Newest Threads

**Jukas** · 10-18-2012, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jukas

I've also noticed younger people (12-25+) have an almost habitual addition to electronics, and prefer to "interact" with their friends via facebook, or sms than actually go outside and do something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrodm

He says, on an internet forum...

While I lol'd at your comment, it's hardly the same thing.

My comment was directed about those who will spend 99% of their free time with their face plugged into some form of electronic, to the point where they're becoming socially stunted.

One of my step daughters will literally spend every waking moment either texting or on tumblr, Pinterest etc. She literally spends little or no time outside, or with friends. If you let her, she will literally spend all day and night in front of her iphone. I certainly don't like it, but it's behavior her father established before the divorce and continued to this day so breaking the behavior is like trying to shovel sand back into the ocean.

When I grew up (I'm 36), if it wasn't raining and the sun was out we were outside usually in groups of 4-12 other kids. The idea of sitting in front of a TV for hours on end was unheard of outside of a early Saturday morning cartoon binge. We rarely played video games, though we would have occasional marathon binges. Most of the daylight hours were spent outside, on bikes, skateboards, swimming blah blah blah.

tl;dr me likey intrawebs in moderation.

**Jukas** · 10-18-2012, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumpher

there are "peeping tom" laws in almost every state. if you're in your house, regardless of blinds, and they put a camera in the window... PROBLEM!!!!

Sadly, that's simply inaccurate. In a legal standpoint is boils down to reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're shagging on the kitchen table in front of a big bay window and your neighbors can see you from the sidewalk because you left the blinds up you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

peeping tom would apply in a case where you were shagging on the kitchen table with blinds partially drawn, and someone comes onto the property and peers through the window. At that point you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, in addition to tresspass.

**NordeastBrewer77** · 10-18-2012, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jukas

Sadly, that's simply inaccurate. In a legal standpoint is boils down to reasonable expectation of privacy. If you're shagging on the kitchen table in front of a big bay window and your neighbors can see you from the sidewalk because you left the blinds up you no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

peeping tom would apply in a case where you were shagging on the kitchen table with blinds partially drawn, and someone comes onto the property and peers through the window. At that point you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, in addition to tresspass.

Still depends on whom the "peeping Tom" is. If peeping Tom is an LEO, then you have no reasonable expectation of anything, namely privacy.

**Jukas** · 10-18-2012, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erroneous

Yes but what if I called the cops and reported a suspicious person going around taking pictures of peoples houses? Someone wants to get the law in on my (legal but not creepy) business why not get them on his legal but creepy business.

And what if that person ends up being a realtor taking exterior images of a house that will be going up for sale? Or what if that person is a PI hired by a husband because he thinks his wife is cheating?

If you're in your driveway boiliing wort, and I'm sitting in my sexy rusted panel van across the street with a telephoto lens taking pictures you can call the cops, but they will tell you there's nothing they can do as I'm in public and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your driveway.

Creepy as hell, but certainly not illegal.

**Jukas** · 10-18-2012, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NordeastBrewer77

Still depends on whom the "peeping Tom" is. If peeping Tom is an LEO, then you have no reasonable expectation of anything, namely privacy.

Without taking this thread too far off the deep end, that's also subjective, based upon context.

If the peeping tom is an LEO doing surveillance, setting up to serve a warrant or simply investigating the report of a crime you're absolutely right. He's still have to articulate what led him there etc. I'm not sure if a cop walked up to a window randomly and by barely peaking through blinds could see a large amount of cocaine if they could articulate probable cause for a warrant.. but someone like ABG could chime in on that.

If the peeping tom is an LEO, stalking his ex, he's likely to get jammed up if he gets caught.

**NordeastBrewer77** · 10-18-2012, 05:23 AM

When I say "LEO", the assumption would be one operating under the law. A cop going around breaking the law is a different thing altogether.

**Airborneguy** · 10-18-2012, 05:38 AM

That statement was far too general for me to even bother commenting on it. If nordeast explains the point he was attempting to make, then maybe.

**NordeastBrewer77** · 10-18-2012, 05:49 AM

Aside from what I said, which I think is quite clear, I wasn't attempting to make a point at all. Feel free to chime in on the topic, you undoubtedly know more about this $hit than we do.

**Airborneguy** · 10-18-2012, 06:14 AM

You referred to the fictional LEO as a 'peeping tom', your point wasn't clear at all. If you have a scenario you'd like to discuss, pose it, but I'm not making one for you. The only reason I commented at all is because I was mentioned by name.

**NordeastBrewer77** · 10-18-2012, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airborneguy

You referred to the fictional LEO as a 'peeping tom', your point wasn't clear at all. If you have a scenario you'd like to discuss, pose it, but I'm not making one for you. The only reason I commented at all is because I was mentioned by name.

Yes, yes you were, by someone else. I have no scenario, nor do I know any fictional cops. Please don't imply otherwise because that's just not the case. I was simply making an observation of a couple posts (one of which mentioned you by name) that I thought (erroneously) were leading somewhere, nothing else. Sorry if you misunderstood my direction, but I wasn't trying to imply anything that I didn't say directly. When I said peeping tom and cop in the same sentence, that's what we call an analogy. What I meant by that analogy is that if an LEO is watching you, you have very little recourse you can take, assuming that LEO is observing you as part of an investigation. In all reality, I was stating fact, and pointing out that police have the right to observe anyone they have suspicions about. Thanks again for the snide implications and misunderstanding, I look forward to the next time, ABG.

Fvcking :facepalm: <---- they really need to get an emoticon for this.