|
Public Space debate continues with...self-love at home!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
interesting case mentioned in the Toronto Star...I figure the crown would have to prove that he *intended* to turn his home into public space by intentionally leaving the curtain/blinds open, the lights on, in plain view, etc...or that he was negligent somehow by failing to do so. Interesting.
Supreme court to hear masturbator case
CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA — Canada's top court will be asked to decide whether public indecency can begin at home.
The bizarre case of a B.C. man convicted of masturbating in a public place — his own living room — will be heard Tuesday at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Daryl Clark was convicted of the offence after a neighbour spotted him stimulating himself in his house in Nanaimo.
It was dark and after 9 p.m. on Oct. 28, 2000.
A mother watching TV with her young children about 15 metres away could see Clark through her sliding glass doors.
She moved to a darkened bedroom to get a better view. Convinced that Clark was masturbating, she called to her husband.
He described the scene as "like having a spotlight on a person on a stage. He was lit up, completely visible, quite amazingly visible," says a court summary of the case.
The couple concluded that Clark was moving from side to side to maintain his view of something. They became alarmed that he was looking at their children and moving as a tree branch blocked his view.
The couple, who cannot be identified because of a publication ban, called police. An officer witnessed the same behaviour, and flickered his flashlight at Clark's window to get his attention.
Clark stepped back and immediately turned off his living room lights.
He was convicted of wilfully committing an indecent act in public and sentenced to four months in jail.
The high court will be asked how a "public place" as defined in the criminal code should be interpreted.
Several other offences, including disorderly conduct and displaying an indecent exhibition, could be affected.
Also at issue is the legal test for defining when an act should be considered to have been wilfully committed in public. In other words, at what point should Clark have realized that he was likely to be seen by someone outside?
Clark won't be in court Tuesday, said his lawyer, Gil McKinnon.
He'll argue on Clark's behalf that lower courts were wrong to conclude his client meant to turn his private room into a public stage.
McKinnon would not comment on Clark's occupation, his age, or whether he has a prior record. His appeal was dismissed last year by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
source: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...tacodalogin=yes |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Finally! A thread in which I can appropriately use the phrase:
*FAP* *FAP* *FAP* |
|
|
| Rocco |
i have a perfectly good explanation:
he was simply "bored" and he was home alone and since he had nothing better to do, he decided to watch some good porn. Now he can't watch TV in the dark cuz it's bad for his eyes and since it was a nice day out, he left his blinds open but forgot to close them when it got darker. The porno he was watching started getting better til he couldn't take it anymore and decided to start jerking off! So he did!
is it WRONG that a man is pleasing himself at the privacy of his own home?
and this is getting to court? f00ken lame... but here is something interesting for u to think about. If things were different and instead of jerking off, he was having sex, would this have escalated the same way? |
|
|
| trancechaos |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rocco
i have a perfectly good explanation:
he was simply "bored" and he was home alone and since he had nothing better to do, he decided to watch some good porn. Now he can't watch TV in the dark cuz it's bad for his eyes and since it was a nice day out, he left his blinds open but forgot to close them when it got darker. The porno he was watching started getting better til he couldn't take it anymore and decided to start jerking off! So he did!
is it WRONG that a man is pleasing himself at the privacy of his own home?
and this is getting to court? f00ken lame... but here is something interesting for u to think about. If things were different and instead of jerking off, he was having sex, would this have escalated the same way? |
nicely put SIR ROCCO |
|
|
| Rocco |
the one thing that concerns me the most is the following:
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
She moved to a darkened bedroom to get a better view. Convinced that Clark was masturbating, she called to her husband.
|
like seriously, what a bitch! why would u spy on ur neighbour? That's invasion of privacy. If i was the guy, i would sue her for invading my privacy! I would feel permenantly embarassed and it would affect me psychologically adnd it would also affect my sexual life. For me, that's more of an offense that indecent exposure. |
|
|
| Boy trance |
man, if i got charged everytime i jerked off in front of the window... :nervous:
:stongue: |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
The fact that she had to go to another room and spy on him to confirm proves that this woman is nothing but a disturber. Id throw this out of court so fast if i were the judge. If you dont like what goes in inside someone's house you shouldnt be looking and for certain you should not be staring and concentrating on him to try and confirm.
If i were the judge i would have thrown it out and my parting words would be "im sure you have fully functional blinds on your windows as well....." |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
This is n bull... as IF he got n arrested and sentenced to 4 months in jail... no way is his own bloody living room "public space"... thats a bunch of horse... i cannot believe this made it this far up the ladder in teh system... whut a freakin' joke!
my god... this is truly sad and excesive IMO... its scary to think that he (and therefore others, you, me ?) could be jailed for that...
my good lord... this one takes the bloody cake! really bothers me to no end.... |
|
|
| tatgirl |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
The couple concluded that Clark was moving from side to side to maintain his view of something. They became alarmed that he was looking at their children and moving as a tree branch blocked his view. |
I'd be a little pissed if some dude was whacking off while looking at MY kids... ewwwwwwwwww! |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
yeah, what can I say, it's going to be a tough legal battle for me...
...for my avatar too ;) |
|
|
| Kytracid |
LAME ! How's the woman even know the guy was looking at her kids. Sounds like one of those nosy moms who thinks the entire world is out to get her kids...whatever, give that broad some prosac and tell her to keep away from the creepy guys house, problem solved. Now if the guy was jerking off on the front porch and looking in the direction of kids -- i woulda said, both moms and pops should gone over and givin him a beat...but in his own house ! Damn....
i'll say it again...LAME. |
|
|
| Rodrico |
From the man himself George Carlin:
| quote: | | "You show me a guy sitting at home stroking his penis and watching game shows, and Ill show you someone who isnt causing any in trouble" |
|
|
|
|
|
