Woman In Target Dressing Room Punched Peeping Tom In The Face

Looks like she landed a couple of decent blows on the jug-eared little freak.  If I was in Yingling’s position, police would need a search warrant AND a proctologist in order to view and process the evidence on the phone.

I saw the video but do not see any hot reporters – meow…

Saweet!  I wish I coulda been there to see that!  He is OWNED.

PROPER pussy whipped.

Considering everyone in the video was sweating… I’m pretty sure she was hot…

That entitles them to the immediate pictures, they want to browse ALL his pics.  Since most of the pics on the phone are from (presumably) other dates/times, they need a warrant for them.  Personally, I hope a judge denies the warrant. Not to let the little creep get away with anything but because I’m not sure that catching him the act should give them the right to search past events on a “fishing” expedition.  The technology laws involve a lot of grey areas, every warrant granted allows them a little more snooping power, and they have too much already.

Just another case of curiosity killing the cat,and the cat fighting back.

I normally like a nice refreshing Yingling, not in this case.  However, good for her to have discovered and dealt with the perp in her own manner.  I say the best revenge for her would have been to strip the little bugger down and take her own pics.  Kind of “turn the table” on him so to speak.  I doubt he would have enjoyed it because he sounds like a watcher not an involved player.

I quickly glanced at the picture attached to the story and thought it was Macaulay Caulkin. Lol.

Glad this little shit got his what fer…asshole.

” Yingling was trying on clothes at the Target on Milan Road in Perkins Township when she noticed someone was holding a cell phone underneath the changing room door.“I reached down and snatched it out of his hand, pulled my pants up and darted out the dressing room door. That’s when I got in his face”

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

“The technology laws involve a lot of grey areas, every warrant granted allows them a little more snooping power, and they have too much already.”

You know what out numbers law enforcements “snooping power” ? The number of  sick Pervs out there doing all sorts of sick shit to lil kids.

Yes, it may be aggravating but, “those that would give up freedom for security deserve neither.”

It still does not give them the right to just open a phone and start looking at what is on it. If you don’t have a warrant than you can’t snoop. If you have probable cause to look at a persons phone than you can probably get a warrant to do so. 
They would probably catch a lot of perverts by just randomly requesting phones on the street and at traffic stops, but we don’t live in a fascist police state. People have rights and the police are the police, not uncowled batmen like so many of them seem to wish they were. 

 I think holding it under the dressing room door is probable cause. But instead of the police looking through it, I think my new hero Nancy should do the snooping. I can just see her putting the smackdown on him for every pic she finds.

“Officers shouldn’t be vigilantes.”

The fact that they are “Officers” precludes them from being  “vigilantes” by definition – if they are in fact doing the job that they were hired to do in accordance with the law.

” If an officer can’t use “normal” police procedure to catch someone, I personally don’t want them stretching grey areas to do so.”

I have no problem with law enforcement using what you call a “gray area” – long as the method is legal law enforcement has my blessings to do what must be done to get these Pervs/baby fuckers off the street.And lets not forget that the criminals use these same “gray areas” in their defense at court.Crippling the law is in most cases not a good thing.

 ”There may be” stuff in everybody’s emails and computers, does that mean the gov should be allowed to randomly search through everyone’s private files?”

“Everybody” is not getting busted for up-skirting Bitches in dressing rooms – this act alone separates “us” from them.Your comment was overly broad.

“It’s a slippery slope if we just use our hearts as a guideline for justice.”

This is no “slippery slope” – ” our hearts as a guideline for justice” was the basic foundation upon which most criminal laws were crafted.

 What in the world are you talking about ?

I support the police right to get a warrant and view the contents of this particular phone – which was in fact used in a perv crime.Shocking as this may be to you a lot of pervs have crossroads – meaning that they are not limited to just one pery type conduct – hence a person who fucks dogs may have no issue with child pedophilia.Like wise a person who up-skirts a lady in a dressing room may have no problem with up-skirting a 5 year old girl.Laws are in force to protect criminals,and defense is in fact in their favor.What we do not need is more bleeding hearts pleading the pedophile/child murderer’s case.

Watching the re-enactment, I kept thinking that he was practicing prison soap passing using his cell.

We read and joke about this all the time. I wonder the roots of these impulses.

Bleeding Heart vs. Angry Heart.  You are only viewing this as pertaining to the one individual.  You’ve narrowed it down to only include pervs/pedos.  The others that are talking about the laws are thinking more in general about situational law.  In this one scenario you want the law to go “balls to the walls” after him, but if it were someone with a little presumed innocence you would let off the throttle a bit.  Unfortunately the law is going to use the same approach for everyone.  So that is why the laws themselves need this close scrutiny.  What if someone takes the pic, the lady only gets a glimpse of said individual and upon exiting the dressing room, she pics out the person she thought did it.  Only she is wrong, the person merely LOOKS like the individual.  The individual identified by the lady will have their personal belongings confiscated and rifled through because of angry hearts such as yourself.  This “wrong place, wrong time” individual might have some pics of his wife in the nude on his phone which officers can now oggle over for free.  Would you want pics of your wife / (sister – prob not your phone) / (mother - 
prob not your phone) being veiwed in this scenario? 

Would you want a cop to be able to stop you whenever they felt like it and peruse your phone? How about search your car or home, just because? This started out because Sam asked why they needed a warrant and Micheal explain the very legal reason it is required. Cedric believes that believing in due process is the same as supporting the perverts.

If you agree with the fact that a warrant was needed I don’t see why this thread is even happening. Sam asked why they needed one and Michael simply gave her the legal reasons why they needed one. You replied to him, and I quote, “Come on now Michael – never side with the Pervs.Most likely there are other victims on that phone – I seriously doubt this was Zachary’s first outing … Hell – there may even be lil kid shit on that phone.” 
Not once did he side with anyone, he simply stated the hows and whys of requiring a warrant to search the phone for other admissible photos. Perhaps you don’t realize it, but that post implies that making it illegal for a cop to grab your phone is an impediment to justice. People, even the accused, have right in this country.

Actually, Michael *did* say that he hopes the judge denies the warrant, but, again, for legal reasons rather than sympathy for the perp.

I generally agree with his logic.  An example for those having difficulty grasping:  If I get popped with a dub in my car, should it give the police the right to search my residence and any other vehicles or storage units I may have?  No, and typically, it doesn’t.  Because of the nature of a phone (or a computer), you’ve essentially got multiple “places” in one location.  A single incident limited to a single file should not necessarily grant police access to all other files.  However, here’s where Michael and I diverge:  If, while my car is being searched, I offer the information that I have a pot addiction and frequently engage in the purchase and usage of the product, I’ve given them motivation and invitation to obtain warrants for these other places if what I say gives them reason to believe my possession may extend beyond my car.  Had he kept his mouth shut and left his confession to the incident in question, I would agree with Michael in hoping no warrant was granted.  But, because he sung like a bird, I don’t find their desire for a warrant unreasonable. 

Damn…  I think I need to buy you a drink.

I missed the first part, personally I’m not qualified to make a decision on why a warrant should or should not be granted. However, I always am willing to err on the side of personal freedoms. 
In this case, the cops were smart. If they had looked at the other photos everything may have been thrown out and ruined any case. It’s always better to be safe than sorry.

Exactly.  As far as the part we diverge at, I mostly ignored what the perp said so I could make my point.  In this instance, the perp lead them on the trail of snooping further.  I still hope that the judge denies the warrant, not so this slime gets away with anything, just so it won’t set precedence which will be bent in a way to apply it to other cases of different technology being used against citizens.  I prefer that the only way the law gets to snoop around intensely is if someone is in immediate danger.

Wow I have to start showing up here earlier….people keep beating me to saying what I wanted to say! lol  I believe if the dipshit had kept his mouth shut about “having done this many times before” they may not have had probable cause for a warrant.

He must like muffin tops!!

And was anyone else taken back to see Nancy Yingling did not appear to be of Asian ethnicity?

I agree.  The only reason they really want to go through his other files is to tack on more charges.  But the guy’s been popped; he’s admitted to having an impulse problem that he was in the process of seeking treatment for.  Sentence the guy to a shit ton of community service and mandated therapy.  Incarcerating this guy for a long period won’t be of any real service to the public, in my opinion.

My only concern is with how they treat this phone.  If they return it to him and there are pictures of other victims that remain intact, I don’t think it’s okay for him to maintain access to those… but how will we know without searching?  Furthermore, I wonder about the liability it could create for the police.  If one of those pictures were to wind up on, say, the internet, it’s possible the victim could sue the state.

Like 100 x’s

Sadly I am one of those people.

Yes, and it should be done by an independent 3rd party.  Anything found that actually pertains to their case would then be handed over.

Give it up Michael, we are no longer free. Too many people for all that.

Yuengling actually, also one of 2 large and old american breweries that are still in business. The other being Sam Adams. Made in the US and owned by US citizens.

What is the need for a 3rd party? And what if they find something illegal that does not pertain to their case? Such as child pornography? Are you suggesting only specific info to that case should be reported? And if not what is the difference between police and a 3rd party? Police are paid and trained with tax dollars for doing things like this. They are also trained in the law and identifying illegal activity. Why pay a 3rd party? They will be given a fair unbiased shake when it comes to a jury.
Does it make sense in this scenario, if someone was pulled over for a broken tail light and the cop smelled alcohol. Should a 3rd party be called to confirm if the person has been drinking? And the cop only deals with the tail light situation? Or should the cop have to wait for a warrant to test him for drinking and driving? Just like the drunk driver could have or may cause more harm, the contents of his phone could have or may cause more harm.

________________________________
From: Disqus
To: cwes760@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:27 AM
Subject: [dreamin-demon] Re: Woman In Target Dressing Room Punched Peeping Tom In The Face

Disqus generic email template

Michael Heldman wrote, in response to Conley:
Yes, and it should be done by an independent 3rd party.  Anything found that actually pertains to their case would then be handed over. Link to comment

I bet “De Jong” gets a lot of people, too.