The last bit of my top 100 prospects package, ranking the top ten prospects by position, went up on Wednesday. I didn’t chat this week, as I was in Bristol for ESPN’s annual baseball summit; the guest speaker was Rob Manfred, better known as the new Commissioner of Major League Baseball, and I was extremely impressed by his candor, his enthusiasm, and the intelligence evident in how quickly and thoughtfully he answered a broad number of questions posed to him by our writers, some on the record and some off. I won’t agree with all of his policies – at the end of the day, he’s still paid by the owners and has an obligation to them – but I do think the sport is great hands under him.
My Top Chef recap was a bit late for this week for the same reason, but I posted it on Friday evening. I should be on time, or closer to it, with my recap of the finale on Thursday morning.
And now, this week’s links…
- Let’s hit the vaccination stuff first. I agree with this Gizmodo piece that we should ridicule and shame the anti-vaccination movement, although I’m fine with a little humiliation thrown in, because the ends (wiping out diseases that kill infants, the elderly, and the immune-compromised) justify a lot of means here. Also, a British blog dedicated to autism science points out, via a CNN piece, that a huge chunk of vaccine denialism is paid for by the Dwoskin Family Foundation. In anti-science, as in politics, just follow the money – and, if you see where it’s going, try to stop it. If you know of sources taking ad money from the Dwoskins or their puppet groups like the NVIC (the most prominent vaccine denier organization in the U.S.), contact them and ask them to stop. I’ve done so with one company that has been running an ad from the NVIC, and am hopeful based on our early conversations that they’ll pull the ad now that their corporate headquarters is aware of it. All that is needed for the triumph of selfish, ignorant science deniers is for the rest of us sane people to do nothing. (Side note: The Dwoskin foundation’s offices are around the corner from my house. I’m not sure what, if anything, I can do based on that knowledge, though.)
- If you’re here, you probably like baseball, so this Baseball Prospectus article on their new mixed-model approach to estimating catcher framing values is a must-read. I think most of us hate that catcher framing exists, but as long as it exists, we need to understand it, and BP continues to lead the way in showing us how to do so.
- This half-hour audio program from the BBC is worth the time investment: An extensive interview with Vietnamese writer Le Ly Hayslip, who fought for the Viet Cong as a teenager, was captured three times, married an American man, moved to California, and has since started a foundation to help rebuild the village where she grew up. Her story was the basis for Oliver Stone’s 1993 film Heaven and Earth
; he’s interviewed as well.
- Meanwhile, in Oregon, a judge ruled that a man who took upskirt photos of a 13-year-old girl in a Target didn’t commit a crime. Not that we’d want to consider evidence that he’s a potential sexual predator or anything.
- I went to Narcissa in Manhattan with a friend on Wednesday night, and we had their famous slow-roasted, crisped beets, which was easily the best beet dish I’ve ever had, one of the best vegetable dishes I’ve ever had, period. That link describes how the dish is made, with twenty photos, although I don’t think the picture of the interior of the beets does their texture justice.
- NPR’s The Salt blog, normally about food, delves into the science of nitrate runoffs in Iowa agriculture, and why it’s not so simple as blaming too much nitrogen-rich fertilizer.
First off, let me say that I agree unequivocally that everyone who can get vaccinated should get vaccinated and that anti-vax non-science is just that: non-scientific bullshit.
However, I don’t know if ridicule, shame, and humiliation is the right way to go. Maybe — maybe — for the leaders of the movement. But for the rank-and-file, people who genuinely think they’re doing the right thing (as wrong-headed as they are)… how often has ridicule, shame, and humiliation changed such people’s minds? These folks already see themselves as persecuted. And some of them feel deeply victimized by their children’s developmental variations (for those who have children with developmental variations and blame them — wrongly — on vaccines). Telling these people how stupid and selfish they are isn’t a winning tactic.
We should absolutely go after those who play on these people’s fears. Give those people hell. But to the others? The people who are wrong but not evil, dumb maybe but not malicious, what is gained by demonizing them?
I agree. Great response.
Well, if those rank and file idiots would listen to reason, then other options wouldn’t be needed. At least the leaders have a solid reason for their stupidity, money. The morons who follow them don’t have that excuse …
Wow–I’m very surprised at your take on the story about the 13-year-old girl at Target.
While I understand you have a daughter that is within shouting distance of that age, and while I think EVERYONE (except the creep who took the photos) agrees this should be illegal, the fact is that what happened is not–at least, at the moment–illegal in the state of Oregon.
If you read the comments that accompany the linked article, they run about 80% in the vein of “The judge should have thrown him in jail, regardless of the law.” You seem to be concurring, since your remark, “Not that we’d want to consider evidence that he’s a potential sexual predator or anything” is clearly a critique of his ruling and his process. But this is obviously not how the American system of law works, and it’s not how it should work. If a judge starts ruling based on what he thinks the law should be, or based on his reaction to the defendant, or based on his guess about what the defendant might do if he’s released, that’s a big problem. If that’s how we want to do it, then laws cease to be laws, and instead become suggestions or good advice. It is clear from the article that the judge hated to make this ruling, but that he also felt that he had no alternative under the law. I’m not a JD, but I think his conclusion is correct. Indeed, I think the fact that he made this ruling–particularly in a state where judges are popularly elected–is de facto evidence that there was no wiggle room, here. If there was, he surely would have taken it.
To the extent that anyone should be condemned, it’s the legislators who produced a flawed law (or set of laws). That said, sometimes the weaknesses only become evident once the laws are put into effect, and the price of fixing a problem is that the victim of the loophole does not get justice…
You don’t think a minor has an expectation of privacy within or under her clothes?
Keith: Of course they do. But that–by all evidences–is not how the law defines things in Oregon. It is clear that the law utilizes nudity as an important line of demarcation–even the prosecutor recognized this, and tried to argue around it. I cannot know the mindset of the lawmakers who set the rules up this way. However, I would guess that, given the harsh and lifelong penalties that come with being labeled a sex offender, they were trying to avoid a situation where an innocent person could find themselves in violation of the law. Let us imagine that someone takes a picture of their friend/family at a beach, and in frame also happens to be a 13-year-old girl in a two-piece bathing suit. This is not substantively different than taking a picture of a 13-year-old in their underwear, and it’s actually not easy to write a law in such a way that clearly and unambiguously separates the presumably innocent beach situation from the undoubtedly not innocent Target situation. By contrast, there is virtually no innocent circumstance in which someone can end up with nude pictures of a 13-year-old, and so it is fairly easy to write a law that criminalizes those kinds of photos.
Kevin S., below: While I do not deny that the Marilyn Monroe parallel is a weak one, I did not read his ruling (and I assuming you did not, either). I cannot help but suspect that a journalist is doing a ham-fisted job of reducing multiple paragraphs or pages of explanation/examples into a one- or two-sentence summation. In any case, if you feel the judge has erred as a matter of law, I think there are two very tricky questions you have to answer:
1. If the law does not specifically dictate that ‘nudity’ is the standard for a violation, then why did the prosecutor craft his/her argument around that notion? They argued, essentially, that “we know the girl was not nude, but the picture-taker HOPED she was, so for purposes of the law the defendant should be treated as if she WAS nude.”
2. I can understand with a complicated legal case, or with one involving hotly-contested political issues (gay marriage, abortion rights, etc.), a judge’s level of competence and/or their personal politics could come into play. But, as to the first point, the facts of the case are pretty simple (everyone agreed he meant to take the pics), and so too is the law in question. As to the second, the judge has EVERY motivation to find against the defendant–I presume he abhors pedophilia, and furthermore his job/re-election are on the line. Why would he have ruled in this way, unless he literally had no choice? I think his lengthy explanation amounts to him saying, “I had to decide a case based on a law I don’t like; here’s why I HAD to make that choice, please don’t blame me.”
Finally, I have already said this above, but it is not hard to develop analogues that are more compelling than Marilyn Monroe. What if a person is taking pictures at Target, and a girl in a skirt happens to trip and fall just as the shot is taken? What if a person is taking pictures as Target, and the flash of the camera causes a sheer skirt to become see-through? What is a person is taking pictures at Target, and happens to capture–at the side of the frame–a girl modeling a new bathing suit for her mother? It is not easy to write a law that covers all situations, and clearly separates problematic behavior from innocent/inadvertent behavior. The law exists not only to protect victims, but also defendants and even judges. Given the potential costs of being falsely accused of a sex crime, I suppose I’m not surprised the Oregon law currently errs on the side of caution, albeit too much on the side of caution, as it turns out.
Keith and Kevin S.: In short, I am in no way justifying this man’s behavior. But if you object to the ruling because you think the judge got the law wrong, well, I do not think the evidence supports that position. And if you object to the ruling because you think the judge should do what’s right, rather than what the law says, I think that’s a problematic way to think about things, and one that misunderstands how the American system of law works. Now, if this was England, maybe you’d have a point…
CB – It’s actually not terribly difficult to have intent be a factor in the law – as I stated before, there was nothing illegal about the incidental upskirt shot the Philly broadcast captured of a fan at the ballpark. Instances where it’s difficult to establish intent can even be weighted towards the defendant. But there’s still a legitimate difference between an incidental photographic capture and one that involved deliberate intent, and you seem to have gone out of your way to blur that difference. As for the prosecutor arguing that the defendant could not have known that the victim wasn’t not wearing underwear, I don’t think legal precedent generally gives defense to those who don’t care that their actions could possibly be illegal based on unknowable circumstances.
CB, you are condoning that sicko’s abhorrent behavior … Plus judges make new law constantly. You must be one of those strict constructionalist idiots.
Uncalled for. Keep it civil, please. I don’t agree with CB but s/he is making valid points and doesn’t deserve to be attacked.
It is easy to argue that we want to give judges more latitude/discretion in interpreting and applying the law when they are likely to do so in a manner consistent with our beliefs. Unfortunately, that is often not the case. Humans are fallible. Inherently. And that is before you account for all the perverse incentives present in the legal system. We would be well-served to eliminate as much latitude and discretion from all aspects of the legal system. It will surely lead to some outcomes we abhor. But, in the grand scheme, it will lead to a fairer system.
Of course, provided we have well-written laws. I’m not holding my breath.
Determining intent is very hard — and dangerous — to do.
Kazzy – the Gizmodo article discusses that distinction, and makes a good argument on it.
CB – my take on the Oregon article is the judge made several flawed logical arguments to reach his ruling, the most egregious being his comparison of this case to the famous Marilyn Monroe photo op from the promotion of The Seven Year Itch. Simply because it is theoretically possible for a girl or woman wearing a skirt in public to have an upskirt image inadvertently taken (think the case a couple years ago when broadcast footage caught an upskirt shot of a woman at a game that the creeps at Crossing Broad grabbed and slobbered over) doesn’t make it kosher for somebody to take whatever steps he feels like to obtain such a shot. The examples given most certainly do not analogue to this case.
Were you surprised to see Piazza rated so highly (7th overall) in the list of “Top Framing Careers 1988-2014” based on CSAA?
I was, actually. I don’t think he ever had that rep at all – but maybe he was just a victim of Nichols’ Law in reverse, that a catcher who hit like he did was just presumed to be a poor defender.
Kevin S.: This really is not difficult. I think “intent” is trickier to deal with than you suggest, but in any case that is not the law in Oregon RIGHT NOW. That is where this story starts, begins, and ends. And my very basic, very clearly made point, is that judges cannot rule on what the law SHOULD BE. They can only rule on what the law IS.
I have also read your last sentence several times, and I still don’t understand it. But I will say this: My point about the prosecution–also a very simple point–is that the way they crafted their argument is evidence that the prosecution KNOWS that nudity is the current line of demarcation. If you reexamine the original story, you will even see that it says that, “The prosecutor conceded that the lack of nudity was a ‘live issue in this case'”.
In any case, you seem to be attributing an agenda to me (and to the judge) that is not correct, and that I don’t particularly appreciate. As I made very clear in my coda, I have no interest in defending this sicko, nor in enabling or justifying pedophilia or violations of teenagers’ privacy. What I DO believe in is fair and proper application of the law, as much as is possible. Encouraging judges to “ignore the law” risks setting a dangerous precedent.
You’ve offered repeated examples equating accidental exposure to deliberately attempting to illicitly take photographs of non-exposed areas. Don’t like being accused of that? Don’t do it. As for the law, here’s the invasion of privacy statute: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700
Section (2)(c) states:
Emphasis mine.
Walking in Target does not grant one a reasonable expectation of privacy. Wearing a skirt DOES grant one a reasonable expectation of privacy for the areas covered by the skirt should the skirt remain in place (as it did in reality, but not in your irrelevant examples).
The law is quite clear about nudity. However, when he took the picture, he had no way of knowing whether he was committing a crime or not (since he couldn’t know until viewing the picture whether or not she was wearing underwear). As such, the action’s standing as a crime should not depend on an instance the defendant had no knowledge of – did he intend to commit an act that, to his knowledge, could constitute a crime? Yes, he did.
As far as the child sex abuse charge goes, the judge’s contortions are almost offensive. The defendant did not take a photo of a 13 y.o. walking through Target. He took a voyeuristic photo for the express purpose of sexual gratification. His intentions made the pictures “lewd exhibition of sexual or other intimate parts,” satisfying the standards of sexually explicit conduct as laid out under definitions (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.665) and thus violating http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.686 Section (1)(a)(A)(i) and (1)(a)(B).
It’s possible to argue that the lack of nudity renders the invasion of privacy charge non-applicable if one is comfortable accepting the idea that whether a crime occurred or not could be dependent upon factors beyond the defendant’s knowledge or control. But a plain reading of the other relevant parts of the statutes is completely at odds with the judge’s justifications for acquittal. While he may claim to be appalled by Buono’s behavior, if he had spent more time on said behavior and less time policing what a girl wears, he might have found cause to convict. Wearing a skirt is not being uncovered just because it’s possible that an accident could cause covered areas to be exposed any more than wearing a shirt is being uncovered just because an accident could cause it to ride up a person’s chest. I’d expect that sort of logic to come out of a court in Oman, not Oregon.
Sincere question, do people really hate that pitch framing exists?
I understand that the best framers steal strikes that frequently they shouldn’t have gotten and that the mere existence of framing means that the strike zone is not uniformly called, but I’ve never actually heard any fans complain about the existence of pitch framing. To some extent, aren’t fans interested in seeing highly skilled athletes perform their tasks? Watching Jose Molina frame a pitch doesn’t have the same visceral impact as watching Albert Pujols hit a home run, but I would think as many, if not more, fans appreciate observing the best receivers/framers as hate that pitch framing exists. Or, is the mere existence of pitch framing offensive on some level?
I guess my standard for evaluating these changes to rules, interpretations, or calls is whether they improve the overall quality/fan enjoyment of the product. Is baseball going to gain fans if they switch to robot umps? Are fans leaving the game because they object to framing?
More likely, it seems like uniformity in calling the strike zone by the strict letter of the rule book would make the game less enjoyable for fans. As I recall, it’s been shown that umpires are calling the lower strike this year far more than they had in the past, which seems like a significant factor in the increasing rate of strikeouts. Implementing a strict rule book definition of the strikezone would undoubtedly increase the rate of strikeouts even further. Maybe the game needs robot umps AND a new, smaller definition of the strikezone, but would even that get us to a more enjoyable product than currently exists? Or, would it just bring us back to where we are now?
I also wonder if, on some small level, front office executives would oppose the elimination of pitch framing. Do they prefer to have as many opportunities as possible to gain a competitive advantage? Is it the equivalent of capping draft bonuses, which accomplished its purpose of creating cost savings but also limited the number of ways in which organizations can leverage their financial resources? Would eliminating pitch framing get us closer to the rule book definition of the strike zone, but limit the ways executives can leverage their analytical advantage?
I suppose I’m in the minority, but I just don’t find pitch framing objectionable.
I agree that, since pitch framing is clearly a skill, it’s good to celebrate the players who excel at it.
As far as fans hating pitch framing, I think it’s more accurately labeled as exasperation at the absurdity of the situation. Namely, the only reason we know anything about pitch framing at all is because we have access to tools in the here and now that are superior to the umpires! The average fan armed with pitch f/x could call a better game (according to the rulebook strike zone, at least) than the umpries who are the best in the world. Umpries obviously do more than call balls and strikes, but it raises the question of why this state of affairs is allowed to continue.
I agree with Lark…I’ve played and watched baseball my entire life and I’ve never considered robo-umps to be a positive thing. I like that pitch framing is a skill. I like that every ump has a slightly different strike zone. As a player you learn to expect that, and accept it as long as it’s not absurd (see: Livan Hernandez/Eric Gregg).
I think precision/perfection sounds good in the abstract, but as a fan I would feel like something was missing if the game ever went that way.
For some reason, I am not being given the option for in-line responses, so I must reply here. That said…
@Mookie: Seriously? Is your reading comprehension THAT poor? I have called the perpetrator a pervert and a sicko and a creep. Do you REALLY think I am on his side, or that I am enabling him?
As to your assertion that, “judges make new law constantly” you are objectively wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Making law is, in the American system of government, the province of legislatures (from Congress on down). What you think apparently qualifies as “mak[ing] new law” is instead judges interpreting existing law. In this case, the law was unambiguous and not open to interpretation. Ergo, the blame belongs not on the judge, but on the Oregon legislature.
As to me being a strict constructionist, you’re even more wrong than with the “judges make new law constantly” comment, if that’s even possible. I’m very far to the left, and a staunch adherent to the notion that the Constitution is a living document, meant to be adapted to new circumstances. You would have to look long and hard to find someone who disdains that SOB Antonin Scalia–the king of strict constructionism–more than I do.
At this very moment, we are being given a prime example–Roy Moore in Alabama–of what happens when a judge feels entitled to decide which laws to follow and which ones to ignore. And, as Kazzy rightly points out, the net effect is more harm than good.
@ Kevin S.: You keep changing your argument. I shoot down one argument, and you miraculously conceive of another. And another. And another.
Here are some questions for you:
1. What exactly do you think the judge’s agenda was, if it was not to apply the law to the best of his ability?
2. For that matter, what do you think MY agenda is? Do you think that I want pedophilia to be legal? And that I’ve decided the best way to achieve that goal is to post a few comments on the personal blog of an ESPN writer?
3. Do you believe judges should just rule on whatever basis they see fit, regardless of what the law says?
My arguments haven’t changed. I’ve restated them in the hopes that maybe you were simply not getting the point, and I added the relevant legal codes and expanded my points once I found them. If you think that’s a sign of weakness in my arguments, or that you’ve somehow shut them down, I don’t know how to get you out of your own little echo chamber. As to your questions,
1) I don’t know, nor do I care what the judge’s agenda was. He doesn’t need an ulterior motive to screw up the law, as he appears to have done in this case. That said, he seems to think that wearing a skirt in public is an invitation for anyone to look under that skirt, regardless of the manner of the looking.
2) I don’t know, nor do I care what your agenda is. You clearly seem to have assumed that because the judge ruled the way he did that he indeed must have had no choice, and that he could neither have made an inadvertent or deliberate misinterpretation of the law. That’s about the most charitable reading I can give your comments on this topic, although like the judge, you seem to think that women have no reasonable expectation of privacy to the areas covered by their skirts. You also seem to think that intent is irrelevant, and the possibility of accidents means it’s impossible to prosecute deliberate actions. Does the possibility that a pedestrian could stumble into the path of an oncoming car obeying all traffic laws mean we cannot prosecute the driver who deliberately runs somebody down? Of course not, but that in essence was your hypothesis for why a law wouldn’t cover a deliberate act, and it’s nonsense.
3) I believe that in many cases, the law is not explicit, or has unforeseen contradictions. Judicial interpretation is a vital part of our legal system, and if the case makes its way far enough up the line, that interpretation can become legal precedent. In this case, I think the prosecution had a viable legal theory for why the nudity aspect of the invasion of privacy law was satisfied, although I can also understand why one would disagree on that point. If that was the only grounds on which the judge dismissed the case, I could understand, and be disappointed that the law did not provide more explicit protection instead of having to rely on judicial interpretation but otherwise accept the judgment. But it was his other statements that were risible. He interpreted Section (2)(c) of the invasion of privacy statute to not include the area covered by a woman’s skirt. That’s offensive, and not required by the law. He also dismissed the child pornography charge on the basis that walking through Target is not lewd. If Buono had simply taken a picture of her in the isle, he’d be correct. He did not. He took a picture of her genital region underneath her skirt, without her knowledge or consent. On that charge, the lack of nudity was not relevant, and the photo was indeed lewd.
You now have the laws in front of you. Stop whining about what I think of your agenda and try to argue how the judge’s statements align with the actual law, or go away.
Boy, Kevin, reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
To start with, you clearly did not understand the statutes you linked to, above. Both make it VERY clear that to be child pornography/abuse, there have to be sexually explicit acts. They even DEFINE sexually explicit acts (intercourse, S&M, masturbation, lewd exhibition, etc.). There were no sexually explicitly acts here, so these statutes did not apply. I see you’re trying to latch on to the “lewd exhibition” element of the statute, but wearing a skirt does not come close to qualifying.
Indeed, what you really should have linked to is the ACTUAL law under which the prosecutor attempted to secure a prosecution. That would be the statute governing privacy (163.700), which is here:
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700
As I have argued, over and over, the statute is BUILT entirely upon nudity. Since I know your reading skills are shaky, I will summarize the two conditions under which a person’s privacy has been violated:
1. Person takes a pIcture/video/etc. of nudity AND the subject of the photo is in a place where they can reasonably expect privacy
2. Person puts themselves in a position to observe nudity AND the subject is in a place where they can reasonably expect privacy
There was no nudity, so condition 1 does not apply. That is why the prosecution built their argument upon condition 2–that the defendant HOPED to see nudity, so that part of the statute applies. It’s ultimately a weak argument, for both parts of the condition. First, while he probably did HOPE to see nudity, he did not nor did he really expect to, so it cannot be argued convincingly that he “put himself in a position to observe nudity.” Second, the statute makes clear that places where you can expect privacy are bathrooms, dressing rooms, etc., and it goes so far as to make “not in public view” the distinction. It is exceedingly difficult to make an aisle in the local Target fit this definition. If it does, then what is the point of even having a private/public distinction? The law does not in ANY way suggest that there can be “pockets” of privacy within a public space. It clearly conceives of a space as being either wholly public or wholly private.
Now, moving on to your inability to understand my comments, I will say that I’ve asserted multiple times that I think women, children, and everyone else should indeed have an expectation of privacy. I also believe that this man’s behavior should be illegal, and that he should be punished for what he did.
However, the fact that I believe these things does not change the fact that THAT IS NOT HOW THE LAW IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN THE STATE OF OREGON. Sometimes, the law involves judgment calls, but this is not one of those cases. The statute is very clear and very precise. You–and, for that matter, Keith–are just flat out wrong. There’s no subjective element to this–you are objectively wrong. And the fact that you keep citing laws other than the one the prosecution built their case upon shows me that you really have no idea what you’re taking about. You’re just angry about this result, and I’m the available target for your rage.
I will, one last time and for the record, say this: My only argument/point/concern is that I don’t want judges twisting the law to justify the rulings they want to make–that’s a bad situation. They should adjust their rulings to fit the law. I think it is abundantly clear that this judge did so, as odious as the result was to him.
You now have the CORRECT laws in front of you. Stop whining about what you think the laws should say, or what you think the prosecution should have done, and address the ACTUAL law that was in question and the ACTUAL case that was presented to the judge.
By the way, allow me to say that it is rich that you–and, once again, Keith–are so adamant that someone who doesn’t look at the facts and accept the truth about vaccination are closed-minded idiots. Yet here, you are both presented with overwhelming evidence that you’re wrong (not only my comments, but those of the judge and even the prosecution), and yet you remain firm in your beliefs, because you FEEL like you’re right. Seems hypocritical to me.
And let me note, for the record, that I am a firm believer in vaccination, and have said in many places–including this blog–that vaccines should be legally mandated.
I have one simple rule on this site: Be civil. I’ve let the two of you go at it because of the vast substance in your comments, despite the deteriorating tone, but you just turned it personal and that’s not OK with me.
I included the story, as a non-lawyer, because it seemed to me an interesting case of a law being interpreted too strictly. Perhaps I’m wrong, although you haven’t convinced me of that to this point. But to compare my uncertainty here to the blatant denial of reality practiced by anti-vaxxers is just a mind-blowingly stupid analogy, one you could only have chosen with the intent to irritate or insult.
Keith: I am not SURE you will see this, since it’s been a week or so, but I am guessing you will, since I am guessing you get notifications of new postings.
Anyhow, you are certainly correct that I was annoyed, especially by the “whiny” remark made by Kevin S., and that the tone of my post was shaped by my annoyance. And so, for that, I apologize.
As to the analogy I drew, however, I stand by it. Your initial comment on the article was snarky/annoyed, and raised a question (essentially “what might this guy do next?”) that is not a point of law, and is not an apropos question for a judge to consider. None of your brief comments since have persuaded me that you’re honestly considering and evaluating the law, rather than responding from emotion (understandably), as the father of a girl who is near this age. For what it’s worth, I talked to three attorney friends (including one in Oregon) who all concurred that the judge had no option but to rule as he did, and that if he had done otherwise, he would have been overturned on appeal.
It does not matter to me if you agree with me, but I hope you will at least consider the possibility that there is some parallel between your response to the pedophile creep and the anti-vaxxers’ response to vaccines. Perhaps it will give you some insight into their thinking (which, as I noted, is absolutely wrongheaded in my view).
Also, in case you haven’t seen it, this article makes a point that I think is both important, and is also certain to get the author crucified on Twitter, etc.:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/women_and_vaccine_resistance_mothers_make_health_care_decisions_for_their.html
Best,
CB
CB: I still object to the analogy (and your continued use of it makes it a non-apology apology, doesn’t it?). I’ve disputed your interpretation of the judges’ actions, but have not refused to hear it or ignored it. It seems to be an extraordinarily strict (literalist?) reading of the law to argue that people, especially children who are legally deemed incapable of sexual interest or consent, lack an expectation of privacy inside their own clothing. I don’t see how that in any way can be compared to a vaccine denier’s refusal to acknowledge hundreds and hundreds of studies showing vaccines to be safe and effective, or their willingness to cling to anecdotal and even bogus evidence that appears to support their points of view.
Re: “non-apology apology”: I apologized for the needlessly snarky tone of the post, not the basic assertion(s) I made. So, standing by the content does not negate the apology.
That said, you make a good case that my analogy is not as strong as I supposed. I still do not think it is entirely off base–particularly as regards Kevin S., to whom it was primarily addressed. Kevin clearly WANTS this perv to be guilty of a crime (as do we all), and so in his posts he thrashes around, looking for ways to make the law fit his desired outcome. That included presenting and expounding on multiple statutes that were not relevant–they clearly do not apply, and even if they did, they were not put before the court by the prosecution (can’t convict a person of child abuse if they are not charged with child abuse). At the same time, he ignored–indeed, actively derided–any information that ran contrary to his pre-formed conclusions and his desired outcome.
Is this THAT different from the anti-vaxxers? They have reached a conclusion that they feel, in their heart, is right. They support that position with incorrect/irrelevant “evidence” and they ignore and mock any data that runs contrary to their pre-formed conclusion. The fact that Kevin S.’s conclusion–pedos should be punished, law be damned–is more agreeable than the anti-vaxxers’ conclusion does not mean that the approach/thought process were all that different. At least, not from where I sit…
I see you still can’t read. From re-posting the exact same link that I had previously provided and then claiming that I hadn’t been looking at the correct law, to constantly making assumptions about my own motivations while whining (yes, whining) about implications I’ve made about yours, you can’t argue against a point that isn’t a straw man you’ve constructed to beat up. You seem to feel that since both you and the judge claim to want the to be able to punish Buono, the fact that you feel that he can’t be punished is somehow proof that he could not in fact have been convicted on these charges. I’d explain the logical fallacy inherent there, but you’d just go on about me thrashing about looking for ways to punish Buono, laws be damned. The possibility that reasonable people could interpret the laws differently than you have clearly has not occurred to you – no, it must just some wanna-be vigilante looking for a way to punish a bad man.
As for your insistent anti-vaxxer comparisons, I’m not sure which is more astonishing, your arrogance or your ignorance. If you can’t see the difference between arguing over a poorly-worded law and sticking ones head in the sand to ignore. Please provide links to the mountains of case law refuting the claim that what Buono did violated the laws he was charged on. Please show when the prosecutor was stripped of his license for undisclosed conflicts of interest and deliberate rigging of the evidence to prove his point. Then, and only then, might you have a leg to stand on in arguing that believing this man should have been convicted is in any way similar to the anti-vax movement. That you can’t (or are unwilling to) see how different these two cases really are suggests that perhaps I’m not the one in this thread ignoring all evidence that contradicts a pre-formed conclusion.
Keith, I apologize for the lack of civility, and I’d understand if you decided to clean up the thread or suspend my posting privileges as a result, But I’m not willing to sit around and take the crap CB has thrown my way because I didn’t meekly accept his interpretation of the law.