do anything about it. This idiot judge is condoning a form of child porn, and he is setting a precedent for pedophiles to amasse libraries of just anyone’s children’s under-clothing private parts to slobber over in their perverted lairs with no legal consequences. The judge is as bad as the sick perp……worse. He’s a disgrace.
Are you the pervert in the article?
Obvious troll is obvious. Do not feed. Carry on.
Me too. If I would be unable to get him, then the judge would make a decent substitute.
An upskirt photo isn’t worth prison time. Not for you anyway.
So let’s let murderers go because it is possible for a gun to go off and accidentally kill someone.
Someone will probably deal with this scumbag, since the law won’t.
Do something like that to me, and I’ll take your goddamned eyes.
You are overly violent. You need to repent.
You are overly dumb, you need a book….
He needs a brain.
These are all venomous personal remarks by people frustrated by the facts. Personal remarks are surrender in a debate, like knocking over your King in a hopeless chess position. I want the names of the English teachers of these people, so they may be caned. Your education did a poor job on rhetoric.
Before you criticize anyone’s use of the language, I strongly recommend you edit some of your posts above. Concentrate on homophones.
“Repent”? AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ….Oh, you’re serious? Let me laugh harder!
I’m guessing if we browsed your internet history, we’d find upskirt photo blogs. Perv.
silly.
You are overly stupid. You need to go f**k yourself.
Well, there is the issue of whether there is a criminal law under which to accuse him. It really is the case that if something is not forbidden under the law, its allowed.
Child pornography? Would that stick?
You are implying that a girl’s legs are obscene. That is pretty extreme and perverted.
You are a troll, get back under your bridge and let the billy goats take care of you.
Personal remarks by a frustrated feminist.
Frustrated because we can’t stop you when you rape and kill your first child victim. If I found you, I’d curb check your sorry @ss.
The ultra-violent left. That is all it has, but not the courtesy to use a real name so it may be held accountable for its ultra-violence.
Violent? You’re sticking up for a pedophile that molested a young girl. Yeah, it gets violent after that.
Her legs? Maybe no. Her crotch under her skirt, in panties? Hell yes! If images of little girl crotch shots in panties were found on some guys computer, that would be considered kiddy porn. There’s something wrong with you if you even dispute that. This judge was WRONG to let this guy off. No way, no how should this be legal. Makes me wonder what skeletons the judge has in his own closet, to make him think this is not a crime.
You are saying a covered crotch is obscene. You are pretty perverted there Susie. What if it is on public display as cheerleaders jump up and down, or a girl is walking about in a bikini on a beach. Would you prefer girls wear bhurkas? And because I admire beautiful eyes, the bhurkas need to be supplemented with dark glasses.
AGAIN… cheerleaders willingly participate in these activities. Now if somebody snuck under a cheerleader for an upskirt shot, that would be a violation of privacy, as it would be outside the context of the cheerleaders willing performance.
You Must get called a nut job everyday if not let me start
You are pretty cuckoo since you live in the Victorian age.
David, I don’t think anyone is calling any part of this girls body obscene. What is obscene is the efforts this person went through to see it. The judge made some incredibly ignorant comparisons to times one might accidently see someone’s underwear. The two scenarious couldn’t have less to do with each other since the person went through unnatural efforts to catch a glimpse up a little girls skirt. At the very least this is sexual harassment. Sexual harrassment isn’t always physical, it can be verbal, it can come in the form of text, or, as in this case, it came in the form of an old perverted pedophile putting his perverted desires over public decency and most of all over the privacy and mental wellfare of this child to get what he wants. The judge, in his incredibly confused state, has now said that as long as you don’t touch someone you may invade their privacy in public…. So now some guy can come stand in front of me and look down my v-neck and snap pictures from an upward angle as long as he wants.
Furthermore, this also completely objectifies the female body. That child’s body and personhood as a whole, in that courtroom, was not a part of a whole human being, they completely dehumanized her and turned her into a pair of panties with legs in them. If that’s how females are seen in a court room then of course there will never be any protection from sexual deviants for woman. It’s become a contest of how far can we push the line before anyone realizes that these rulings have real mental, emotional and physical consequences on real, living, breathing human beings. Just because the judge was not a woman does not mean he does not have a duty to use logic and civilized ethics to protect them.
-feminist, out.
It could. People have actually been prosecuted for using the underwear section of catalogs - Sears, Penney’s, etc. - as porn, so it could easily be argued that the guy intended to use the images to fulfill his prurient interest.
What year were people prosecuted for looking at a store catalog underwear section? And could you cite a reference. I never heard of any such cases.
People who pose in underwear store catalogs are willing and compensated models, those pictures aren’t taken in secret by some perv. You really don’t understand the nature of the word “consent”?
There is one thing the judge is quoted that is disturbing, according to the article. “From a legal point of view, which unfortunately today is my job to enforce, he didn’t do anything wrong.” The word “wrong” is wrong. The judge either doesn’t understand or misspoke. The law distinguishes between legal and illegal, criminal or non-criminal, actionable or non-actionable; the law has nothing directly to say about right vs wrong.
In a culture and country of civilized people a law forbidding up-skirting girls should not be required. Being wrong should cover it and be enforced through the culture itself. To me, it is okay that the law doesn’t happen to cover this miscreant; the likelihood is that the legal punishment for this behavior would be minimal. But it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t and can’t be socially punished. Within the bounds of the law, it shouldn’t be a problem to make his life a living hell — how many ways can the society exact ostracism?
It isn’t up to the government to ostracize for this behavior. The people in this town should simply step up to the plate.
Lawrence, if I take pictures of someone sunbathing in a fenced in back yard with an expectation of privacy, I may still be charged with disturbing the peace. The guy did disturb the peace, and upset everyone by his brazen taking of the picture. Disturbing the peace is such a vague and broad crime, that it can cover conduct that the reasonable person would find outrageous. He was not charged well. The prosecutor should have known better since this is Criminal Law 101.
And the penalty for disturbing the peace is what? It’s not a criminal act. Typically it’s a city ordinance and carries little or no penalty.
I’ve seen a number of your comments. You add nothing to the conversation. You best leave comments on this site to your betters, of which there must be close to 7 billion.
This was a vile feminist lawyer witch hunt, and all its male supporters are feminist running dogs. I would support a direct action group that would start with an all out boycott of the feminist lawyer and its male running dogs.
Let me guess, you fap to pictures of 13 year old girls, just like the creepy old pervert in this story.
Yes, he is either trolling or projecting.
I would support a firing squad in your case!
You believe I deserve the death penalty for disagreeing with you. There you go, the left shows its color.
You’re defending a pedophile. Someone should watch you.
Did you ever hear of the First Amendment you left wing skank?
Sure did pervert, have you heard of parents gettin off scott free after killing the perp that tried to hurt their child? It’s called temporary insanity… ;))
Why is an anti-Semite like Dylan Hock allowed to publish here?
I have one question for the judge “Would this be allowed if it were YOUR daughter, wife or mother?”
This is why I think the judge needs to be watched.
Agreed.
Ah, Gary Glitter. now a pariah on British music radio and TV. But in the USA, isn’t “Rock and Roll” a popular soundtrack at baseball games, thus ensuring him a trickle of ongoing royalties? Just saying….
Sick stupid f*** and that goes for the judge too.
You can do better than to curse and foam at the mouth. Try to state a simple point.
You can do better than to be a self-righteous twat… your finger must be pretty muscular by now, with all the wagging it’s been doing. I guess being the only moral, sensible person on the face of the earth has it’s advantages. If only we could all be as eloquent and enlightened as you!
The point of the expectation of privacy on the part of the girl has already been said over and over David.. do expect that when you ignore the argument and do not offer a counterpoint, that you are the troll in the conversation.
Um, I think maybe that someone should start following this so-called “judge” around. Maybe keep him away from schoolyards and young girls?
In a ” normal ” world, this would be considered kiddie porn and he would be labeled a pedophile. ” These things are not only seen but video-recorded. It’s incumbent on us
as citizens to cover up whatever we don’t want filmed in public places.” WHAT?? So this lawyer is saying is if a woman is raped because of what she’s wearing means she was asking for it. People should be able to walk around naked and not be afraid of having their picture taken or even raped, in a civilized society.
No, Amy, the judge is not addressing rape. He is addressing a low expectation of privacy in a public place. So if someone snapped a picture of this girl in a bikini at a beach, should that be a crime? How does her picture in a bikini at a beach differ from what was depicted? I did not see the picture, hopefully it only showed clothing, and not exposed private parts.
A picture in a public place, with no expectation of privacy, is immunized by the First Amendment. And none of the feminists and their male running dogs here respect that freedom. Say a reporter took a picture of a political street battle, The girl has fallen to the ground, her legs are up in the air as police cavalry is breaking up the crowd. We see her panties. Should that be prosecuted, as child porn? You would answer, yes. The Supreme Court would answer no.
It is all about circumstances. If a girl is on the beach in a bikini, and someone takes a picture of her, no harm. Someone shoves a camera between her legs for a crotch shot, foul, foul, foul.
I’m pretty sure there would be swift intervention the second a person got down to try to take a photo aimed upward between a girl’s legs on the beach. Interesting that under your skirt, at ground level (well below eye level), you do not have reasonable expectation of privacy. Hmmm. Had she noticed in time to prevent it, she would have. How violating. I don’t understand how it could be legal, underwear or not, to take a photo under someone’s skirt without permission. If a guy wore a skirt, he still shouldn’t have to worry about some creep snapping a photo of his privates, bare or outlined in cloth.
It’s about intent. A person in a bikini obviously is in a place/situation where they are willfully exposing more of their body than they might in a different situation. However, a girl (remember, a 13 year old girl) was wearing a dress or skirt… that fact alone should show that she doesn’t want to share her undies with strangers. If you have to get on the ground to sneak a picture of a private area, you are violating somebody’s privacy. How is this so hard to understand for you?
I can’t tell if you are trolling or just willfully stupid and self-righteous, arguing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it for the sake of seeming smarter than everybody else.
He’s just trolling.
The horrible and ignorant people here have not asked if I approve of this guy’s action. I do not. He was charged wrongly by the prosecutor. I disapprove of the prosecutor’s choice.
If I take pictures of someone sunbathing in a fenced in back yard with
an expectation of privacy, I would be charged with “disturbing the
peace,” not porn, not sex assault, none of what the feminists want. The feminist thinks all sex is rape anyway.
The guy did disturb the peace, and upset everyone by his brazen
taking of the picture. Disturbing the peace is such a vague and broad
crime, that it can cover conduct that the reasonable person would find
outrageous. He was not charged well. The prosecutor should have known
better since this is Criminal Law 101.
Did anyone else find the comic irony in the incident having occurred in Beaverton?
I recall a picture of a little girl whose clothes had been completely burned off by napalm, running, screaming in pain. It contained full frontal nudity, including her private parts. I believe, the picture won a Pulitzer prize. That is a prize for journalism.
Should the photographer have been prosecuted for child porn? She was running on a public road.
“It’s incumbent on us as citizens to cover up whatever we don’t want filmed in public places.”
But judge, that’s the point. She HAD covered up. The scumball had to crouch down and contort himself in order to get past her defenses and violate her privacy.
looks like america is turning into rapist/pedophiles paridise
Let him try that with me or my daughter and he’d have a fist to his face and a foot to his crotch.
Okay, commenters below pretty much summed up how I feel about this scumbag perv and equally scum judge, so I’ll comment on grammar.
Dylan Hock wrote, “He then pressed on to sight other ways one might catch a peek, such as riding up escalators, falling down, climbing out of a car.”
“Sight” should be “cite”.
woah hold on here. it’s the same as saying that possession of child pornography isn’t illegal because the person with the stuff didn’t do actual harm to the child or engage the child in such an act. that’s bull shit.
It IS a travesty of the judicial system but the Judge has to follow the letter of the law. We all get up in arms when a non-violent offender is sentenced to ridiculous and overly punitive punishments and our calls for leniency are met with “Judge followed the letter of the law with no option for leniency”. In our system, broken as it may be, we must take both edges of the sword of justice. From my personal perspective, I live in an area where girls start wearing bikinis well before puberty while the parents would NEVER allow them to walk about in undies for all to see. Same coverage but different context, which I’ll never understand.
I am so sick of typing “This is insane” or “I can’t believe this” in comments sections on infuriating articles like this… insanity like this is the new normal, I guess. ‘Mercuh.
just goes to show Judge must be a pervert himself….
Or maybe the judge is part of the world wide sex ring where they sleep with 12 year old girls…just plain sick………….
People are insulting and accusing me of criminality, yet this group is not allowing any of my replies. That is unfair.
Just Move on chomo.
What is a chomo?
You
how many little girls have you molested
One has to note the removal of the up skirt picture initially heading this discussion.
Interestingly. does anyone else get the sidebar adverts for sites like “AcquireFun” which promise you things like “Candid Upskirt Pics” (“Girls that don’t mind showing off some panties in public”) and “The Best Cheerleader Upskirts” - which sort of detract from the sense of this article….. something slightly wrong here, methinks….
And you are obviously too “underdeveloped” to know the difference between a photo condemning the horrors of war and a crotch shot taken by a perv.
The girl’s name was Kim Phúc. Was the reporter taking a picture to suit his jollies? No, he wasn’t. He was taking a picture of something tragic, so as to have a picture for a story. After, he took the girl to the hospital. Did Buono do anything similar to that? No, he did not. He took a picture so he’d have something to give him his jollies.