Originally Posted by MsElui

so if im happy to let them sit in front of a pool full of people in their undies - but I should be worried if its taped. Like I said- he cant hurt my kids by looking so whats the difference between looking, a photo or a video in terms of harm to my kids? If he alters the photo/video somehow to make it improper to get his jollies (im thinking putting a different body on the childs head) then again - how exactly does that hurt my child? Its all in the chaps mind and has no impact on me or my kids. It may be creepy but its his problem not mine.

Originally Posted by LadyBelle

Again, if he's innocent, no harm done, because, as many have said here, the law should protect him as well.

Originally Posted by Ray

Unfortunately it does not work that way ..any accusation even totally unfounded ones.. can and have destroyed peoples lived...

That why accusation without facts is so dangerous in this area ..

Originally Posted by LadyBelle

Right, but if it goes further and he's actually been convicted on child pornography charges or abduction or abuse, etc., or if further evidence on a pre-existing case is needed because they needed more evidence to please the courts/police the last time(s) he did something weird/almost illegal/illegal/whatever, then reporting this could help nail the case. Again, if he's innocent, no harm done, because, as many have said here, the law should protect him as well.

Originally Posted by MsElui

i already said if he tried to touch or threaten or coerce my kids id rip his head off. taking a photo doesnt harm anyone and isnt illegal and wouldnt 'make' an already flaky case against him. Its not further evidence.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

This is precisely the response I expected, which I why I didn't bother providing a link in the first place. When you do receive a cite, instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of it and correcting your previous misstatements, you offer some poorly constructed "rebuttal" that totally misses the point of what was said.

Let's repeat -- you've stated on this thread that public figures (in your case, celebrities) and private citizens are not subject to different privacy protections. Your statements in this regard are absolutely factually incorrect.

But instead of simply recognizing your error, an error based your lack of knowledge of almost two centuries of case law and subsequent statute, you instead provide a "rebuttal" that shows that you didn't understand a link that provided about the simplest explanation of the subject that I could find.

There isn't much point in providing you with new facts if you won't even make an effort to comprehend them. Why attempt to educate you if you clearly don't want to be educated?

Originally Posted by Ray

Unfortunately it does not work that way ..any accusation even totally unfounded ones.. can and have destroyed peoples lived...

That why accusation without facts is so dangerous in this area ..

Originally Posted by LadyBelle

You're right, sometimes it doesn't work that way. I would report him anyway if his response was what it was, and in fact he invited the OP to do so.

Originally Posted by MsElui

i already said if he tried to touch or threaten or coerce my kids id rip his head off. taking a photo doesnt harm anyone and isnt illegal and wouldnt 'make' an already flaky case against him. Its not further evidence. The only time it might make a difference was if he was on the sex offenders register and banned from going near children - but thats pretty provocative behaviour from someone in that position - wouldnt they be more furtive? If this was the first time he did it and he got bolder and tried something more that was inappropriate/illegal then the parents quite rightly should be more active when the inappropriate stuff was tried.

Originally Posted by Leslie66

This guy wasn't breaking any laws either ....

http://www.cnn.com/CRIME/

That is of course until he murdered, raped, tortured, kidnapped, hanged, shot, sodomized and brutalized and entire family that he was stalking.

Originally Posted by MsElui

i already said if he tried to touch or threaten or coerce my kids id rip his head off. taking a photo doesnt harm anyone and isnt illegal and wouldnt 'make' an already flaky case against him. Its not further evidence. The only time it might make a difference was if he was on the sex offenders register and banned from going near children - but thats pretty provocative behaviour from someone in that position - wouldnt they be more furtive? If this was the first time he did it and he got bolder and tried something more that was inappropriate/illegal then the parents quite rightly should be more active when the inappropriate stuff was tried.

Originally Posted by AmerLisa

I really feel for the jury that has had to watch what he's done. I couldn't even read it.....

Originally Posted by Leslie66

I want him dead.

Originally Posted by Leslie66

This guy wasn't breaking any laws either ....

http://www.cnn.com/CRIME/

That is of course until he murdered, raped, tortured, kidnapped, hanged, shot, sodomized and brutalized and entire family that he was stalking.

Originally Posted by Tracym

I read the article - where does it say he was stalking them? I don't disbelieve you, I just didn't see it.

Horrible man obviously, and I certainly hope he'll never be free again, if he is alive. But you still can't arrest people for what you think they will do, if they haven't done it yet.

Originally Posted by Tracym

I read the article - where does it say he was stalking them? I don't disbelieve you, I just didn't see it.

Horrible man obviously, and I certainly hope he'll never be free again, if he is alive. But you still can't arrest people for what you think they will do, if they haven't done it yet.