His Holiness, the Peeping Tom

[El Barto]

https://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_southeast_valley/chandler/man-arrested-for-secretly-taping-neighbors

CHANDLER, AZ - A Chandler couple is thinking of selling their home and moving away after they say they caught their neighbor secretly videotaping them.

On Monday, John Paul was arrested and charged with taping his neighbors without their consent and for lying to police.

According to court records, Paul, 60, first denied the accusation and blamed it on a nephew, Aaron, who was visiting.

Paul told police he kicked out the nephew once he found out what he was doing.

Investigators also talked to Paul's wife, who confirmed the story.

But when police returned to Paul’s house, records show he recanted his story, confessed that "Aaron" did not exist and admitted to recording his female neighbor for “personal satisfaction. ”

Neighbors said the victim’s husband spotted the camera when he was in the backyard looking for scorpions.

The camera had been placed on a tripod on top of the common fence that separates both homes, records showed.

When the victim’s husband found it, he told police the camera was still recording.

Once they started playing the video, the wife realized she was in the video partially undressed.

"This is just disgusting," said the victim's attorney, Thomas Asimou.

Investigators say at times, the video showed the woman using the toilet and walking around in her underwear and a T-shirt.

"She feels really violated and we feel bad for her," said Michael Vachon, a neighbor who knows the victim. “This was a surprise to all of us."

Vachon has lived in the neighborhood for three years and worries the neighborhood will change after this incident.

"There's gotta be 30, 40 kids in this block alone and to know that somebody so close to us is doing this… it's disturbing,” he said.

"My daughter, she runs out and plays every day and we don't know if we should let her out because we know he's out [of jail],” Vachon said.

He remembers meeting Paul and talking to him.

Vachon described him as an older fellow, who they would not expect would commit such alleged acts.

“What a jerk,” said Kathy Colburn, another neighbor. “Don't you have anything better to do with your time?"

Colburn, a six-year resident of the neighborhood, thinks people like Paul should not live there.

“I just think the homeowners in the neighborhood should almost gang up on him. Make it uncomfortable for him to stay,” she said.

"That is just wrong,” she added.

Even though Paul's wife confirmed the fake story of "Aaron," police did not arrest her. It is unclear how much she knew.

Read more: https://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_southeast_valley/chandler/man-arrested-for-secretly-taping-neighbors#ixzz1uKEGuglS

Female news person:  Well imagine this, a video camera right outside your bedroom recording your every move.  How would you react?
El Barto:  I'd close the fucking blinds.  Dumbass.

I don't wish to defend a guy so stupid as to leave a camera in plain view of an enrageable husband, but I'm not sure he actually did anything wrong, much less felonious.  If he didn't access their property to take his gander, and with no trespassing charges pending I'd take that as the case, then how is this anybody's fault but her own?  If your window is visible from the neighbor's property, then isn't it kind of your responsibility to not get ogled?

[TioJorge]

That is exactly what I thought, Barto. I remember once when I was a kid, there was a pretty gross old man who always walked around naked in his house (we found out later he was just insane...literally insane, dude was a nudist and he didn't know it) and left every single window open. Thus, anyone who walked by and just so happened to glance at the house and he just so happened to walk by, you'd get a nice big eyeful of two grapefruits in a tube-sock and a dusty old boudin link. Anyway, my dad and I were walking our dogs one day and this happened, which enraged my dad (my mother had apparently seen this as well and brought it up afterwards) and he called the police to see if there was anything they could do. Turns out, it was considered some kind of public indecency and he was forced to either put on clothes while walking in front of an openly viewable window and/or close all windows that were clearly open. So, it was on him, not on my dad or mother for seeing him.

That said, they could have just as easily been "watching" and not just "seeing" (cept he was an old nasty man so...no). I think the illegality comes in when the video camera caught her on tape without her permission in the privacy of her own home. It would be different, I think, if she were just on the street, or perhaps even in her front or back yard in her skimpies. But the fact that he not only admitted to recording her for "his own pleasure", but also concocted a story about it is where the nail is in the coffin for him. Though I don't think it'd be a serious charge, it's still seen as a breech of privacy. But yeah, it sounds like a grey area. For instance, if he set it up on his property, but positioned it to where (for the sake of the circumstance) it captured just their backyard and they liked to screw outside, who knows if anything could be done; they're openly viewable and it's a camera that he put out to capture birds (but he would probably just admit it because stupid shit). Either way, he's a perv; but as you said, those stupid fuckers need to buy some god damn drapes and close them and/or ask him to give them a couple bucks for the tape and/or shut their fucking fuck holes.

But uh, interesting situation; fun read. Love all the neighbors comments. Neighbors...gross.

[black_biff_stadler]

It's fucking lunacy to suggest that any of the fault be placed on the couple. Just because there were steps they could've taken to avoid this doesn't in any way absolve that old perv of his violation of their privacy. It's like a milder way of saying a woman could simply avoid rape by never leaving the house or by getting her snizz sewn shut.

[Progmetty]

Close the blinds or I'll assume you find it kinky, it's just ABC good neighboring

[GuineaPig]

It's fucking lunacy to suggest that any of the fault be placed on the couple. Just because there were steps they could've taken to avoid this doesn't in any way absolve that old perv of his violation of their privacy. It's like a milder way of saying a woman could simply avoid rape by never leaving the house or by getting her snizz sewn shut.

[SystematicThought]

When I was little, I remember that there was a bucket in our backyard that we kept there to gather sticks and branches. Every so often, you'd find the bucket at the kitchen window turned upside down. Our next door neighbor had access to our yard through a gate that connected to his yard. We caught him in the act once, but he was friends with all the cops/firefighters you name it because he was an ex-firefighter, so we couldn't really do anything as they would dismiss it because they liked the guy. So I feel for this couple

[King Postwhore]

Remote in one hand and..........

[glaurung]

It's fucking lunacy to suggest that any of the fault be placed on the couple. Just because there were steps they could've taken to avoid this doesn't in any way absolve that old perv of his violation of their privacy. It's like a milder way of saying a woman could simply avoid rape by never leaving the house or by getting her snizz sewn shut.

What separates this from a member of the paparazzi camping outside some celebrity's home for the sole purpose of getting pictures of them?

[black_biff_stadler]

It's fucking lunacy to suggest that any of the fault be placed on the couple. Just because there were steps they could've taken to avoid this doesn't in any way absolve that old perv of his violation of their privacy. It's like a milder way of saying a woman could simply avoid rape by never leaving the house or by getting her snizz sewn shut.

What separates this from a member of the paparazzi camping outside some celebrity's home for the sole purpose of getting pictures of them?

I don't really know but neither is in the right and they're both assholes for doing so since they'd both have to hide behind legal "rights" rather than logically and sanely justifying their shitty actions.

[TioJorge]

The couple obviously is not at fault legally, but by the power invested through motherfucking brain matter, one can assume that if you walk around naked and/or in skimpy clothing with the windows open, someone may very well see you. If you have a problem with that, then yeah you should probably close your blinds and/or start masturbating so that I can be polite and masturbate back. Now, the camera is where the problem comes in. Clearly the perv is wrong, I don't think Barto was arguing that; more that the couple was the catalyst for such an event, and while clearly, once again, the perv is the problem for being the peeper, he'd have nothing to peep on if they didn't have their windows open and weren't such jackasses about walking in public view whilst naked and/or partially naked. Suppose he did in fact not use a camera and decided to watch, just stare at their window, and "Oopsie dandelion!" she walks by. So, he stares some more. Is that still illegal? She, knowing that the public has certain vantage points into her home, walks around nude. I'd say that lest the camera is brought into the mix, there's nothing wrong about that at all, not legally; morally? Well y'know fuck morals, that shit is weak, brah. But the fact that she is in public view and still knowingly walks around should tell me that she either is stupid and actually doesn't realize this fact or she doesn't care and yes, is inadvertedly inviting such circumstances. I don't give two shits about the whole argument that "It's not those girls faults that they were raped!" "Well, cunt, she was walking around in a bathing suit in the middle of downtown Brooklyn at midnight. Legally, she invited nothing. But thanks be to Kami-sama, legalities exist in our nicely cookie-cut world of books. This is the real world, bitch. Bend over." "NO! OH MY GOD! YOU'RE AN OFFICER OF THE LAW, WHAT ARE YOU DOING!?" "SHUT YOUR MOUTH, CURR! THIS IS A FUCKING HALLOWEEN COSTUME FROM PARTY CITY, HOW DID YOU NOT SEE THE RACCOON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT LOGO WRITTEN ON IT!? YOU DON'T LIKE ZOMBIES!?" "WHERE'S RACCOON CITY? WHO ACTUALLY LIKES ZOMBIES!?" "I DO, YOU FUCK! RESIDENT EVIL IS A BEAUTIFULLY CRAFTED SERIES THAT BROUGHT FORTH THE AGE OF SURVIVAL HORROR!" "AHHHHHHHHH OMG I'M BEING RAPED BY A ZOMBIE LOVER GAMER GEEK!".

But for the sake of keyboards, let's say that they were in fact outside, trying to get a nice and even tan, so they get naked and sun bath out back. What then? What if the man truly did see a bird in their tree and he said to himself "God, smack my ass and call me Hokkaidoujokeyboi, cause that bird is a god damn saint. I can feel it. I can feel its holiness resonating from here. I have to film it." So, he does. He films this bird, and this bird is so beautiful that he gets an erection. THEN he slips whilst pleasuring himself (to the bird) and through the camera, sees the couple bathing naked. Disgusted and revolted, he panics; he makes much noise and they see him, mistaking him for a perv for humans and not for birds, which this man is. They call the police and he is arrested, blah blah blah, we've all heard this story a million times. So what then? Is the man arrested for some kind of bird perving? Or is he arrested for human perving? But he truly wasn't perving on the humans! It's all about dem birdie breasts! So what the fuck is wrong with this world, huh!? Those stupid ass-humans are just trying to fuck some shit up and mess with an innocent bird perv. They invited anyone (including satellites, I like that song by P.O.D.) to see them by going outside, despite the fact that "Oh, little miss prissy thinks she owns this here plot of land so she can do whateverthefuck she wants on it" and yadda yadda. Why are you still reading? I'm obviously just bored and care not for this story. OBVIOUSLY. OBLIVIOUSLY. OBLIVIONLY. ONIONY.

It took me so fucking long to correct all my fuck ups... Like...fourty....fifty five minutes. I don't even care about this shit anymore. Just kill me. Just do it. Nike. If any MODs delete this post I swear to god I will do absolutely nothing and I will fully cooperate. WHAT!? WUT!?!?

[glaurung]

It's fucking lunacy to suggest that any of the fault be placed on the couple. Just because there were steps they could've taken to avoid this doesn't in any way absolve that old perv of his violation of their privacy. It's like a milder way of saying a woman could simply avoid rape by never leaving the house or by getting her snizz sewn shut.

What separates this from a member of the paparazzi camping outside some celebrity's home for the sole purpose of getting pictures of them?

I don't really know but neither is in the right and they're both assholes for doing so since they'd both have to hide behind legal "rights" rather than logically and sanely justifying their shitty actions.

I'm not arguing with you on that, both the paparazzi and this guy are a bunch of dicks. But since neither party is breaking the law it really is up to whoever is in the house to protect themselves.

[El Barto]

It's fucking lunacy to suggest that any of the fault be placed on the couple. Just because there were steps they could've taken to avoid this doesn't in any way absolve that old perv of his violation of their privacy. It's like a milder way of saying a woman could simply avoid rape by never leaving the house or by getting her snizz sewn shut.

There is no violation of privacy.  If he had gone onto their property, there would have been and we wouldn't be having this discussion.  In fact, this is probably more an instance of the couple voluntarily giving up their privacy. 

Close the blinds or I'll assume you find it kinky, it's just ABC good neighboring

Yup, and that's exactly what I'm telling the judge.  "Your honor, by neglecting to take even the simplest steps to prevent others from seeing into their room, this woman led me to the very reasonable conclusion that allowing others to watch her get undressed was how she got her rocks off, that dirty girl.   "

And just to address TioJorge's somewhat bizarre rant, the videotaping is the only legal problem here.  If he'd just gone outside and beat his meat, then nothing would have come of it.  Any claim of public lewdness would have gone both ways, I imagine.

[eric42434224]

Neighbors said the victim’s husband spotted the camera when he was in the backyard looking for scorpions.

??

[SystematicThought]

Interesting weekend hobby....

"Honey! Gonna go look for scorpions!!"
*sees camera*
"The fuck?" Honey!!

[black_biff_stadler]

Neighbors said the victim’s husband spotted the camera when he was in the backyard looking for scorpions.

??

 

That caught my eye too.

[Cool Chris]

In WA State, there is something in the law books called a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' It is relatively new, and enacted when a voyeur argued his way out of charges that he took pictures up gals' skirts while in public. The law, as written before, exonerated him. So they added provisions.  Not sure how that would apply here, but thought I would throw this out there.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.115

[El Barto]

Reasonable expectation of privacy exists everywhere, as it's been a cornerstone of the 4th amendment.  I just don't believe one has such an expectation if they leave the blinds open in their home.  In the upskirt example, which is pretty much the basis for every such law in the States, by wearing a skirt/knickers, the girl intended to cover up her privates.  If she were walking around bottomless, then there wouldn't be any charge for taking pictures of her.  Same thing applies here, IMO.

An interesting tidbit from the Washington revised code is that apparently the length and demeanor of the gaze determines whether or not you're a criminal. I guess if you accidentally walk in on someone changing, there's a point of time where it goes from innocent to creepy.  (e) "Views" means the intentional looking upon of another person for more than a brief period of time, in other than a casual or cursory manner, with the unaided eye or with a device designed or intended to improve visual acuity. 

I think three Mississippi's would be reasonable, unless you grin, and then you only get one.

[black_biff_stadler]

I'd say being inside of your own dwelling makes it pretty clear you aren't trying to put on a show for anyone since for every isolated case of an exhibitionist wanting to be peeped on, you've literally got dozens if not hundreds of other people who merely didn't think to close the blinds and don't feel like turning their house into Fort Knox.

[El Barto]

It's not really a function of wanting to put on a show.  If they don't think or want to close their blinds, more power to them (if they're attractive, at least).  However, don't go criminalizing people who happen to get their jollies by taking a gander when the opportunity is staring them in the face.

[black_biff_stadler]

Should we really have to make a new law to get the point across that it ain't cool to look at people when they're in the privacy of their own home? Some people REEEEEEAAAALLLY need to get a life of their own. For fuck's sake, internet porn is free, ridiculously easy to access, and available in such an array of styles featuring a limitless amount of different looking actors/actresses that if you can't simply get your rocks off doing that and need to make your own neighbor uncomfortable, you should probably be euthanized.

[El Barto]

No, I'm saying that there's already one law too many.  And if the girl is remotely attractive, and waltzing around in front of her window with the understanding that anybody who checks her out is the bad guy, then I'd say she's the one making her neighbors uncomfortable. 

[black_biff_stadler]

No, I'm saying that there's already one law too many.

Pretty odd area to draw the line since it concerns privacy rights which you've frequently shown a passion for protecting.

...if the girl is remotely attractive, and waltzing around in front of her window with the understanding that anybody who checks her out is the bad guy, then I'd say she's the one making her neighbors uncomfortable. 

Because it's so difficult to NOT look at a house that isn't yours and doesn't concern you in any capacity whatsoever.

[Progmetty]

You're comparing internet porn to this?! internet porn was made for people who don't have this opportunity! BF you trying to tell me you wouldn't look at a woman undressing in an open window across the street?! your membership of the men gender is hereby fuckin revoked man, let alone your chances at meeting Lorraine Baines

[black_biff_stadler]

Not quite, metty Boop. Just saying that if I ever was to do so, I sure as shit wouldn't do it in an obvious enough way to make it known or make any other parties feel like prisoners in their own home.

[Nick]

I'd say being inside of your own dwelling makes it pretty clear you aren't trying to put on a show for anyone since for every isolated case of an exhibitionist wanting to be peeped on, you've literally got dozens if not hundreds of other people who merely didn't think to close the blinds and don't feel like turning their house into Fort Knox.

Except if you've made the insides of your own home viewable to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks by then you haven't exactly made the dwelling very private, have you?

[El Barto]

Not quite, metty Boop. Just saying that if I ever was to do so, I sure as shit wouldn't do it in an obvious enough way to make it known or make any other parties feel like prisoners in their own home.

WTF?  That's not what you've been saying at all.

I'll also point out that it's actually the spirit that The Pope up there intended.  The camera was feeble attempt at surreptitiousness, as I'm pretty sure he was hoping not to be noticed himself. 

[Progmetty]

Not quite, metty Boop. Just saying that if I ever was to do so, I sure as shit wouldn't do it in an obvious enough way to make it known or make any other parties feel like prisoners in their own home.

WTF?  That's not what you've been saying at all.

I was gonna post that when it said while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted

[MetalMike06]

you'd get a nice big eyeful of two grapefruits in a tube-sock and a dusty old boudin link.

 

[black_biff_stadler]

Allow me to clarify. If it's like a one-time thing that you noticed by chance then whatever. My beef is with people getting premeditated about it and going far beyond a natural curiosity of a one-off thing. I get that it's pretty awesome to randomly catch some hottie undressing but if you start making a habit of it then you're kind of venturing into voyeur/creeper territory.

Taping it is just plain absurd.

[Progmetty]

Well making a hobby or anything devoted out of it certainly is an almost comedic extreme but if it's the neighbor and she's there undressing every day at the same time with the window open then it would be a handful of casual checks for the thing to get boring on it's own. Religiously getting out of your way to be there looking everyday for as long as the woman does it would be absurd I agree with that, unless you're a teenager then it's understandable to a degree, imo.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that if she's doing it so regularly as to develop a somewhat devoted watcher then she probably knows it and likes it. And if not then she's dumb enough to deserve it for undressing with the window open and lying to your face as to how she finds the peeping tom an unprovoked pervert.

[El Barto]

Considering that the couple claim to have moved out of their own home because of it, I suspect she was not into the whole exhibition scene.  That suggests that they're just fucking nimrods. 

As for the perv, I consider it a matter of great importance to not judge people based on how they get their rocks off.  I'd be willing to bet that most of us here would just as soon not have our own private interests held against us.  Since he wasn't harming anybody else with his hobby*,  I'm content to take a live and let live stance.  Dirty old men are a fact of life, after all.

*In this instance, while he certainly compounded the problem with his lack of common sense, the harm is really their own fault.   

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Neighbors said the victim’s husband spotted the camera when he was in the backyard looking for scorpions.

??

Found 'em.

From a legal perspective, yeah, he may have done nothing wrong.  But if he's taping it, no doubt the guy violated her privacy.  That said, take care to close your blinds.

[El Barto]

The taping might compound the matter; I'm not sure.  Certainly if he were intending to post it to the internet, then I might take offense at that, although I'd still say the blame rests with the couple.  If he were just gong to keep it for his own personal amusement, then I fall back to the dirty old man position and leave it at that.

[black_biff_stadler]

It's the couple's fault that they live next to a creeper?

[TioJorge]

Wowee...