That’s probably why Hillary took to wearing pantsuits.
What a visionary she is!
Kevin - 08:03pm on 03/12/2008
I think this is a bad decision. Obviously from the dawn of time the rule has been you can’t peek under a ladies skirt.
That is different from ladies in short skirts flashing the entire room.
The Whistler - 08:03pm on 03/12/2008
Tulsa County District Judge Tom Gillert
Can you impeach a judge for stupidity?
Proof - 08:03pm on 03/12/2008
Does this mean I don’t have to take the mirrors off my shoes?
Marty - 09:03pm on 03/12/2008
Lawyers, they introduce, pass, solicit and argue the laws; then they become judges and interpret the law.
Individuals clothe themselves because they have a desire for what is underneath those clothes not to be seen. The right of privacy is inherent.
This defense lawyer and the judge know this. Reasonable expectation of privacy was originally intended not just to deter lewd conduct. The intent of the law was clear as was Ferrantes intent.
This should be overturned by a higher court. Please.
You complain when judges don’t follow the letter of the law and than you criticize them where they do.
The law requires you to be in a place where you have an expectation of privacy. Target is not such a place.
It gives the lie that conservatives don’t want activist judges. They just want activist judges for their causes.
Lestat - 07:03am on 03/13/2008
The law requires you to be in a place where you have an expectation of privacy. Target is not such a place.
Lestat,
Your argument is imbecilic and unworthy of you. A Target store may not be a place where one could have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the area under a girl’s skirt most certainly is.
Bat One - 07:03am on 03/13/2008
Your argument is imbecilic and unworthy of you. A Target store may not be a place where one could have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the area under a girl’s skirt most certainly is.
Well than if you read the law, he did not violate this one. How much do you want to bet that he violated a different law and the prosecution chose to charge him with this one?
Lestat - 07:03am on 03/13/2008
This should be overturned by a higher court. Please.
That’s probably why Hillary took to wearing pantsuits.
What a visionary she is!
I think this is a bad decision. Obviously from the dawn of time the rule has been you can’t peek under a ladies skirt.
That is different from ladies in short skirts flashing the entire room.
Can you impeach a judge for stupidity?
Does this mean I don’t have to take the mirrors off my shoes?
Lawyers, they introduce, pass, solicit and argue the laws; then they become judges and interpret the law.
Individuals clothe themselves because they have a desire for what is underneath those clothes not to be seen. The right of privacy is inherent.
This defense lawyer and the judge know this. Reasonable expectation of privacy was originally intended not just to deter lewd conduct. The intent of the law was clear as was Ferrantes intent.
This should be overturned by a higher court. Please.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
‘nuff said.......
You guys are wonderful.
You complain when judges don’t follow the letter of the law and than you criticize them where they do.
The law requires you to be in a place where you have an expectation of privacy. Target is not such a place.
It gives the lie that conservatives don’t want activist judges. They just want activist judges for their causes.
Lestat,
Your argument is imbecilic and unworthy of you. A Target store may not be a place where one could have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the area under a girl’s skirt most certainly is.
Well than if you read the law, he did not violate this one. How much do you want to bet that he violated a different law and the prosecution chose to charge him with this one?
There is no higher court in Oklahoma.