Soft Core, Sexual Assault Protected by Court
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse in Blogroll, Common Sense, Constitution Issues, Family, Individual Responsibility, Judicial Matters, Law Enforcement, PornographyThis is one of those stories that makes me immediately think of Glenn Beck and his advice that one wrap their head in duct tape before exposure as it will make the pieces of one’s head easier to find after it explodes. What’s the deal with Oklahoma? First Paul Jacob and now this? I’m reminded of the biblical admonition, “Woe to you who call evil, good and good, evil!”
It is difficult to conceive of more ignorant, stupid and asinine judges than those in this story. It is also difficult to believe any of them are men or parents. From my perspective, had they been either, the perp would have been on the receiving end of a little frontier justice.
The story is reported at Paul Jacob’s Common Sense column and radio show.
Two years ago in Oklahoma, Riccardo Gino Ferrante was arrested for aiming a camera up a 16-year-old girl’s skirt while in a Target store. He was arrested and convicted of a felony.
Unfortunately, in mid-March four-fifths of Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals voted that no felony occurred.
Why?
Because “the person photographed was not in a place where she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (emphasis added)
In case you’re shaking your head and hearing those cartoon head-shaking sounds, let me assure you this is no joke and you read the words correctly.
A man photographed a 16 year old girl, without her knowledge or permission, in a retail store. The photo was a type of soft core porn filming known as “up-skirt” shots. He was properly arrested and charged with a felony! The court, however, found he had done nothing wrong since the 16 year old should know wearing a skirt in public was granting permission for someone to photograph her in a humiliating and pornographic manner. It’s the same as wearing a sign declaring yourself an adult film star.
In a common sense world, people understand you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater despite having Freedom of Speech; you can’t write stories about people based on conjecture and rumors despite having Freedom of the Press; you can’t gather to plot terrorist attacks despite having the Freedom to Assemble; and, you cannot clandestinely photograph up the skirt of females in retail stores because fools in black robes find your activity is protected by the victim’s unwitting abdication of her Right to Privacy by going to the mall in a skirt!!
I keep running this story over and over in my head waiting for the lightning strike that will cause it to all make sense. I’ve given up. It doesn’t make sense and it’s never going to. Probably because I went to seminary and learned right from wrong and not law school where they evidently teach how to give Rights to those doing wrong.
Judicial activism, judicial review and other black robed ridiculousness we rail against are embodied in this tale of legal lunacy. It’s unclear if there are any precedents for the court’s failure to uphold the Constitutional rights of this young woman. It’s unclear if the court might be able to unconstitutionally appeal to some foreign law or precedent in support of their error.
What is crystal clear, however, is that in that very small space where I am comfortable allowing government to exist and operate, the job of government is to protect me and mine from infringements on our rights by others. The Oklahoma court not only failed to protect this minor girl’s rights, the court itself stripped her of one of the most important. Far from reassuring her that she should have no fear of not being “secure in her person” or that the privacy of her own clothing was sacrosanct, a court packed with buffoons did the opposite. Bluntly it means Oklahomans need protection from both Mr. Ferrante and their own courts!
In the face of such behavior, society should simply ignore the court and quietly teach Mr. Ferrante the meaning of the word “private”. If the court finds my suggestion to be in contempt, so be it! When a court behaves contemptibly it is proper to treat them accordingly.
Blue
Popularity: 12% [?]
Tags: Oklahoma Judges, Riccardo Ferrante, Right to Privacy, Right to Privacy in public places, up skirt photos of minors




Entries (RSS)
March 27th, 2008 at 5:30 am
[…] Blue […]
March 27th, 2008 at 5:38 am
[…] Cross posted from Blue Collar Muse: […]
March 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I cannot believe this crap. This perp is lucky someone didn’t take that camera and shove it so far up his butt that every time he opens his mouth, he takes a picture. It’s never too late I guess.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Blue…when we agree, we totally agree. I was so taken aback by the ruling.
I took this one to the laconic BH, and his response was pretty much what you would expect.
Our sons were more infinitely more creative…think colon scan…with his own equipment…on youtube.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:31 am
Annie -
It’s times like this I appreciate that we’re friends. Please tell your sons while I have many faults, I’m possibly redeemable. Thus, there’s little use in dreaming up YouTube adventures for the Muse …
As always, thanks for stopping by. I always enjoy it when you do!
Blue
December 11th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“…the job of government is to protect me and mine from infringements on our rights by others.” <– I can’t agree with this statement any more than I am right now. It puzzles me to no end how a person can think that it’s his right to photograph what he wants and where he wants because of the freedoms the United States gives him. No, that is absolutely wrong. What he did was infringe on other person’s rights plain and simple. Because of that he should be arrested and throw in jail. In my mind, this cowardly man’s act is almost right up there with holding someone against his/her will. It should be a felony because it would teach twisted and perverted people out there that those victimized by them should have the right of protection of the government. What was stated by that judge that overturned this cowardly man’s felony is ludicrous. People have the right to wear what they want as long as it’s abiding by local laws. Just because one is physically pleasing to the eyes DOES NOT mean that others can put them in uncomfortable situations where they feel like they have been violated. Case and point.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
What get’s me is he was the manager at petsmart in Owasso, where alot of teens worked. He has little girls that people are going to be sending their kids over to play with this seemingly normal father. His high end lawyer’s found a loophole, that will hopefully now will be closed. He got away with it. It is perv’s like this that get away with it and will strike again, and again, and again, and who knows. Maybe it will be one of those politician’s granddaughter’s he photographs next time. And then what. Will it not be ok then?
June 30th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
[…] Soft Core, Sexual Assault Protected by Court […]