HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Saco Man Accused Of Peeri...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:47 AM

Saco Man Accused Of Peering Up Skirts Using Shoe Camera

A Saco man was arrested Friday night for allegedly using a camera in his shoe to take photographs up women’s skirts and dresses at the Walmart store in Scarborough in July.

William Tibbals, 31, of Pepperal Street, was charged with a felony count of visual sexual aggression against a child under 12 and multiple counts of violating privacy.

Tibbals is being held at the Cumberland County Jail. Bail information is not yet available, Scarborough Police said.

The arrest followed a long investigation triggered by reports by customers that a man with a camera in his shoe was capturing images up women’s skirts, said Scarborough Police Detectives.

MORE...

http://www.kjonline.com/news/Man-with-shoe-camera-arrested-for-photographing-up-womens-skirts.html

Just reenforces the 'cameras are everywhere meme'. Creepy, indeed!

38 replies, 6084 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 38 replies Author Time Post
Reply Saco Man Accused Of Peering Up Skirts Using Shoe Camera (Original post)
Purveyor Jan 2013 OP
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #1
bettyellen Jan 2013 #8
HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #11
rug Jan 2013 #33
Orrex Jan 2013 #2
L0oniX Jan 2013 #4
redqueen Jan 2013 #5
L0oniX Jan 2013 #7
bettyellen Jan 2013 #18
upaloopa Jan 2013 #29
bettyellen Jan 2013 #30
upaloopa Jan 2013 #32
bettyellen Jan 2013 #20
L0oniX Jan 2013 #3
nick of time Jan 2013 #6
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #9
Coyotl Jan 2013 #10
redqueen Jan 2013 #12
Orrex Jan 2013 #14
redqueen Jan 2013 #15
Orrex Jan 2013 #16
redqueen Jan 2013 #17
Orrex Jan 2013 #19
gollygee Jan 2013 #26
KG Jan 2013 #13
TuxedoKat Jan 2013 #21
redqueen Jan 2013 #22
TuxedoKat Jan 2013 #24
Initech Jan 2013 #23
gollygee Jan 2013 #25
tularetom Jan 2013 #27
bettyellen Jan 2013 #31
tularetom Jan 2013 #35
bettyellen Jan 2013 #38
mythology Jan 2013 #34
FarCenter Jan 2013 #28
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #37
nyquil_man Jan 2013 #36

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:02 PM

1. What I find most interesting the charge of "visual sexual aggression"

Persons with lewd interests in violating privacy is pretty much dog bites man.

The toe-cam is a curious twist...but given technology not to interesting.

I find the wording of the criminal charge interesting, I can see that it is probably an attempt to get at a broad range of voyeurism,

but in my own twisted mind I immediately went to 'what else?'

and I wondered how many years do you get for a 'Hate Stare?' Is this a charge that can be aggravated by wearing 'colors', etc?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:19 PM

8. hate stare? more like hiding cameras in bathrooms or bedrooms. laws haven't kept up with technology

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:23 PM

11. Oh I do understand. But the words "visual aggression" has an curiously Orwellian ring

I'm no fan of voyeurism or the use of technology to invade privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HereSince1628 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:28 PM

33. Here's the Maine statute.

§256. Visual sexual aggression against child
1. A person is guilty of visual sexual aggression against a child if:
A. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire or for the purpose of causing affront or alarm, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 14 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime;
B. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, exposes the actor's genitals to another person or causes the other person to expose that person's genitals to the actor and the other person, not the actor's spouse, has not in fact attained 12 years of age. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime;
C. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 14 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or
D. For the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, the actor, having in fact attained 18 years of age, intentionally engages in visual surveillance, aided or unaided by mechanical or electronic equipment, of the uncovered breasts, buttocks, genitals, anus or pubic area of another person, not the actor's spouse and not having in fact attained 12 years of age, under circumstances in which a reasonable person would expect to be safe from such visual surveillance. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:05 PM

2. I blame the women

They must have known that they'd be going places where people wear shoes, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:10 PM

4. Women in Walmart walking around with no panties? Oh the shame of it all.

WTF did this guy think he was going to see? Nothing you can't see in a Sears catalogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:14 PM

5. The goal is to see things that the girls/women pictured *don't want you to see*.

It's all about violation.

This is why despite having unending porn on the net, sneaky pictures of celebrities (e.g. Kate Middleton) are so popular. The pictures aren't good quality, it's nothing you can't see practically everywhere, but these are the off-limits bodies, so it's better.

It's sick.

Ever seen Creepshots? Same principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:18 PM

7. Ah ...well that explains why they don't do the same thing out at the beach. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:45 PM

18. common at topless beaches. guys try to sneak camera phone pics and video constantly.

but they're not photographing anything you weren't willing to show, so if you don't want to end up on the net you flip over or turn away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 06:47 PM

29. No there is such a thing as beach etiquette

It always amazed me when some men wondered why women didn't go to nude beaches as much as men did while holding a telephoto lens camera.
People at the beach are not there for your enjoyment and entertainment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:25 PM

30. yeah, some creeps would go towel to towel to chat up girls and it was kind of obvious the why

and we'd just shake our heads and lie on our bellies. A lot of girls were bothered and don't know how to get rid of them though. And no one wanted to talk to them at the bars later. What losers.

My teenage friend in HS, her Dad would take pics when they were out as a family. All of them were mortified, but he was "the boss".
Ick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:18 PM

32. My wife and I would go to a nude beach. We took those cheese fish crackers. If some guy obviously

positioned himself to stare my wife, she would start throwing the crackers in the air so sea gulls would hover over the guy and bombs away!

Another female friend would walk up to the guy and ask to see the camera because she was interested in photography and open it and expose the film.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:15 PM

20. even if they don't care if you see, like nude beaches... it's intrusive and stalkery to keep images

of people you have encountered, but do not know, in real life. much more agressive than consuming images where the models have agreed to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:06 PM

3. Mirror top shoes and x-ray vision glasses are obsolete. Walmart??? WTF

What the hell do they expect the TSA to do now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:15 PM

6. This is sick beyond words.

 

I bet he's a loner, can't get a girlfriend, is a pedophile.
If found guilty, hope judge throws the book at him just for looking up the dress of a 12 yo.
What is our society coming to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:20 PM

9. He must lead a dismal, boring, sad life to get his kicks from this juvenile thing.

Young boys have been peering up girls' dresses since the beginning of time. It's a juvenile, mainly adolescent activity. A 31 year old man who does that is very sad. He should still be charged criminally, but how embarrassing that he was doing something a kid would do.

Plus...how many girls wear dresses these days? Esp in a casual environment like walmart?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:22 PM

10. This OP needs an edit

Wal*Mart customer accused ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:25 PM

12. This happens to girls at school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:28 PM

14. Oeering happens to girls at school?

That, I think, was the typo in question.

The creep's shoe trick isn't funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:33 PM

15. No. The typo wasn't even mentioned. WTF?

The joke was that it should be specified that it happened at Walmart because ha ha ha Walmart shoppers ha ha.

This is not a laughing matter and it sickens me that x-ray glasses and toe mirrors are being treated like such an innocent thing and not the trappings of rape culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:35 PM

16. Perhaps we're reading through different lenses

I read "the OP needs an edit" and concluded that that the obvious typo was at issue.
You perceive a different intent.

So be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:37 PM

17. Yeah. To you, the proposed correction doesn't have any meaning.

I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:52 PM

19. The proposed correction of the typo has little meaning, I agree

The OP's subject line reads:
Saco Man Accused Of Oeering Up Skirts Using Shoe Camera

Coyotl's post reads:
Wal*Mart customer accused ...


It seems fairly clear to me that Coyotl is pointing out the typo. I accept that you don't see it this way, but in my view you are mistaking Coyotl's intent.

As to the issue of the guy with the shoes, I don't think there's any question that he's a creep and should be prosecuted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:26 PM

26. Holy crap

I shouldn't even read this stuff. I'm losing faith in humanity, with Steubenville and school shootings and everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 12:26 PM

13. toe mirrors!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 02:26 PM

21. This is why my daughter and her friends

wear shorts under skirts and dresses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TuxedoKat (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:11 PM

22. Check out Creepshots

It doesn't matter what they wear. They just have to have the bad luck to run into a predatory asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:15 PM

24. Yes

that's probably true, but wearing shorts can deter some of them I hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:13 PM

23. That guy looks like a real winner too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:23 PM

25. If there's someone under 12, it is women's and girls' skirts and dresses

So the article's first line is incomplete. It would be horrible if it were just women obviously, but a child 11 or younger? This kind of thing makes me feel very angry. I have a daughter that age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 05:40 PM

27. I have fond memories of of oeering up my teacher's skirt in the 7th grade

She would sit on the edge of her desk and cross her legs.

I don't think she had any intention of doing anything provocative. She was fresh out of teacher's college and apparently not familiar with the innermost thoughts of 12 year old boys.

And any male who claims he didn't do that at that age is lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:28 PM

31. there's a huge difference at peering at what's there and photographing it, and using devices to peep

where you know you are not supposed to.
Please tell me you understand the differences. Because they are HUGE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:49 AM

35. Sometimes I don't express myself well

but I assure you I'm not trying to equate adolescent fantasies with the twisted acts of a pervert.

It's just that I was picking up an undertone from several of the responses in this thread to the effect that any male who ever happened to look up a woman's skirt, knowingly or unknowingly, deliberately or by chance, had committed acts of sexual deviancy so vile that he barely deserved to continue to live among decent human beings. This was my attempt to respond to those posts and I was in no way condoning what this creep did.

I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:16 AM

38. no one here equated or suggested punishing kid's peering with adults' twisted perverted acts,

but like you a few brought the adolescent fantasies- the "Boys will be boys" trope... INSTEAD of commenting on the subject of the thread. That kind of sucks.
There was NO undertone to respond to, did you even notice that, before you made a joke of the OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:32 PM

34. That's a little different than attaching a camera to your shoe

and doing so to a 12 year old as opposed to a grown woman sitting awkwardly in a skirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to FarCenter (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 03:02 AM

37. My god, that is the saddest/funniest website ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 02:54 AM

36. "The man in the crowd with the multi-colored mirrors/On his hobnail boots"

Perverts have been doing this stuff for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread