Cameras, skirts and privacy

A while back some goober in Tulsa went to the Target store, followed a sixteen-year-old girl around until he got the opportunity to kneel down behind her, stick a camera under her skirt and take pictures. He was arrested as a peeping Tom, but the charges were dropped, and now the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has chimed in on the pervert's side.

Their reasoning: the law requires an expectation of privacy, and women have no such expectation in a public place.

WTF???

We have no expectation of privacy INSIDE OUR FREAKIN' CLOTHES???

It's perfectly legal in Oklahoma, according to the appeals court, for anyone to peep under a woman's clothing in public, without that woman's knowledge or consent.

How fucking stupid can people with law degrees be?

(Okay, loaded question. I know they can be pretty stupid, but this exceeds even my expectations of moronic thought processes.)

The statute requires the victim to be "in a place where there is a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy." And Target isn't such a place. It has to be a bathroom, dressing room, private home, etc. to be able to prosecute the guy. But holy crap, what can be more private, what could provide a more reasonable expectation of privacy, than your clothing???

I wonder what would have happened if the girl in this case, when realizing what the perv was doing, had turned around and kicked his balls up into his throat. Would the Court of Criminal Stupidity -- I mean, Appeals -- support her prosecution for assault?

I just hope the next time this perv picks up a camera, someone shoves it up his ass. Rachel1:34 PM