Girl Apprehends Upskirt Cameraman

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Creepy Losers Link

"CALGARY -- A 26-year-old shopper was shocked to find a man secretly filming under her skirt but managed to grab him by the lapels and yell for help. Dorianne Bamber said she was shopping at the North Hill Centre on Tuesday and had stopped to look at Halloween costumes when a man came up and stood behind her.

"He was too close," said Bamber, a public relations student at Mount Royal College.

When Bamber turned to tell the well-dressed and groomed older man to step back, her eyes were drawn to a canvas briefcase.

She saw a tiny camera poking out of the corner.

"The whole five stages of grief passed through me in five seconds," said Bamber, who was wearing a skirt without underwear. "



Given the rapid pace of technology, Canada's laws always seem to be lagging behind but hidden cameras have been around for at least 20 years... Stories like these always seem to make the headlines but little changes have been made from a criminal code point of view. Apparently the loser more or less smiled and didn't even try to run as this girl freaked out on him as he knew the police couldn't charge him with more than mischief.

God only knows what creeps like this Don Hardie, 57 did during the Red Mile. Reminds me of the old creepy guy that will hang out at a club alone in a corner, checking out the girls 40 years younger than him.

As a sidebar, how embarassing is it to have the world know you went commando? Why the heck did that bit of info make it into the story? She's going to hear about that one for a while.... today's Herald has a letter from someone "scolding" her about this.

[CaptainCrunch]

What a girl wears or dosen't wear under her clothes dosen't really concern anyone but herself.

I'm wondering because I have no clue about the criminal code in cases like this.

If he's distributing this stuff does that effect his charges?

Is there anyway he would end up on the sex offenders roll?

This guy is creepy because he just stood there after he was caught, he wasn't embarressed about being caught.

[Reaper]

While the guy who filmed under her skirt is sleazy and creepy I think the woman is a little out of touch.

Let's take a running tally...

She says it should be sexual assault - Come on, get serious. He did not touch you in any way. He videotaped your cooter, which was uncovered by your choice! Let's not overreact because you didn't think anyone would have the viewing angle to see it. If you don't want it to be seen then cover it up!

Dress up like Halloween and ghouls will try to get into your pants...

Why is it that women seem to be so clueless about the fact that the way you dress can give the wrong message to people?

[RougeUnderoos]

What message was she giving to this guy? The "I'm wearing a skirt so you can stick a camera under there to have a look" message?

Is that the message you get when you see a woman in a skirt? I'm sure it isn't.

Would he be less guilty if she was wearing underwear? I don't think so.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Reaper@Oct 4 2004, 09:25 PM
While the guy who filmed under her skirt is sleazy and creepy I think the woman is a little out of touch.

Let's take a running tally...

She says it should be sexual assault - Come on, get serious. He did not touch you in any way. He videotaped your cooter, which was uncovered by your choice! Let's not overreact because you didn't think anyone would have the viewing angle to see it. If you don't want it to be seen then cover it up!

Dress up like Halloween and ghouls will try to get into your pants...

Why is it that women seem to be so clueless about the fact that the way you dress can give the wrong message to people?

I completely disagree. Just because a woman dresses in a questionable manner dosen't give any person the right to try to take advantage like that.

If a woman wears slutware it shouldn't open the door to a rape defense.

So what if this girl had the bad judgement not to wear underwear, wearing a skirt isn't an invitation for a guy to look up it, or video tape it.

There are some societal rules that shouldn't be broken. this guy broke a couple. They should have shoved his video camera up his butt and turned it on. Lets see if this creep wants to watch that.


Who knows what else gets him off, todays video tape might be tommorrows van with panted windows.

He could also be profiting from this by posting it on the web.

I'm all for the lash for this guy, the way he reacted when he was caught indicates that a fine or a month in a cozy cell would hardly be a deterrent.

Maybe some time in prison where his bunk mate bruno like to look up his skirt would be a good thing.

[Sylvanfan]

Maybe she should have watched Silence of the Lambs, as these camera toting types likely can pick up the scent. Still it's a bit disturbing to think that someone would just stand there and record what's up some females skirt. Just as creepy as it is to think that someone would want to watch a continuous video of that type of thing. Too bad this creep wasn't filming a drag queen going commando.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Okay, I think the guy is creepy and what he did should probably be considered a little more serious than mischif, but here's a little bit of devil's advocate.

What if the chick was sitting on a bench and forgot to cross her legs, hence giving everyone a view and then some guy takes a picture? Where is the crime there, is it the guy taking the picture, or the girl and the "Indecent exposure".

Kinda interesting if you think that the law can change quite a bit with just a little 90 deg. shift in position.

[RougeUnderoos]

One really disturbing facet to this whole argument is that there was a dirty word that fotze was not familiar with.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

That's a really good point Rouge.
Especially considering what Fotze means.

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Oct 4 2004, 03:57 PM
That's a really good point Rouge.
Especially considering what Fotze means.

What does Fotze mean?

[FlamesAddiction]

Or what if he was doing it to some guy in a kilt?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by albertGQ+Oct 4 2004, 04:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (albertGQ @ Oct 4 2004, 04:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bring_Back_Shantz@Oct 4 2004, 03:57 PM
That's a really good point Rouge.
Especially considering what Fotze means.

What does Fotze mean? [/b][/quote]
I don't think that's for me to tell you. Maybe if he's in a good mood he'll tell you himself.

Or you could just Google it and see what you get. :evil:

[Reaper]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Oct 4 2004, 03:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Oct 4 2004, 03:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Reaper@Oct 4 2004, 09:25 PM
While the guy who filmed under her skirt is sleazy and creepy I think the woman is a little out of touch.

Let's take a running tally...

She says it should be sexual assault - Come on, get serious. He did not touch you in any way. He videotaped your cooter, which was uncovered by your choice! Let's not overreact because you didn't think anyone would have the viewing angle to see it. If you don't want it to be seen then cover it up!

Dress up like Halloween and ghouls will try to get into your pants...

Why is it that women seem to be so clueless about the fact that the way you dress can give the wrong message to people?

I completely disagree. Just because a woman dresses in a questionable manner dosen't give any person the right to try to take advantage like that.

If a woman wears slutware it shouldn't open the door to a rape defense.

So what if this girl had the bad judgement not to wear underwear, wearing a skirt isn't an invitation for a guy to look up it, or video tape it.

There are some societal rules that shouldn't be broken. this guy broke a couple. They should have shoved his video camera up his butt and turned it on. Lets see if this creep wants to watch that.


Who knows what else gets him off, todays video tape might be tommorrows van with panted windows.

He could also be profiting from this by posting it on the web.

I'm all for the lash for this guy, the way he reacted when he was caught indicates that a fine or a month in a cozy cell would hardly be a deterrent.

Maybe some time in prison where his bunk mate bruno like to look up his skirt would be a good thing. [/b][/quote]
Did I say that the guy had the right to take advantage of it? No, I did not. I prefaced the post saying that he was sleazy and creepy for doing what he did.

You can also can the crap you said about slutwear opening the door for a rape defense. You're essentially putting words in my mouth and that is far from fair.

I guess you missed the point of my post.

My point is that she should be a little more street smart. Just because you wave a steak in front of a hungry man and tell him not to eat it doesn't mean that it won't happen. Yes, it's your steak and no, he shouldn't have eaten it. But, it's still gone, isn't it?

Bad people are out there and just because they are wrong doesn't mean you won't get hurt. It helps to be proactive and aware of everything you project.

BTW, is sexual assault only funny when committed on someone guilty of a crime?

The way you say the camera should have been shoved up his butt and imply that he'd be molested in prison is so hypocritical. He'll probably only be convicted of Mischief but you are advocating sexual assault and violation. Real nice. I'm glad we don't live by the code you do.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Oct 4 2004, 03:45 PM
What if the chick was sitting on a bench and forgot to cross her legs, hence giving everyone a view and then some guy takes a picture? Where is the crime there, is it the guy taking the picture, or the girl and the "Indecent exposure".

Kinda interesting if you think that the law can change quite a bit with just a little 90 deg. shift in position.

I think it depends on the intent of the person viewing, frequency of viewing, and whether that viewing results in permanent images. If you get an accidental free show by no action of your own, well that's not a criminal act on your part. Climb under a table, put a camera under a table, or do something unreasonable for the situation and I think you've crossed the line.

I while back I ran into an attractive lady friend of mine at Eaton's Center and had a chat with her. She was into her Ally McBeal phase and like to wear short skirted business suits. We stopped to chat for a bit, only to be disturbed by a security guard 10 minutes in who said "Excuse me Miss, I don't know if you've noticed but there was a man sitting below you who's been trying to look up your skirt for the last few minutes". We were standing by the rail and I guess this guy, respectifully dressed like the guy in the article, was sitting on the chairs on the 3rd Level by the Fanattic, watching upwards. This guy has been busted before doing this, and the guard expained that this happens all the time, and they are trained to spot this (an Eatons plainclothes detective spotted this actually and called it in), but they are powerless to stop him from doing it.

She expectedly, was worried less about civil liberties, than she was about ramming a high heel through this guy's eyeball.

I agree with you, it's a grey area though. Viewing is one thing but I think when you bust out the home videos and start making permanent images of the "cooter", you're crossed that line and need to deal with the law....

/EDIT - For clarity in light of the 'slutwear' angle, I'd like to point out that her skirts were business suit in nature appropriate for use as such, and not of a hoochie-mama nature. I'm sure there are guys who get turned on by a burqa so I don't think I can go with that as a cause....

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Reaper@Oct 4 2004, 03:25 PM
She says it should be sexual assault - Come on, get serious. He did not touch you in any way. He videotaped your cooter, which was uncovered by your choice! Let's not overreact because you didn't think anyone would have the viewing angle to see it. If you don't want it to be seen then cover it up!

To any normal human being, her "cooter" was covered up. She had a skirt on, and nobody knew she wasn't wearing anything underneath....

Except for Mr video camera man.

To me, it's an invasion of privacy. If she wants to show her goods, she has plenty of ways to do it in a subtle manner. In this case, she obviously didn't want to. This guy was doing something out of the ordinary and something special.

Aren't there laws against peeping toms? If so, the same laws should be used in this case. If not, there should be.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I think we're all getting to the same point.

Slutwear or sitting carlessly (or doing it on purpose whicever the case may be), I think most people would be of the opinion, that if you are showing it off, most people are gonna look and that's your fault. The difference comes when the guys doing the looking are actively doing something to get a view. Such as putting camers in briefcases or sitting on the lower level in Eatons Centre.

Would most/all guys take a look if a chick was showing it off? Absolutely.
Would most guys go to the trouble of actively trying to get a look? No, it's creepy and and most guys are too lazy to go to that much effort to check out some chicks underwear (or lack there of).

[RougeUnderoos]

Two things:

Where exactly were you standing in Eaton's Center, I-Hate-Hulse. If you could be very specific, that would be helpful.

Also, this.

http://www.cootersplace.com/

[JBR]

Oiler fan has to fill up his calendar somehow!!

[Reggie Dunlop]

Hot dawg! Check out Cooter's Calendar of Events...

2/18-2/20 Fri-Sun. Calgary, Alberta Canada
Ben Jones "Cooter" and the General Lee will be appearing at the "The World of Wheels"

[Bill Bumface]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 4 2004, 04:36 PM
Where exactly were you standing in Eaton's Center, I-Hate-Hulse. If you could be very specific, that would be helpful.

I don't think CP supports your effort to find new peeping hotspots.