boomerjamhead Posted January 28, 2005 Posted January 28, 2005 You won't believe this actually happened.
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2005 Posted January 28, 2005 On the one hand, I think the overt act of standing in front of the window is enough to prove intent to be seen. On the other hand... She alerted her husband, and the couple observed Clark from their darkened bedroom for 10 or 15 minutes -- also using binoculars and a telescope -- before summoning the police, Why the hell were you looking at him for 15 minutes, you loons??? Close your own !@#$ing shades. Geez...! "Quick, honey...they guy next door is jerking off...how offensive!...get the camcorder!"
Alaska Darin Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 On the one hand, I think the overt act of standing in front of the window is enough to prove intent to be seen. On the other hand... Why the hell were you looking at him for 15 minutes, you loons??? Close your own !@#$ing shades. Geez...! "Quick, honey...they guy next door is jerking off...how offensive!...get the camcorder!" 222264[/snapback] Must not have been any good reality shows on that night.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 Like this never happens HERE!!!! At least the court ruling was overturned!
boomerjamhead Posted January 29, 2005 Author Posted January 29, 2005 Like this never happens HERE!!!! At least the court ruling was overturned! 222467[/snapback] Move north sicko.
olivier in france Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 On the other hand...Why the hell were you looking at him for 15 minutes, you loons??? Close your own !@#$ing shades. Geez...! "Quick, honey...they guy next door is jerking off...how offensive!...get the camcorder!" 222264[/snapback] that's right i think the real sick persons were the couple watching him! i'm suprised the guy has not counteratacked and sue them! anyway the atmosphere must be nice in that neighborhood! "good Morning Mr Smith, how's you hand doing? "Good Morning Mrs Jackson, i go hiking this week end could i take you binoculars?!"
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 29, 2005 Posted January 29, 2005 Move north sicko. 222475[/snapback] Gee, touchy aren't we? I guess humor isn't your strong point
boomerjamhead Posted January 30, 2005 Author Posted January 30, 2005 Gee, touchy aren't we? I guess humor isn't your strong point 222507[/snapback] No, you're right. This type of crap probably does happen here [Vermont]. And no, masturbating in an open window isn't the type of thing to make light of. Well, if it's commonplace [Vermont], I guess it just might be. You have a good point [Vermont].
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 No, you're right. This type of crap probably does happen here [Vermont]. And no, masturbating in an open window isn't the type of thing to make light of. Well, if it's commonplace [Vermont], I guess it just might be. You have a good point [Vermont]. 222898[/snapback] And so you think he should have been found GUILTY because someone went out of their way to SNOOP into someone's window in a darkened room with binoculars??? READ THE ARTICLE before coming back with that.. you know, words, with letters... It wasn't just an open window [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
boomerjamhead Posted January 30, 2005 Author Posted January 30, 2005 And so you think he should have been found GUILTY because someone went out of their way to SNOOP into someone's window in a darkened room with binoculars??? READ THE ARTICLE before coming back with that.. you know, words, with letters... It wasn't just an open window [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] 222924[/snapback] Yeah because NORMAL people MASTURBATE in OPEN windows. Did I communicate correctly? Let's parse this out again since I'm the one who cannot read here... From Paragraph #2: The Supreme Court of Canada noted that British Columbian, Daryl Clark, had agreed it was an indecent act to have masturbated "in an illuminated room near an uncovered window visible to neighbors." From Paragraph #6: She alerted her husband, and the couple observed Clark from their darkened bedroom for 10 or 15 minutes -- also using binoculars and a telescope -- before summoning the police, who said the upper part of Clark's body was visible from just below the navel. I guess this is typical Vermont behavior. Damn neighbors.
/dev/null Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 reminds me of a song my buddies and i would sing after getting loaded on molsens... to the tune of "Oh Canada!" Oh! Can-a-beer! My heart bleeds for you! You truly suck! i don't remember the rest, we'd kinda wing it from there off our wits and blood alcholol level
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Yeah because NORMAL people MASTURBATE in OPEN windows. Did I communicate correctly? Let's parse this out again since I'm the one who cannot read here... From Paragraph #2: The Supreme Court of Canada noted that British Columbian, Daryl Clark, had agreed it was an indecent act to have masturbated "in an illuminated room near an uncovered window visible to neighbors." From Paragraph #6: She alerted her husband, and the couple observed Clark from their darkened bedroom for 10 or 15 minutes -- also using binoculars and a telescope -- before summoning the police, who said the upper part of Clark's body was visible from just below the navel. I guess this is typical Vermont behavior. Damn neighbors. 222950[/snapback] They needed BINOCULARS and a TELESCOPE.... NOT just an open window!!!!! Once again, if you need AIDS to observe someone through an open window, that's not HIS problem... that is snooping, and the court RECOGNIZED this fact, and therefore the guy was not guilty. He was stupid for doing it, BUT if the neighbors need AIDS to see it, then they are snooping!!
Wacka Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 They had AIDS? How do you know? dDid you see their blood tests?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 They had AIDS? How do you know? dDid you see their blood tests? 223098[/snapback] When I was typing that, I actually THOUGHT of that!!! I believe in the law on inevitability. If it can be interpreted in a different way, it will be found INEVITABLY!!!
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 They needed BINOCULARS and a TELESCOPE.... NOT just an open window!!!!! Once again, if you need AIDS to observe someone through an open window, that's not HIS problem... that is snooping, and the court RECOGNIZED this fact, and therefore the guy was not guilty. He was stupid for doing it, BUT if the neighbors need AIDS to see it, then they are snooping!! 222977[/snapback] Actually, NOTHING said THEY needed THEM. Considering THEY saw THE guy, THEN got THE telescope AND binocs, I'd SAY they WEREN'T necessary, JUST optional...WHICH, in MY opinion, IS even STUPIDER.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 Actually, NOTHING said THEY needed THEM. Considering THEY saw THE guy, THEN got THE telescope AND binocs, I'd SAY they WEREN'T necessary, JUST optional...WHICH, in MY opinion, IS even STUPIDER. 223104[/snapback] I KNOW! As if I condone doing that in front of an open window ANYWAY!!! Those people, craning to see what is going on, seem to me to be just as pathetic! But that's just me...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 I KNOW! As if I condone doing that in front of an open window ANYWAY!!! Those people, craning to see what is going on, seem to me to be just as pathetic! But that's just me... 223110[/snapback] YOU didn't APPEAR to KNOW that, SINCE you SAID the BINOCULARS were "NECESSARY".
Mark VI Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 On the one hand 222264[/snapback] That's the problem right there.
erynthered Posted January 30, 2005 Posted January 30, 2005 YOU didn't APPEAR to KNOW that, SINCE you SAID the BINOCULARS were "NECESSARY". 223114[/snapback] GOOD stuff TOM, amazing IS IT not
Recommended Posts