Yeah, but he didn’t expect to get filmed, so… /s
Also, creepy abuse of Sesame Street characters (who are children, not so incidentally) aside, defending masturbation at work isn’t the new normal we’re going for.
Also, people who commit all kinds of crimes don’t “expect to get caught”… doesn’t make it any less criminal…
Totally laughing with your joke, but of course (to speak to an argument being made above by someone else), there’s no expectation of privacy when you go into someone else’s home to work in a professional capacity.
You can’t know, unless the residents choose to tell you, whether or not security cameras are installed. A nanny cam, especially, is made to be hidden.
Besides, the perpetrator was in his ‘workplace’, so workplace rules apply. He wasn’t visiting friends on his day off.
Rules lawyering on guys fucking kid’s toys is disgusting.
Really can’t see why anybody above is interested in defending this.
He couldn’t help himself…
… oh, wait, I guess he did.
I agree with you but part of me thinks you’re doing a good job of defining the lines and I think I might trust YOU to write the laws. Go run for office.
That’s an insult to our cats. Unfortunately.
Duly noted. I flagged my previous post as offensive to cats
I believe the standard at hand is “expectation of privacy”. For example a guest probably has a reasonable expectation of privacy whacking off in the guest bathroom, but not so much smearing his penis on Elmo in a child’s bedroom.
Even then, though:
If elected Commissioner of Public Masturbation, I promise not to self-abuse my authority, but rather rule with a gentle hand. I will end harsh jail terms and instead offer supervised release.
I can follow the thought process and raised an eyebrow initially, because such laws often include a requirement that an act be public. Michigan doesn’t have such a standard and from what I was reading the courts have taken a relatively broad definition of indecency, including masturbation in private, but clearly unsanctioned locations as falling within other indecency statutes as recently as 2004.
A thought experiment: if there were no camera, would it be a case of Schrödinger’s penis?
Once again - he was in some else’s house, whacking off with a CHILD’S TOY (meaning a toy owned by a child that lived in the house), while doing his job.
This isn’t rocket surgery.
And I agree that definitely merits some type of charge, and given the wording of the Michigan statute indecent exposure seems to be the correct charge. In a lot of states it wouldn’t be, because they have some standard related to an act being public. An act being outrageous and worthy of criminal charges doesn’t mean that all charges are the correct one to apply.
And I did not say that it did.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.