Caught … on Camera
Attention Wal-Mart Shoppers! Your backside may be caught on camera.
Talk about a weird story! A man was arrested over the weekend after someone alerted Wal-Mart employees to the fact he was walking around Saturday night, taking pictures on his cell phone of women’s derrieres in the Shreve City store. Well, mostly their backsides. He’s now been charged with video voyeurism after reportedly admitting the pics were for ’self-gratification’ purposes.
Video voyeurism is basically defined in the Louisiana law books as: (1) the use of any camera, videotape … or other recording device for the purpose of oberving, viewing … a person that has not consented to being observed … and is for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
This law has been used to prosecute cases where women were videotaped undressing in fitting rooms, such as in Minden a while back. But these photos in question are of women fully-clothed, walking through Wal-Mart. What do you think? A justified case or not? �
That’s illegal? ‘Scuse me. I have to delete some pictures from my camera.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:36 pmHmmm, that’s a good question. Just like we can shoot video from a public street, it’s a public place where the suspect was taking pictures, but it seems the pictures are getting “personal” which could lead to the illegal act.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pmGuess that’s why I go everywhere with my hubby. Who’s gonna look at a girl with her 6′3 husband?
who among us . . . . .
April 1st, 2008 at 3:08 pmWho needs a camera phone when you have a pornographic memory?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pmThat’s just nasty!!! Subscribe to Playboy!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pmDid the women complain?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pmI’m just askin’.
…will there be a line-up?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pmOMG I’ve been to Wal mart and I feel VERY sorry for anyone who feels the need totakes pictures from the rear of Wal mart women. Get this sick individual an internet connection!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pmIf asked I would have to go along with Jody…. Did any of the women complain? Personally, I wouldn’t take pics of womens’ backsides. Besides, “backsides” are not usually what I look at. God, I hope I do not get into trouble with this answer.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:09 pmListen, if we all were honest, we all have taken pictures that “today’s” society considers a no-no! The only thing that got this IDIOT in trouble was his MOUTH! The pictures were just that!..Until the IDIOT opened his mouth and made the situation “illegal.” What part of “You have the right to remain silent..” did this IDIOT not understand! Anybody thinks I have a backside worth taking a picture of (especially at my age)…HAVE HAD IT. Sonja knows where to find me.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pmIs there no shame, the very idea. If my dearly departed mother were alive, I know it would make her say, “Well I’ll swanie”.
DP
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 amLeo, I’m with ya! Too many women at Wally World wearing those expandable pants — ‘beyond’ the limitations of what should be expandable. I’d almost be PO’d if my pic wasn’t taken!
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:46 amOkay, I know I am going to step in it, but I am considered an idiot in some circles. I want all of the women to think about how they dress. Because actually the sad thing is that a number of women dress in a provocative way to begin with to get attention. The crazy thing is that i have seen women do alot of things just to be noticed, whether it’s in Walmart or somewhere else.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:26 pmBut what is the difference between the two - “gawking” as some underclothed women call it or having your picture “unknowingly” taken. Even though most women that dress that way want the attention even if they say they don’t there is definitely a difference between having your picture taken knowingly and unknowingly. The same guy could have it arranged by backside, frontside, vehicle and a woman’s car license plate. Think about that one!!!!!
save to my Bookmarks
December 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pmHello. I think you are eactly thinking like Sukrat. I really loved the post.
December 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pmI think you should point out the another side of the topic too… Hats Off to the discussion.
December 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 am