Stalker allegedly hid in woman's attic, photographed her as she slept

Originally published at: Stalker allegedly hid in woman's attic, photographed her as she slept | Boing Boing


broke into her home, copied her key, stole her underwear, planned to attach a tracking device to her car, hid in her attic, and photographed her while she slept.

That kind of dedication to your sick & twisted lifestyle is alarming.


Equally disgusting is that after Guerrero was charged with four counts of burglary, he was released on $2,500 bail.

Curious editorializing here. Considering the limitations, $2,500 is more than adequate IMHO.

1 Like

And once again, the judicial system treats crimes against women with an obvious sexual motivation as “boys will be boys.” How is this not stalking? What about a peeping tom charge? IANAL, but New Hampshire has laws on the books for both.


As long as we have widespread willingness by cops, judges, and state’s attorneys to look the other way on the true nature of these crimes, we’ll never make dent in this crap.



He’s out on bail and ready for another love interest. Any takers?


Yeah adequate for what? Imagine some one saying that while also believing that the goal of posting a high bail be to protect his stalking victim from him? That would be like saying it costs just $2500 more to stalk that person you’ve already invested in stalking.


Well, it’s only stalking and harassing a woman, maybe with an intent to rape or kill her, so not like any REAL crime has been committed. Or maybe a man was harmed that was connected to the woman, so, then you might have a case… /s

Angry Work GIF

Well, you know, if the woman wasn’t such a tease… maybe he wouldn’t be stalking her… I mean, good women don’t get raped, right, only women who aren’t pure… and they deserve it… /s

angry kristen wiig GIF


The business model of being an OnlyFans creator and thus the emergent style of OnlyFans content takes relatable, amateur p0rn and cranks up the parasocial factor up to 11. The time has never been more urgent for the leglization and legitimization of sex work, and a strong framework of protections and carefully crafted law.



The problem with those limitations imposed by the bail conditions is they require him to abide by these limitations. He has shown little regard for the law or decency so far. Versus denying him the liberty to make that choice in the first place if he is denied bail.

This, of course, is the ongoing problem with restraining orders and the like in the first place - they require the perpetrator to follow them, and for law enforcement to care enough to enforce them. Neither of these do anything if the attacker is set on attacking again.


I think it’s also a really dangerous trope people have kind of accepted that stalker = ex-BF. So when people have this kind of stalker the poor methodology of our response to DV and intimate partner violence really makes it seem ludicrously ok to stalk people in general. I hope it acts as a deterrent I guess?

I wonder if that woman is going to get a sound sleep ever again though. I don’t know if I would.


That so many members of society who just happen to identify as male seem so very nonchalant about such crimes is not only a huge part of the problem, it’s also fucking mortifying.


They put a GPS thingy on his ankle then told him not to return to New Hampshire where the crimes were committed.

He’s from Pennsylvania.

Did they just give him permission to flee the jurisdiction?


Thanks for actually addressing the point, unlike others. I can’t claim to have any insight on whether somebody deserves to be offered bail or not (which is a whole other issue), but the idea that a higher $$ bail is better (similar to fines as punishment) just means that it’s okay for rich people to do. I don’t think financially ruining somebody before they’ve even faced trial is a great look.

1 Like

No it fucking doesn’t. This person poses a DIRECT THREAT to the person he was stalking. So… no bail, I’d argue.

Whether or not bail is FAIR is a whole different argument than ensuring the safety of the public. It’s pretty clear he poses this woman a DIRECT THREAT. You might not give a shit, but women’s lives should not be disposable to make a political point.

He can fuck off. If he did not want to be financially ruined, maybe he should not have threatened other people.


Again, it’s that the perp was given bail and released at all that’s the issue here.

But yes, by all means; let’s focus on the financial hardships of the alleged criminal, rather than well being of the victim.



$2,500 bail means $250 to the bail bondsman.

Incarceration and bail is about protecting society and ensuring the accused understands the severity of their actions and to give them a financial incentive to show up to court.

If anything, this bail is too low. And probably shouldn’t have been offered at all. It’s not a weed bust. But sure - absolutely increase the bail amount for rich offenders. Which they already do.


I think they should have denied bail and held him.


Given the severity of the crime, yeah.

But of course, we must all be pro-bail and pro-punishing the working poor because that must be the ONLY explanation for our annoyance… /s

I’m all for getting rid of bail across the board, but since this is the system we have right now, I’d like to see people who pose a direct threat to the community denied bail.

See Schitts Creek GIF by CBC