Originally published on October 10, 2013 at 11:26 AM:
Rochester man charged with photographing under woman’s skirt at Pick ’n Save
RACINE
— A Rochester man, facing a felony charge for allegedly taking a cellphone
photo underneath a woman’s skirt while she was grocery shopping, has been
granted another week to hire a lawyer.
Matthew
J. Stegall, 26, of the 700 block of Fox Knoll Drive, is charged with a single
count of capturing an image of nudity without consent after he reportedly was
spotted by a store employee as he took pictures underneath the woman’s dress as
she shopped Aug. 19 at the Waterford Pick ’n Save
It’s called voyeurism;
I do not believe it is illegal to take pictures or videos of someone as
long as they are outside in public; everyone is fair game. In private it is a different story. If you were dancing nude inside your home and
I could see you from outside and filmed you…that’s illegal because you are
supposedly in the safety of your own home and can do what you wish.
That's it.... no more dancing naked at SER's house! :D
ReplyDeleteNo more nude get togethers?
ReplyDeleteSooo..... if I were on my own property and dancing outside naked
ReplyDeleteand a passerby snapped my photo that would be ok. And if I were in my picture window, that would be illegal?
How did that guy get his camera
under her skirt anyways??? And without touching her...therefore frotteurism does not apply here?Plus... under a skirt is a dark area unless the skirt is way too short!! How did the camera have enough light to produce a recognizable image?
I've heard of this. I think they call it upskirting.
ReplyDeleteI agree, BLB... the lighting would be dark, you'd have to be quick and the camera would probably be moving, and there "should" be underwear in the way, so what kind of shot would they get?
The allure is probably more the thrill of potentially getting caught. What really surprised me was the article said picture-s with an s. I think I'd catch on pretty quickly and clobber the nut!
KK...thanks for that info...I so enjoy the new terms for things...what a blast. Fun reading is the URBAN DICTIONARY if one can take pure smut... : )
ReplyDeleteBut this guy must have touched her
and that is actually a form of battery. There is more than one tort committed here.
I love to read the Urban Dictionary, it is hilarious! I must be a smut lover. lol.
ReplyDeleteThere was just something in the news about a male employee at Notre Dame attaching a mini camera to the bottom of a toilet stall in a female bathroom to get video. Cretin.
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/news/former-employee-charged-with-attempted-voyeurism-1.2118482#.UHiNJm_A_D4>
kk... now that is some real lewd
ReplyDeletestuff goin' on there... My hopes for that guy is Granny comes in to change her Depends and accidently spilled it all over his lens... haha...that would be some Karma right there.
All of this Is interesting, but did you all hear about the guy In Jacksonville Florida that returned his USED boxed Enema's to the store AFTER he used, and re-filled them? BTW, they were already re-sold, and the store was letting the new buyers know. HOW NICE OF THEM?
ReplyDeleteTOAD:
ReplyDeleteThe state of the nation is making the world a sh*##y place to live in.
The economy makes people stoop so low...but look what the "already
crazy people" do!!! They have to return enemas to get that 5 bucks back! (cost?? not admitting I know )
I wonder what his excuse was for the return.???...I tried it and it didn't work!!! OR The plastic end was damaging to me!! AND the store TOOK IT BACK!!!! Some things are better left unsaid!
I agree with kk that the kick in voyeurism is the risk of being caught. The guy said he was a porn addict. I would think that is a separate issue, really.
ReplyDeleteNow for class journalism 101.
ReplyDeleteIs there store video of the event?
unanswered
Was the woman aware of the event?
unanswered
If so, what was her reaction?
unanswered
Why didn't Waterford Police investigate and write the citation? they do have jurisdiction.........
unanswered
Was the phone camera in pic or video mode?
unanswered
Did the investigators recover any photo's or video ?
unanswered
Did she wear other garments under the dress?
unanswered
If the female shopper was wearing a dress, how is this case referencing nudity as a charge?
unanswered
...................................
So a judge is going to decide if the picture(s) is/are porn?...... Not!
So is a judge going to decide if he took pictures of her in a public place?....... Not!
Disorderly conduct for sure should have been written along with other charges.
WTF!
Matthew J. Stegall, a piece of shit still running loose, that's what I see.
Personally, I wish the woman would have shoved the camera down his throat and let the piece of shit choke.
................................
Now for the humourous side that everybody wants to know but was afraid to ask......
Did she have a nice butt?
Pondering over some of all the very
ReplyDeleteintelligent comments out there..
Legal...that was a great ending..
But... (haha I said "but" again)
if the picture didn't show any discernible images, he could deny
the accusation and probably get away with the whole thing with
lack of physical evidence. Hopefully witness testimony would be enough in this case.
Ahhh. Leave it to legal to justify it by asking the first question that cam to the mind of every man, lol.
ReplyDeleteI agree with him, too.... why let it go to a judge to decide? Grab the jerk's camera, kick him in his dirty, tingly parts and be done with it.
Does "Sex Sells" apply to Grocery stores also?
ReplyDeleteFOR SO LONG, I HAVE BEEN WANTING TO REPLY TO THE JUDGMENTAL, INGORANT, OBLIVIOUS COMMENTS POSTED. I'LL START WITH THIS...ONE OF MY FAVORITES, SINCE I AM IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION.
ReplyDeletelegal stranger
Now for class journalism 101. - CLASS JOURNALISM 101?? I'M QUITE CERTAIN THERE IS NOTHING "JOURNALISM" RELATED IN THIS MATTER. CRIMINAL, YES. JOURNALISM, NO.
Is there store video of the event?
unanswered - YES - DO YOU NOT THINK THERE ARE CAMARAS IN OUR "BIG BROTHER" SOCIETY?
Was the woman aware of the event?
unanswered - YES, FIND THE POLICE REPORT, IT IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.
If so, what was her reaction?
unanswered - REACTION - HYSTERICAL, CHASING SUSPECT THROUGH THE STORE,WATCH THE VIDEO, READ THE POLICE REPORT
Why didn't Waterford Police investigate and write the citation? they do have jurisdiction.........
unanswered - HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY DID NOT? WERE YOU PRESENT? AND BY THE WAY MUNICIPAL POLICE DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION WHEN A FELONY IS ALLEGED. THE INVESTIGATION IS TURNED OVER TO THE COUNTY/STATE LEVEL - WHICH EVER IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF THE ALLEGED CHARGES.
Was the phone camera in pic or video mode?
unanswered PICTURE AND VIDEO MODE, THUS THE CHARGES...
Did the investigators recover any photo's or video ?
unanswered READ THE CHARGES AGAIN, AND THINK REAL HARD...
Did she wear other garments under the dress?
unanswered READ THE CHARGES AGAIN, THIS TIME PONDER TWICE AS HARD.
If the female shopper was wearing a dress, how is this case referencing nudity as a charge?
unanswered READ THE CHARGES AGAIN, THIS TIME PONDER THREE TIMES AS HARD.
OH LEGAL STRANGER, HOW TRUE TO YOUR FAKE NAME....YOU ARE DEFINATELY A STRANGER TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM
***AND THE ASS, EXTREMELY PERFECT.***
BL Basketcase - THE SKIRT WAS NOT A SKIRT, IT WAS A DRESS. A LONG, BELOW THE KNEE DRESS. HOW DO YOU KNOW IF HE DID OR DID NOT TOUCH HER? JUST MAYBE HE DID, AND THAT WAS HOW SHE CAUGHT HIM... DO YOU KNOW WHAT A SMART PHONE IS, AND HOW TO UTILIZE THE CAMARA/VIDEO APPLICATIONS? MY GUESS WOULD BE NO, SINCE YOU ASSUME IT'S DARK. BEING DARK MAY INFER THE DRESS WAS BLACK, OR MAYBE IT WASN'T...YOU WOULD NOT KNOW BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT PRESENT.
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST:
KKDITHER... there "should" be underwear in the way, so what kind of shot would they get?
WHY "SHOULD" THERE BE UNDERWEAR? READ THE CHARGES AGAIN, AND PERHAPS THE WORDS WILL SINK IN. CONCEIVABLY THE CORRECT QUESTION WOULD BE SHOULD THERE BE A MAN CROUCHED DOWN IN THE STORE NEXT TO A WOMAN WHO IS NOT WEARING UNDERWARE TAKING PICTURESSSSSS? YES PLURAL - PICTURESSSS.
IF THE CHARGES ARE DOUBTED AS BEING LEGIT, CHECK WHERE THE CASE IS HEADED NOW RACINE COUNTY CASE #2012CF001179
DON'T FORGET - PHRASE OF THE DAY
When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewow, anon, 'for so long' ... really?
ReplyDeletequite a hostile post from someone who doesn't even know us...We try to be civil here, this was quite an attack, which is your right. We left the old site due to things as such...
my only comment was going to be how we've been to the future and returned...
"Originally published on October 10, 2013" I had to really think about that one as I'm not awake yet.
everybody take a good sedative and have a calmer day - deal? geesh...
Thank you anonymous for providing us with an update to Racine County case # 2012cf1179. For most of us this was blogging history
ReplyDeleteFurther I wish to thank our current District Attorney Rich Chiapete for returning honor, justice and a moral compass back into the leadership of the Racine County district attorney's office.
Now irregular's, let's address anonymous's issues.
1. I am perplexed, What type of person would wait over 7 months to post on a dormant blog? And then post under anonymous?
2. Anonymous, you are Monday morning commenting after the legal system has played it's game. Of course there is now more information available thru the legal system than the press presented to us 7 months ago.
3. Anonymous, many of our comments were directed at the press for leaving so many questions unanswered. Perhaps you forgot, or worse yet, you never learned the 7 basic questions that should be addressed in every news story? Many of our comments reflected the many questions that were left unanswered in the Journal Times story.
4. A single complaint was cited in the news when we wrote our comments. Skirt and dress were both used in the news article leading to confusion to the readers. There was no mention in the news article whether the woman was or was not wearing underwear.
5. I find it amusing that you would seek out a dormant blog 7 months later just to bash and trash our comments. So in the future, please blog your thoughts instead of dwelling on a subject for 7 months.
If you had waited just two more months, YOU COULD HAVE HAD A BABY.
6. Could you please send a copy of the videos to the JTirr sheriff so we can all be as enlightened as you are?, and better yet, how about also sending us copies of the transcripts.
7. Thanks for the ending "PHRASE OF THE DAY", I like it.
8. I am easy and take criticism well, but the wrath of kk and BLB may soon be upon you, so I hope you hid your IP #.
9. " *** AND THE ASS, EXTREMELY PERFECT*** " I will let my fellow Irregular's expound on that one.
10. And finally, we are pleased that you find our site so compelling that you felt the need to address issues that we talk about. Thanks for reading and blogging on our site. Don’t be a “stranger” !
Please join us, enlighten and entertain us with your knowledge and wit. Have a great week.
Good morning LM, we will see you this week.
BLB, Since us crazies, never stop. I don't know that I would recognize one anymore either. LOL
ReplyDeleteHi irregs, got a laugh on this reboot.
ReplyDeleteWho would think about peoples comments for 7 months and still get it wrong when responding?
Get a life anonymous.
Really, anonymous waited 7 months to post? LOL That is the gestation period of a bear, so he/she did have a baby! STILL LMAO
ReplyDeleteI still maintain... shouldn't there have been underwear? lol. Who goes shopping without? And, yes, the fact that they were omitted, does not give permission to crouch, invade and shoot.
ReplyDeleteAn anon post is fine, but not when it is a late in coming - sneak attack. Get a name and come out and play with the rest of us, especially since you claim to be an expert. Don't sit in ambush and specifically address us by name in a cowardly fashion.
I'm now more awake, and had a couple more thoughts, but by the way, Legal (our REAL Legal, that is), nicely handled! Thursday is your best day to catch me, I'm off tomorrow, work crazy short Wed, and Friday, but work 10 hours Thursday, just come before 1pm :)
ReplyDeleteAnon, wouldn't the perp in question be the only one to attest to the niceness of said rear? so if you know it was nice, are you upset that this was posted about you? just had to ask, as that person should be the only one with said knowledge... just putting it out there...
kk, have you never heard of going commando? maybe she had to do her laundry next and had run out, or could she have just been to warm to wear any? who knows... sounds liberating in a twisted kinda way. Maybe that can be on one of Drew's 4 for Friday;s, not sure anyone would answer honestly :)
The only anonymous we trust is the big naked guy, he's quite the known entity, and doesn't hide who he is.
I have a question:
ReplyDeleteIf (the most powerful word in the world) in fact she did had undies on is it still considered nudity?
What would be the “nude” part; she had a skirt on so would it be the upper part of her legs? The lower halves are out for the public to view!
Legally I don’t think he did anything wrong, UNLESS they claim she was in the safety of being inside the Pick & Save building and not out in public.
Morally, as my grandkids would say, “He needs a good beat-down”!
Liz: yes, I've heard of commando, but ugh. Sorry, that is just nasty.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the same thing about our posters first hand knowledge of said butt, but I guess maybe he could have viewed the photos? If so, totally inappropriate of him to make those comments if he was part of the investigation, or had access to criminal evidence.
Lastly... "our" anon doesn't hide anything. Ugh, again.
If I were a juror In this case, the subject would be GUILTY without a doubt. The lady had a dress/skirt covering her body from whatever point to whatever point. This covered part was NOT open to public view, unless she caused the dress/skirt to rise above the desired covered portion. This NOT appearing to be the case In this case, the GUILTY party invaded her privacy, by circumventing the covering by somehow reaching under the dress/skirt to take a photo. I would argue the area covered on her body, Is PRIVATE property, thus the photo taking would be essentially simple assault.
ReplyDeleteCOMMANDO - now that is a dress code I hadn't heard in a long long time.
ReplyDeleteSo could the mystery anon inform us of how to acquire the video(s) and pictures. Will simple public records request put us into the movies?
I too am bewildered of how a person could be bothered by a post from so long ago. Anon, do you seek medical help for your condition?
The posts were humorous, and further illuminating the unanswered questions of a newspaper article.
But Butt ButtButtbutt, The real story is now the truly the perfect Butt........Just waitin to see what our resident medical expert BLB has to say , it should be gooooood, but buttbuttbutt
Andromodo has spoken
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself.”
WHO IS JUDGING WHO, HERE????
IT HAS CERTAINLY COME TO MY MIND THAT YOU ARE DEFINATELY THE ONE DOING THE JUDGING!
We are a group out to have fun. We have not been supplied ALL the facts at that time. It was merely an article that was read and poorly written...an example of poor journalism!
Why are you taking such special interest in our comments? You say that you are in the "legal profession"? Where did the "professionalism" go in your part of this case? You made comments of her "perfect ass"???? You are someone that is actually paid for some job in the legal field? I would NEVER hire such a person as you. If you are a true professional, you would never admit any personal feelings as to her "perfect ass" and express it verbally or in writing. That, in retrospect, may have to do with the birth of lawyer jokes!
What are you & WHO THE HELL ARE YOU? A file clerk? Or perhaps a paralegal spilling the contents of the file out on your boss? Or are you a crooked wannabee or maybe the one who originally wrote that article and then became angry that it was critiqued in the Legal Stranger Journalism 101 Class?
AND AS TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT ME OWNING A SMART PHONE....GET REAL , BUB!!! ALSO I DID NOT MAKE A STUDY ON WEATHER OR NOT IT IS DARK UNDER A DRESS OR NOT WHEN WEARING IT. IT SEEMS YOU MUST HAVEMADE THIS STUDY YOURSELF! DID YOU DO IT ON YOURSELF OR "PAY" FOR A MODEL?
Your grammar is poor, you have spelling mistakes, you don't seem to have a clue on much of anything. Your are degrading and demeaning to us.... therefore I am handing your "not perfect" pompous ass right back to you on a platter
of dung.
Peace,
BL Basketcase
PS enjoy this "for so long" : )
COMMANDO - now that is a dress code I hadn't heard in a long long time.
ReplyDeleteSo could the mystery anon inform us of how to acquire the video(s) and pictures. Will simple public records request put us into the movies?
I too am bewildered of how a person could be bothered by a post from so long ago. Anon, do you seek medical help for your condition?
The posts were humorous, and further illuminating the unanswered questions of a newspaper article.
But Butt ButtButtbutt, The real story is now the truly the perfect Butt........Just waitin to see what our resident medical expert BLB has to say , it should be gooooood, but buttbuttbutt
Andromodo has spoken
I knew it would be good!
ReplyDeleteAndromodo has spoken
I forgot to say that it is unsanitary to not wear underwear
ReplyDeletein a dress according to The Journal of the American Medical Association.
On the streets it is called
Scottish Underwear.....
or Clamando (sorry and YUK)
One of the benefits of doing computer security consulting for the government is near unobstructed access in the fusion centers. For any of the irregulars who want to know who anon was, email me.
ReplyDelete