Comments on: Convicted Peeping Tom Sues to Recover Porn http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/ Harangues that just make sense Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:42:04 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Another Drew http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/comment-page-1/#comment-282917 Another Drew Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:07:54 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/#comment-282917 Maybe he had some original Tracy Lords porno in there? Maybe he had some original Tracy Lords porno in there?

]]> By: Anonymous http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/comment-page-1/#comment-282821 Anonymous Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:28:46 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/#comment-282821 @krazy kagu: Go study the constitution and its amendments. We have a right against illegal search and seizure of our property. The thing about freedom is that everybody must be free, not just the people you like. The property was initially seized to search for illegal material. Now that the case is over and he's paid his debt to society as the legal system has seen fit, he is entitled to all his property. Including his legal porn. Even if you don't like him. As for damages? That's for the court to decide. I doubt he'll get anything, but he should at least get lawyer's fees for having to fight to get his own legal property returned like it's supposed to be. The law enforcement officers that are withholding it from him are sadly ignorant of the law they're supposed to be upholding. @krazy kagu:

Go study the constitution and its amendments. We have a right against illegal search and seizure of our property. The thing about freedom is that everybody must be free, not just the people you like. The property was initially seized to search for illegal material. Now that the case is over and he’s paid his debt to society as the legal system has seen fit, he is entitled to all his property. Including his legal porn. Even if you don’t like him.

As for damages? That’s for the court to decide. I doubt he’ll get anything, but he should at least get lawyer’s fees for having to fight to get his own legal property returned like it’s supposed to be. The law enforcement officers that are withholding it from him are sadly ignorant of the law they’re supposed to be upholding.

]]> By: krazy kagu http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/comment-page-1/#comment-282786 krazy kagu Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:23:31 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/#comment-282786 Another example of stupid frivolous lawsuits this pervert peeping tom should go blind and not one single guide dog would want to lead him Another example of stupid frivolous lawsuits this pervert peeping tom should go blind and not one single guide dog would want to lead him

]]> By: SteveG http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/comment-page-1/#comment-282677 SteveG Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:53:45 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/#comment-282677 A few years ago, a family got lost in Montecito while trying to find the Christian college their son attends... they pull into a driveway to turn around and see what looks to be a body of a woman. They cal 911 and it turns out to be an "extremely life-like" $10,000 sex doll the ex- husband who was living in the house had left behind for the angry ex wife to find. Nice. One minute everything's Jesus and then... Anyway, the ex at least had the good sense not to go public and demand his doll be returned (in spanking new condition) *sorry* A few years ago, a family got lost in Montecito while trying to find the Christian college their son attends… they pull into a driveway to turn around and see what looks to be a body of a woman. They cal 911 and it turns out to be an “extremely life-like” $10,000 sex doll the ex- husband who was living in the house had left behind for the angry ex wife to find.
Nice. One minute everything’s Jesus and then…
Anyway, the ex at least had the good sense not to go public and demand his doll be returned (in spanking new condition) *sorry*

]]> By: DRJ http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/comment-page-1/#comment-282671 DRJ Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:29:57 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/#comment-282671 I agree it's his and he has a right to it. It just seems like a dumb move ... but, then again, I haven't seen his collection. Maybe it's worth the trouble. I agree it’s his and he has a right to it. It just seems like a dumb move … but, then again, I haven’t seen his collection. Maybe it’s worth the trouble.

]]> By: Lord Nazh© http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/comment-page-1/#comment-282665 Lord Nazh© Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:45:33 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/#comment-282665 I'd have to say his suing for damages is idiotic, but the return of his 'property' is warranted if not covered by any law. Yes it's porn and all, but unless it would be criminal for him to have it, it is his porn. no? I’d have to say his suing for damages is idiotic, but the return of his ‘property’ is warranted if not covered by any law. Yes it’s porn and all, but unless it would be criminal for him to have it, it is his porn. no?

]]> By: nk http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/comment-page-1/#comment-282659 nk Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:15:03 +0000 http://patterico.com/2007/09/10/convicted-peeping-tom-sues-to-recover-porn/#comment-282659 Sigh, DRJ. If these _____ had a sense of shame, a sense of proportion, or any sense at all, they would not be criminals. The sad thing is that there is a more than colorable First Amendment implication which will preclude any judge from laughing the case out of court. (As for his damages, here's a chance for his victims to file a third-party counterclaim.) Sigh, DRJ. If these _____ had a sense of shame, a sense of proportion, or any sense at all, they would not be criminals. The sad thing is that there is a more than colorable First Amendment implication which will preclude any judge from laughing the case out of court. (As for his damages, here’s a chance for his victims to file a third-party counterclaim.)

]]>