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.
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.
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?
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.
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!