If the blinds were open, was it a crime to look? (wisdom, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the window wasn't covered, there is no expectation of privacy, just like for everyone else.
If you were growing marijuana plants and you didn't have the curtains down, the police could walk down the street, see the plants, and arrest you. Kids have even less rights than grown adults do, so I don't see why this should be any different.
That's not exactly true. There are plenty of instances where an expectation of privacy could exist even without a window covering. If someone had to go out of their way to get to a house that was away from neighbors, and then stand on a tree branch or something to look in then they are guilty...no curtains necessary.
That's not exactly true. There are plenty of instances where an expectation of privacy could exist even without a window covering. If someone had to go out of their way to get to a house that was away from neighbors, and then stand on a tree branch or something to look in then they are guilty...no curtains necessary.
Where is the tree branch?
But that's still not the same. This guy looked out his own window, and saw in their window, and got arrested for it. That's a perfectly acceptable vantage point for normal people to do.
Guess you missed the part about him using video equipment to record a 12 YEAR OLD GIRL UNDRESSING!!!!
no you missed it, because it says clearly he didn't use it.
Weinblatt was being charged for surveilling that took place from his own home, without the aid of a telescope, binoculars, or a still or video camera.
This is a stupid charge. people have lost their minds... remember when they charged the couple for lewd and lascivious because someone was peeping in their window and could see them having sex? They charged the couple in their own home.... you just can't have it both ways...
Had it been an adult and a child spied they would have charged the adult... these people have gotten STUPID!!! Stop trying to make all these sex crimes, go solve a real crime.
No it's not a crime, but I can't understand an adult being interested in a naked child.
I would say, yes, there is culpability. You have to take precautions, even on your own property. It's like, if you had a pool in your yard and no fence and the neighbor's kid comes over without an invitation and falls in and drowns, you are partly at fault because you did not fence the pool in.
So, if you are parading around naked or your kid is, and you don't close the blinds I think you should be found partially at fault.
If you can be prosecuted for ogling pictures of naked kids on your computer in the privacy of your own home, you certainly can if you are ogling your neighbor's naked kid.
I guess the law may consider such ogling an antecedent to action? Sometimes the law considers what a normal person would do in a certain circumstance and staring at a naked child for a long period of time is probably not one of them. If it had been a naked attractive woman, though, some men would look for a length of time, and might consider it 'normal', though it would still be illegal I suppose.
I would say, yes, there is culpability. You have to take precautions, even on your own property. It's like, if you had a pool in your yard and no fence an the neighbor's kid comes over without an invitation and falls in and drowns, you are partly at fault because you did not fence the pool in.
So, if you are parading around naked or your kid is, and you don't close the blinds I think you should be found partially at fault.
If you can be prosecuted for ogling pictures of naked kids on your computer in the privacy of your own home, you certainly can if you are ogling your neighbor's kid.
I guess the law may consider such ogling an antecedent to action? Sometimes the law considers what a normal person would do in a certain circumstance and staring at a naked child for a long period of time is not one of them. If it had been a naked attractive woman, though, some men would look for a length of time, and might consider it 'normal', though it would still be illegal I suppose.
They show a naked kid in superman. Should that be banned as child porn because some sicko can flog it to that?
If it's in plain view, it's the fault of the person indoors naked, not the people in a permissible vantage point (ie looking out their own window). But should it even be illegal for someone to parade around naked in their own home? I don't think so. But arresting people for looking out their own windows is even worse.
I think people should use common sense and realize that if they want to walk around naked in their own house, or have their children walk around naked, they should invest in some curtains or blinds. Why does this have to be made into a huge legal issue? It wouldn't be an issue to begin with if people just used a little common sense first.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
