Secretly filming up a woman’s skirt ruled legal by Court of Appeal in Georgia - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50765680]It isn't, and you don't want some yahoo's idea of common sense putting you in jail, either. Imagine if some cop thought it was common sense that you shouldn't wear long sleeves with shorts and threw you in jail for your crime against fashion. That'd be bullshit because it's not against the law. The system is working. If the law doesn't say it's illegal, you can't prosecute someone for it. Fix the law.[/QUOTE] That clearly goes against common sense doesn't it. But then this stuff only seems to happen in US where as other countries even if there was some loop hole they would be found guilty on some other charge that would fit the bill.

There's a danger to finding people guilty of 'some other charge' as well. If someone wants to throw me in jail for something I did, but I haven't broken a law regarding that specific thing, then 'finding' some other law I might have broken just so they can throw me in jail for the first thing is a screwed up way to subvert justice. Why have laws for specific crimes if you're just gonna throw people in jail any time they do something you think deserves jail? The real answer is to write a law making that thing illegal.

There already is a law for it, but the judge didn't use common sense and allowed him to get off because of a tiny loop hole they found in the invasion of privacy law. If you try hard enough you can find these loop holes in most laws.

[QUOTE=mr apple;50765379] That's cute, at least we've banned guns and don't have terrorist attacks from disassociated white boys every week. Think you're looking for 4chan bud[/QUOTE] Guns cause violence apparently.

[QUOTE=The Commander;50769033]There already is a law for it, but the judge didn't use common sense and allowed him to get off because of a tiny loop hole they found in the invasion of privacy law. If you try hard enough you can find these loop holes in most laws.[/QUOTE] If he didn't break the law, he didn't break the law. There is nothing a judge can do about it.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50769393]If he didn't break the law, he didn't break the law. There is nothing a judge can do about it.[/QUOTE] Yeah that would be if America was a civil law country. But America is a common law country, it's just a shame that judges pretend it's a civil law system by using such strict interpretations of the law, and being afraid of creating substantial case law. If this case happened in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or England, the verdict would have been very different.

[QUOTE=sb27;50769554]Yeah that would be if America was a civil law country. But America is a common law country, it's just a shame that judges pretend it's a civil law system by using such strict interpretations of the law, and being afraid of creating substantial case law. If this case happened in Australia, Canada, New Zealand or England, the verdict would have been very different.[/QUOTE] Being common law still doesn't allow judges to send you to jail for things that aren't illegal. Judges aren't "afraid of creating substantial case law", they literally can't just declare something illegal that isn't illegal.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50769595]Being common law still doesn't allow judges to send you to jail for things that aren't illegal. Judges aren't "afraid of creating substantial case law", they literally can't just declare something illegal that isn't illegal.[/QUOTE] There was room for a guilty verdict on the basis of violating the substance or spirit of that specific law, the same principle which is why the High Court of Australia believes that 'freedom of speech' is implied by the Constitution of Australia, even though it is never explicitly written anywhere within it. And that point aside, in addressing one of your statements, one of the traits of common law is that courts can literally make laws and send people to jail over them, which is one of the largest distinctions between common and civil law. Not just interpretations of vague wording in statutes, but even things like common law offences. It's not particularly relevant today (but is still used), because a lot of those common law offences have since been codified. [editline]25th July 2016[/editline] It's worth noting that the decision of the court in the OP was split, which meant that there were judges that may have believed the defendant violated the spirit of the law.

[QUOTE=sb27;50769627]There was room for a guilty verdict on the basis of violating the substance or spirit of that specific law, the same principle which is why the High Court of Australia believes that 'freedom of speech' is implied by the Constitution of Australia, even though it is never explicitly written anywhere within it. And that point aside, in addressing one of your statements, one of the traits of common law is that courts can literally make laws and send people to jail over them, which is one of the largest distinctions between common and civil law. Not just interpretations of vague wording in statutes, but even things like common law offences. It's not particularly relevant today (but is still used), because a lot of those common law offences have since been codified.[/QUOTE] See US vs. Hudson(Common Law ruled Unconstitutional on the federal level), and some states have abolished common law while others still recognize them.

Why are all the Australians getting super weird in this thread

The US has shit privacy laws when it comes to photography and the like. There was some dude taking pictures of local high school girls all around town about a year ago, my friend found his younger sister on the guy's paysite, super creepy but he never got arrested I don't think. They tried reporting it to police and they just said if it was on public property they couldn't do anything.

[QUOTE=mr apple;50765379]But the US has a damn lot of them. That's cute, at least we've banned guns and don't have terrorist attacks from disassociated white boys every week. Think you're looking for 4chan bud[/QUOTE] Nobody is going to commit terrorist attacks where the only retreat is either ocean upon ocean or a desert comprising of the deadliest shit on the planet. Plus, you guys were just one big prison to begin with so who wants to fuck with that. So yeah, don't fucking crossthread that shit.

[QUOTE=sb27;50769627] It's worth noting that the decision of the court in the OP was split, which meant that there were judges that may have believed the defendant violated the spirit of the law.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter if the verdict was split. The only thing that matters was the winning vote.

[QUOTE=geel9;50770061]Why are all the Australians getting super weird in this thread[/QUOTE] Because no matter how much the rest of the world tells an American that something is incorrect they will always argue till they are red in the face. (I am not an Aussie either, common mistake by most Americans)

If you are on public property i believe anyone should be able to legally photograph you. Morally i feel conflicted, upskirt pics seem... both harmless since you dont actually touch the person and violating a persons integrity... conflicting ideologies i find hard to put my finger on.

[QUOTE=geel9;50770061]Why are all the Australians getting super weird in this thread[/QUOTE] Because they somehow turned the thread into a debate of how they are scared of guns for some illogical reason.

[QUOTE=The Commander;50770280]Because no matter how much the rest of the world tells an American that something is incorrect they will always argue till they are red in the face. (I am not an Aussie either, common mistake by most Americans)[/QUOTE] Ah yes, stupid, stupid Americans. They're all the same [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] idiots!

[QUOTE=matt000024;50770300]Because they somehow turned the thread into a debate of how they are scared of guns for some illogical reason.[/QUOTE] Not speaking for Australia but here in New Zealand we have the world's largest gun store (fact) and we have only ever had one mass shooting many years ago because we have sensible gun control laws. We are not afraid of guns. Just saying.

[QUOTE=The Commander;50770314]Not speaking for Australia but here in New Zealand we have the world's largest gun store (fact) and we have only ever had one mass shooting many years ago because we have sensible gun control laws. We are not afraid of guns. Just saying.[/QUOTE] New Zealand is also a much smaller nation than the US both area and population-wise though too which affects both laws and enforcement of laws.

I will agree with that because we don't have state laws and all laws are either local council bylaws or government law. Our police force is also maintained by the government and not local areas which stops 90+% of any corruption etc that can be seen in American police states.

[QUOTE=The Commander;50770358]I will agree with that because we don't have state laws and all laws are either local council bylaws or government law. Our police force is also maintained by the government and not local areas which stops 90+% of any corruption etc that can be seen in American police states.[/QUOTE] "American police states" [editline]25th July 2016[/editline] :quotes:

[QUOTE=Apache249;50770383]"American police states" [editline]25th July 2016[/editline] :quotes:[/QUOTE] I think he means state police departments?

[QUOTE=Ardosos;50770389]I think he means state police departments?[/QUOTE] That'd be one hell of a miscommunication.

[QUOTE=The Commander;50770314]we have only ever had one mass shooting many years ago because we have sensible gun control laws. [/QUOTE] Not the reason those happen but I GUESS.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;50770389]I think he means state police departments?[/QUOTE] This is what I meant, didn't have time to proof read because I'm working, oops.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50770286]If you are on public property i believe anyone should be able to legally photograph you. Morally i feel conflicted, upskirt pics seem... both harmless since you dont actually touch the person and violating a persons integrity... conflicting ideologies i find hard to put my finger on.[/QUOTE] It's definitely not harmless; knowing that some creep has pictures of your crotch, and may be sharing it with anyone, is something that can put some people through a lot of psychological turmoil. Whether they touch you or not, the effect is that you feel demeaned, pissed off, and possibly scared that they're dangerous. I do agree with your first sentence though.

[QUOTE=The Commander;50770280]Because no matter how much the rest of the world tells an American that something is incorrect they will always argue till they are red in the face. (I am not an Aussie either, common mistake by most Americans)[/QUOTE] let's just make sweeping generalizations that's cool

[QUOTE=The Commander;50770412]This is what I meant, didn't have time to proof read because I'm working, oops.[/QUOTE] Right... and this 90% less corruption figure comes from?

All of the australians bitching about how america is a police state should travel around the US for a while. In the US you're responsible for taking care of yourself and you're a lot more free to do stuff that would otherwise require licensing and permits and other crap the government wants to control people doing. You need to remember that the government exists to serve the people, not control them.

[QUOTE=The Commander;50770358]I will agree with that because we don't have state laws and all laws are either local council bylaws or government law. Our police force is also maintained by the government and not local areas which stops 90+% of any corruption etc that can be seen in American police states.[/QUOTE] Stops corruption or also enables large scale corruption. Two way street there. Bear in mind your [I]entire country[/I] has a smaller population than Minnesota.