The pervert...

Judge Butterfield was a public defender before being appointed to the bench.

Quote: An Oregon judge has ruled that a 61-year-old man did nothing illegal when he crouched in the aisle of a Target store and snapped photos up a 13-year-old’s skirt.

It was lewd and appalling, but not outlawed, Washington County Judge Eric Butterfield said.

“From a legal point of view, which unfortunately today is my job to enforce, he didn’t do anything wrong,” the judge said Thursday.

Patrick Buono of Portland didn’t dispute using his cellphone to take upskirt photos on Jan. 3 at the store in suburban Beaverton, The Oregonian reported.

But his defense lawyer, Mark Lawrence, argued Buono didn’t violate the laws against invasion of privacy and attempted encouraging child sexual abuse, a child pornography count.

The privacy law bans clandestine photography in bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and tanning booths, but the Target aisle was plainly public, Lawrence said.[…]

As for the charge related to child sex abuse, Lawrence said, the girl was not engaging in sexual conduct, which that statute specifies.

Maloney said Buono took the photos hoping they would be explicit.

Butterfield said the teenager’s private parts were covered, and her conduct was not sexual.

The judge called his decision to acquit Buono “upsetting to say the least.”

After the ruling, Buono shook his lawyer’s hand and hurried from the courtroom.

http://www.timesunion.com/news/us/articl...066832.php

Give me a break! Is this a liberal judge or what? Under this ghastly "interpretation" of the law, my daughter has no protection from a pervert taking a photo under her skirt unless it is within a private area and she has no underwear on. Absolutely mind-boggling. This is a great example of following the letter of the law to such an extreme that the intent of the law is not factored in. It needs to be changed in Oregon. Meanwhile, the perve gets off free to continue his predatory ways.

Quote:"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," Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said.

I don't know the laws in OR, but apparently there isn't one....nor is there a 'common sense' law (duh)

how in the hell do you think laws evolve?

erc, I am so glad I don't play in your skin......

edit: what you are really arguing is the bench should make up laws on 'the fly'

yeah, that would go over well (sigh)

"you really ain'i bright son...I'm gonna put you away b/c you're just stupid"....yep, that ruling would go over really well....

edit2: I think there's a place in the NE that burned 'witches' at one time.....a 6 figure amount of jews were slaughtered.....etc, etc, et-fkn-cetera......

jfc at lunatic logic.....

(02-07-2015 12:13 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Give me a break! Is this a liberal judge or what? Under this ghastly "interpretation" of the law, my daughter has no protection from a pervert taking a photo under her skirt unless it is within a private area and she has no underwear on. Absolutely mind-boggling. This is a great example of following the letter of the law to such an extreme that the intent of the law is not factored in. It needs to be changed in Oregon. Meanwhile, the perve gets off free to continue his predatory ways.

Quote:"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," Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said.

but you people like our judicial system b/c this country is perfect and all of islam is the devil and....................you're...................

...........spoiled w/o a clue

(02-07-2015 11:58 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  After the ruling, Buono shook his lawyer’s hand and hurried from the courtroom.

...to go to the nearest Target. Unbelievable!

OK, the judge is a total shitbowl, but what about the prosecutor? Why couldn't he charge him with something that would stick? Did they search the pervert's home computers, emails, texts, etc, because I doubt this is the first time he tried this crap.

(02-07-2015 12:46 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I don't know the laws in OR, but apparently there isn't one....nor is there a 'common sense' law (duh)

how in the hell do you think laws evolve?

erc, I am so glad I don't play in your skin......

edit: what you are really arguing is the bench should make up laws on 'the fly'

yeah, that would go over well (sigh)

"you really ain'i bright son...I'm gonna put you away b/c you're just stupid"....yep, that ruling would go over really well....

edit2: I think there's a place in the NE that burned 'witches' at one time.....a 6 figure amount of jews were slaughtered.....etc, etc, et-fkn-cetera......

jfc at lunatic logic.....

?????

Keep smoking that keef Bro because it's given you a superior perspective on things! The issue is not making up laws on the fly but using reason and deduction to arrive at a logical conclusion. If you want to defend this judge's decision then by all means have at it. I believe he erred because he took the most liberal interpretation. Notice I said that the law needs to be changed so this awful ruling can't be repeated by another liberal judge and another child is photographed in a similar unacceptable manner.

(02-07-2015 12:55 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  but you people like our judicial system b/c this country is perfect and all of islam is the devil and....................you're...................

...........spoiled w/o a clue

Our judicial system is far from perfect and in many cases it needs changes and improvements. Less liberal judges would be a great starting point. In the case of the OP, this is all the more true. You can call me spoiled and clueless if that means I'm a college graduate who paid his own way, pays taxes when I'm supposed to, follows the laws, works a steady job, provides for my family, owns a home, volunteers in the community and at my church, then so be it.

I think everybody here would prefer that Judges enforce the law that exists instead of the one they wish did.

The legislature needs to go on and change the law now. I'm sure they will.

(02-07-2015 02:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think everybody here would prefer that Judges enforce the law that exists instead of the one they wish did.

The legislature needs to go on and change the law now. I'm sure they will.

you just provided another definition regarding the progression of becoming 'civilized'......

edit: it continually cracks me up that people don't grasp the concept of, 'just b/c we can talk fast, doesn't mean we should act that way'

oh wellzy

Are there any laws in Oregon? Maybe just leftist laws; the sentence for not recycling is probably 20 years to life.

(02-07-2015 02:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think everybody here would prefer that Judges enforce the law that exists instead of the one they wish did.

The legislature needs to go on and change the law now. I'm sure they will.

Well said, this is not a case of judicial activism or liberalism. If anything, the Judge's actions are conservative in that he did not attempt to expand a law beyond the way it was written.

The issue here is that there is a gap in the law. The legislature needs to re-write the law in order to make this kind of conduct illegal.

In my hometown in Florida, we had the same issue two years ago. The judge was powerless to do anything but dismiss the case because "upskirting" did not fall under any statutory prohibition.

For a group that mostly wants the constitution followed to the letter, I'm surprised you guys want some judicial interpretation here. The judge did the right thing, time for the lawmakers to make a law, which I suspect they will do in short order. Things like this are pretty bipartisan with little bickering.

So the legislature in Oregon can pass gay-friendly laws, assisted suicide laws, and recycling laws, but they can't find the time to pass laws about taking sexual pictures of underage girls.

I'm inclined to agree that the proper remedy here is for the legislature to pass a law, not for the judge to expand a law.

I would expect that a number of municipalities will be passing ordinances to draw the line until the legislature acts.

(02-07-2015 10:36 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm inclined to agree that the proper remedy here is for the legislature to pass a law, not for the judge to expand a law.

This.

The system actually works as intended, and results in an objectively conservative ruling yet half of this messageboard still just kneejerks platitudes about vague liberal-caused societal ills.

(02-07-2015 12:13 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Give me a break! Is this a liberal judge or what? Under this ghastly "interpretation" of the law, my daughter has no protection from a pervert taking a photo under her skirt unless it is within a private area and she has no underwear on. Absolutely mind-boggling. This is a great example of following the letter of the law to such an extreme that the intent of the law is not factored in. It needs to be changed in Oregon. Meanwhile, the perve gets off free to continue his predatory ways.

Quote:"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," Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said.

Bet you if you saw him do it and punched him in the face they'd have a law to lock you up on.

(02-08-2015 10:06 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 12:13 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Give me a break! Is this a liberal judge or what? Under this ghastly "interpretation" of the law, my daughter has no protection from a pervert taking a photo under her skirt unless it is within a private area and she has no underwear on. Absolutely mind-boggling. This is a great example of following the letter of the law to such an extreme that the intent of the law is not factored in. It needs to be changed in Oregon. Meanwhile, the perve gets off free to continue his predatory ways.

Quote:"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," Deputy District Attorney Paul Maloney said.

Bet you if you saw him do it and punched him in the face they'd have a law to lock you up on.

Are you a troll? Or are you truly this dense?

The parents should sue this clowns pants off in civil court.

If I saw anyone attempt this on any of my 3 daughters theyd be pushing daisies.