Patterico's Pontifications

8/5/2009

Stupid Criminals, Court Edition

Filed under: Crime — DRJ @ 7:23 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

If you are going to do the crime, don’t do it in the courthouse:

“Munoz walked into the Harris County criminal courthouse facing a minor drug charge Wednesday, but law officers charged him with a felony after they reported spotting him pointing his camera phone up an unsuspecting legal assistant’s skirt while he pretended to tie his shoe.”

Munoz confessed and now faces up to two years in prison.

— DRJ

54 Responses to “Stupid Criminals, Court Edition”

  1. Finally someone tells us why courthouses ban camera phones.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. There’s a “if only he’d done it in camera” shyster joke ripe for the picking here for one of you lawyers.

    Gazzer (409de8)

  3. I think the case will depend on how upskirt the camera got. “If you can’t see pink, you must acquit”?

    nk (3e2246)

  4. Won’t work, nk, it doesn’t rhyme. :)

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  5. Okay responding for nk, “if you cant’t see the slit then you must acquit”. How’s that?

    peedoffamerican (e8d91a)

  6. I can understand why people don’t like this—but honestly, if I had to wear a skirt or skirt-like garment, I’d wear something under it that I didn’t mind people seeing sometimes. I always found it ironic and amusing that the same woman who’d freak out big-time if I caught a glimpse of her in her bra and panties thought nothing of showing herself to me in a swimsuit that showed more of her.

    technomad (eefe5a)

  7. He’s only 19. Clearly he didn’t learn proper cell phone discipline in high school because he wasn’t taught proper cell phone discipline in high school and now another young life lies in ruins cause of a ruinous and oppressive cell phone policy that is ruinous to where many young lives lie in ruins because of it.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  8. “I always found it ironic and amusing that the same woman who’d freak out big-time if I caught a glimpse of her in her bra and panties thought nothing of showing herself to me in a swimsuit that showed more of her.

    Comment by technomad — 8/5/2009 @ 8:51 pm “

    Can you say Invasion of Privacy? What if she doesn’t wear bathing suits in public? Do you also defend peeping toms? If he was only 2 feet tall, then he might have a defense, but since he had to go to extrordinary lengths to acquire photos of what may or may not have been appropriately covered by your definition, why do you defend him. As to your assertion that she may have not been wearing the proper attire uinder her dress, does that give him the right to violate her. After all, that could apply to anyone because we are all naked underneath our clothing. Would that give u the right to run a camera up my pants leg to see if I was wearing underwear or not, the same logic applies.

    peedoffamerican (e8d91a)

  9. I just hope this dude doesn’t go shooting up any gyms. Someone needs to tell this kid about the internet, if he really needs images of girls this badly.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  10. but it’s not a forfeit two years of freedom crime. Texas needs to get a grip. I think people should stop being so freaking precious. If this chick was traumatized then she’s sort of a frail and not particularly admirable role model type of person. If I were her I’d be seriously pissed if someone from the DA’s office seriously expected me to give up five minutes of my day to give any kind of testimony. That’s how I feel about sillyness like this. Yes it’s probably a gateway crime to horrible pillagings of defenseless womens but you know what? Whatever.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  11. 9. I just hope this dude doesn’t go shooting up any gyms. Someone needs to tell this kid about the internet, if he really needs images of girls this badly.

    Except no porn will be one of the restrictions placed on him.

    Soronel Haetir (869810)

  12. happyfeet, he hasn’t been sentenced to two years. It’s a crime where the worst possible examples of its commission would lead to 2 years. I think that’s plausibly quite just.

    Except no porn will be one of the restrictions placed on him.

    Isn’t that hilarious? This guy will see far fewer pictures of girl’s nethers than he otherwise would have if he had simply respected this one lady.

    Personally, I think we should ship him to California. Texas could probably do well with more exile.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  13. If this chick was traumatized then she’s sort of a frail and not particularly admirable role model type of person.

    happyfeet, apparently you don’t realize that most women would likely be traumatized in this situation. And that’s not because they are freaking precious – it’s because their privacy has been seriously invaded and violated. And when a violation takes place, it is an awful reminder of how vulnerable one is and one’s sense of security is a bit undone. That’s not always easy to regain.

    Women should be able to know they can freely and safely wear a dress/skirt without having to fear someone taking an upskirt shot.

    It’s rather insulting to make this out to be anything more than silliness and it makes me wonder why you have such little respect for women.

    Dana (57e332)

  14. Dana, I think perhaps we have two different meanings of traumatized. If a woman is crying on the shower floor because of this, she’s a freak. If she’s angry and embarrassed and feels a bit insecure in public for a while, that’s not freakish.

    A role model level woman will laugh it off as pathetic and something that doesn’t diminish her. Perverts can see naked girls in lots of ways they don’t like, I am sure. That’s just reality. But I don’t expect most people to brush off this kind of thing. I wouldn’t.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  15. Maybe they should watch where they’re standing when they’re in their skirt in a courthouse with criminals about. That would be a good tip we should print it on dry cleaner bags.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  16. people should be free even if sometimes they’re mischievous I think

    happyfeet (42470c)

  17. do you really have such scorn for what a man can do with two years of his one God-given life that you would so capriciously confiscate them cause that’s scornful indeed

    happyfeet (42470c)

  18. Stupidity; it’s what criminals DO. It’s the foundation of their very being as most criminality does NOT pay off. The effort involved for the reward received rarely reaches a minimum wage average and in this case no remuneration will be forthcoming. That’s why I love watching COPS (the show and LE). There you can see that stupidity is the underlying force, the raison d’etre, if you will, of all criminality. It’s also why you don’t see many smart criminals. It’s almost a contradiction in terms plus they most always don’t get caught Unless/until they succumb to the siren song of the criminal — Stupidity.

    jcw46 (a0c012)

  19. Juan, I’m going assume you chose poorly your words in #14.

    …but if not, what the heck are you talking about? You are really going to make a judgment call about this: if she cries on the shower floor, she’s a freak?

    But if she’s just angry and embarrassed and insecure, then she’s not a freak?

    Are you kidding me?

    Who are you to make such a judgment call on the acceptable reactions to this? You decide the weight of the scale?

    I believe there are reasonable and even healthy reactions to this sort of violation, and most will work it through without a lot of difficulty but most role model women (and any other kind of woman) won’t laugh it off. They may be angry and they may be rendered vulnerable and insecure, and they may have to find their footing again, but they are not going to laugh it off.

    And while pervs see naked girls in ways women don’t like, that’s not the point: this guy did not have her permission to look under her skirt. Therefore, while it may be *a* reality, it is not acceptable, nor laughable.

    Dana (57e332)

  20. people should be free even if sometimes they’re mischievous I think

    No doubt. Unfortunately for this idiot, he wasn’t being mischievous – he was committing a crime.

    Dana (57e332)

  21. “Maybe they should watch where they’re standing when they’re in their skirt in a courthouse with criminals about. That would be a good tip we should print it on dry cleaner bags.

    Comment by happyfeet — 8/5/2009 @ 10:16 pm”

    Maybe they shouldn’t have to watch where they are standing while in a courthouse. The onus is on the perp not to take upskirt pictures that invade her privacy. Now you might have had an argument had she been standing on a ladder, where anyone walking by could get a peep.

    Maybe instead the bags could warn against committing murder, makes as much sense, or warn to not be a pervert. Remember this, he was the aggressor not her, and if he does get the maximum, (which I doubt-probably time served and probation), he deserves it. If you can’t do the time , don’t do the crime.

    Personally, I would have preferred that the lady’s boyfriend or husband just beat the crap out of the bastard. There was the time that it would’ve happened, and sometimes it still does.

    What if the lady had been a minor under the same circumstances? Would you still defend him?

    peedoffamerican (e8d91a)

  22. Happyfeet, you’re missing the point. Women get outraged by acts such as this, even when no physical harm occurs, because THEY did not make the choice nor offer permission for the viewing. This is a central grievance of women that men will never be able to really understand because we think about such things differently, from a different viewpoint (sorry, couldn’t resist). In western society, women allow and men should bow. Any other behavior gets you the cold shoulder at best and 2 years at worst and not coming to terms with this fact could eventually lead to what just recently occurred at a women’s exercise class in Pittsburgh. Sexuality and all it encompasses is a bodily function to us, something ‘done’ to achieve or relieve. For women it’s the very fount of their being and represents their one certainty and area of absolute control and they do not allow any encroachments. It’s not to be given away willy-nilly and certainly not to be allowed to be stolen in any degree. when you see Women scantily or provocatively dressed, that is a choice SHE has made, for whatever reason, for HERSELF and not for YOU.

    jcw46 (a0c012)

  23. People are bad. They do bad things. That doesn’t make them bad people.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  24. dana, of course it’s not acceptable.

    And like I said, it’s normal for a woman or man to be humiliated by this.

    I’m not kidding, however, when I say that I don’t think a normal person should be outright traumatized by this. I suspect we just have different experiences with trauma. The victim has my sympathy.

    I do think that a woman who is a role model will be able to see that she’s not actually been violated at all by this. That the offense has not diminished her or reduced her. I think that goes far beyond mere mortal reactions, but it would be superior.

    Happyfeet might have a point about having common sense about wearing stupid outfits like skirts around criminals. It’s still not hte victim’s fault either way.

    I mean no offense, but this crime has no relationship to rape. It should be a crime to do this, no doubt, and I value my privacy quite a bit, but I stand by my assertion (which is not based on this victim), that being traumatized by this would be going too far.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  25. 23 happyfeet:

    Yes, yes it does.

    jcw46 (a0c012)

  26. oh. Then what is a naughty person then?

    happyfeet (42470c)

  27. Juan,

    I think your comments reveal and confirm that there is a vast difference between male and female modesty and personal privacy (re physicality).

    This is indeed a violation, Juan. A man with a camera has record photos of the most intimate part of her body, whether she had on undergarments or not. He invaded her privacy. He violated her in a ways that no one has a right to without her explicit permission.

    I think an unintended consequence in our society of having too much available porn is that the assumption is at times made by men that women don’t care if their bodies are viewed in this way – it’s in a mag, on the net, in movies, so surely *every* woman is okay with this. It’s a stripping away of an intrinsic quality that is unique to women. What a shame such a valuable gift gets thrown to the gutter. By both genders.

    Dana (57e332)

  28. A 19 year old that sneaks a peek at a girl’s underwear is not necessarily a bad person. He’s a freaking idiot for doing so in this fashion, and that he was already in the courthouse on charges sure doesn’t help his case.

    I think, as happyfeet says, it’s because people do bad things, even when they are not bad people.

    This is an issue that I wish people wouldn’t get so excited about, so that we could explore it without the judgments of the explorers.

    I would prefer a world where this didn’t happen, but I do not think this should be a felony.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  29. It’s like animal abuse; it’s a symptom of a deeper psychosis.

    Dana; although I can see your point about the possibility of the wider availability of porn these days could represent to certain individuals that they can view others in a like manner in public and without permission, I believe that those individuals already have an underlying psychological disorder to begin with that would manifest itself regardless of the amount of porn available.

    It could be an indication of an immature lack of self control and disregard for others which may be a sign of them having been abused themselves at some point in their formative years. In fact that may be the reason they are drawn to porn, and then to the attempt to view ‘live’ individuals in a similar manner, in the first place.

    However one cannot overlook the fact that men LIKE looking at naked women and that that behavior (under the proper circumstances) is completely normal. When an individual, who is not self-aware and feels self-justified or deserving of reward, is thwarted in some manner from being able to express those urges, it is then that criminal behavior manifests itself.

    jcw46 (a0c012)

  30. This was wrong, wrong, wrong.

    JD (5e5cad)

  31. A dope fiend and a peeping tom? This guy is batting a thousand in the Creepy Douchebag department.

    KingShamus (4fabb2)

  32. happyfeet is an evil and bad person. In Heinlein’s theory of Balancing, happyfeet would be personally invaded and sexually humiliated to balance it’s support of the perve in Harris County.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  33. Too bad you didn’t make it to the getogether, PCD. Your impression of happyfeet would have been 180 degrees the opposite.

    nk (3e2246)

  34. People are bad. They do bad things. That doesn’t make them bad people.

    Comment by happyfeet — 8/5/2009 @ 10:39 pm

    Astonishing this sentence is

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  35. nk

    dont be fooled by people in person – someone who constantly and consistently takes the time to write things like this over and over again is drastically different than a persona for a few hours at a dinner party

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  36. What’s all this “role model” level woman stuff. That I just don’t get.

    Vivian Louise (c0f830)

  37. pointy end of shoe to the pervert’s eye is the best and most cost effective solution.

    He won’t get two years for this, but he should get a serious psych evaluation and maybe 3 months with in a cell with someone whose middle name is Wayne.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  38. Oh, Munoz ought to be denied Soap on a Rope during his stay in the graybar hotel.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  39. A 19 year old that sneaks a peek at a girl’s underwear is not necessarily a bad person.

    I MIGHT agree if the age were 15. At 19, no, he’s a perv.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  40. Comment by quasimodo — 8/6/2009 @ 7:21 am

    Or, like a lot of the trolls on the ‘net, he just hasn’t grown-up yet….maybe in another 10 or 20 years…if he ever moves out of the basement.

    AD - RtR/OS! (17ce54)

  41. thank you, nk. these other ones are why the Stanford prison experiment is banned I think.

    Meanwhile the trippy Wesleyan yoot ride motorcycles through the stars while for me the marketing factory beckons. Coquettishly.

    happyfeet (42470c)

  42. Ideally, I would like to see this hoodlum have the snot beaten out of him by some sort of “role model level” man.

    Crabby (ba99ee)

  43. Juan,

    Would you consider looking into a woman’s bedroom window a violation?

    Nancy (1276be)

  44. Thank you for your comments, Dana. I totally agree.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  45. Would you consider looking into a woman’s bedroom window a violation?

    I don’t understand how it’s not already obvious that I would consider this to be a violation, and also would not consider it to be a felony in many cases. It’s a crime, it’s bad, and it’s not bad enough to be a felony.

    I’m not being unclear about this, and this isn’t about whether I’m a bad person or not.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  46. Also, if someone doesn’t want to have a discussion about this, they will be happier if they leave. This is not an agreement thread, it’s a discussion thread.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  47. It’s a crime, it’s bad, and it’s not bad enough to be a felony.

    In several states our little photographer dude would end up on a registry the rest of his life.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  48. And why is that a problem?

    Looking up womens skirts? With a camera? Taking Pictures?

    Gee…..

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  49. I’m sorry we live in such a charged porn addled world that we consider the snapshots of womens privates against their will that some here consider just a harmless understandable prank worthy of a traffic ticket?

    That people actually have posted that it wasn’t that bad?

    I’m wondering if those who think its not so bad are married with children?

    I had no idea this thread would turn into a basic on morality of what is and isn’t acceptable

    No one has the right to take pictures of others in their underwear against their will at any time.

    Period.

    EricPWJohnson (a7d970)

  50. Juan, thanks for your response. I got tripped up by this comment of yours earlier in the thread:

    I do think that a woman who is a role model will be able to see that she’s not actually been violated at all by this.

    Nancy (1276be)

  51. Nancy, no problem.

    I think Dana is totally right that I could have been more clear, but I think a role model is something really special.

    While a violation of common decency is one thing, a truly awesome person, someone we should emulate, should brush aside this kind of riff raff. In particular if they work in criminal justice.

    Me, I’d be mad as hell and embarrassed. But I’m not a role model.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  52. I remember watching “rassling” when Arnold made an appearance and “Terminated” Triple H. If you saw that episode, that should have happened to Munoz by the males in the area before he was arrested.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  53. No one has the right to take pictures of others in their underwear against their will at any time.

    Your problem is that you think someone in here disagrees with that.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  54. Juan – Some people seem to be conflating the wrongness of the action with the degree to which the person should be punished.

    JD (7cad2c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3174 secs.