(( Would You File Charges on this Holiness Cop? )) - Page 5

KWSS1976 · #41 07-15-2009, 09:37 AM

Can't be seprate from the world if you have a digital camera cause just about everyone has one so that makes it worldly

Stephanas · #42 07-15-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

Can't be seprate form the world if you have a digital camera cause just about everyone has one so that makes it worldly

It'll be great if President Obama can actually do something to make much needed prescription drugs more readily available.

moniker · #43 07-15-2009, 09:41 AM

It is perverted.

And warped.

And creepy.

It has the whole stalker thing written all over it.

What was his purpose in posting those things on a forum?

Stephanas · #44 07-15-2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moniker

It is perverted.

And warped.

And creepy.

It has the whole stalker thing written all over it.

What was his purpose in posting those things on a forum?

President Obama, if you're reading this thread, you can plainly see that the lack of access to prescription medications is a problem of epidemic proportions.

Rhoni · #45 07-15-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Ease up folks.
The guy obviously has a problem.
He probably drooled (or worse) all over those pictures as he ogled them later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

NO MAN has any business taking pictures of women's legs, splits in skirts or whatever for ANY purpose...I have seen some of those professional picture takers....lol...if we go somewhere to do things like that then our spirit is not right to start with...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

Wouldn't 1 Corinthians chapter 6 apply here?
Shouldn't these ladies experience embarrassment, exposure, shame, ridicule, etc rather than go to law against a brother?

Actually, I wouldn't consider this man a brother and it is illegal to post a picture of someone without their permission. Do I think this man needs to be disciplined as a brother and restored? Yes, but the women he posted should be awarded damages due to defamation of character and obvious discrimination.

We all reap the consequences of our behavior whether forgiven or not. The good thing is when the one forgiven takes responsibility for his/her actions.

This reminds me of a preacher I heard that included in his sermon that a young lady with a slit in her skirt walked to the restroom during service and a man off the street came in, grabbed her, and took her out to the back of the church and raped her. He used it as a take off on women's dress standards and blaming the woman/victim for tempting this man with a slit. [This was preached by a true soul-winner if you know what I mean].

Again I remind you...the Bible says we are tempted... when drawn away by our own lust and enticed. Notice the order and a young woman with a slit is not asking to be raped.

Blessings, Rhoni

Stephanas · #46 07-15-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Actually, I wouldn't consider this man a brother and it is illegal to post a picture of someone without their permission. Do I think this man needs to be disciplined as a brother and restored? Yes, but the women he posted should be awarded damages due to defamation of character adn obvious discrimination.

We all reap the consequences of our behavior whether forgiven or not. The good thing is when the one forgiven takes responsibility for his/her actions.

This reminds me of a preacher I heard that included in his sermon that a young lady with a slit in her skirt walked to the restroom during service and a man off the street came in, grabbbed her, and took her out to the back of the church and raped her. He used it as a take off on women's dress standards adn blaming the woman/victim for tempting this man with a slit.

Again I remind you...the Bible says we are tempted... when drawn away by our own lust and enticed. Notice the order and a young woman with a slit is not asking to be raped.

Blessigns, Rhoni

Blessings, Rhoni

President Obama, forget the economy, we need access to prescription meds now!!!!

A.W. Bowman · #47 07-15-2009, 09:48 AM

No legal (criminal or civil) charges can be brought if the person photographed cannot be "clearly" identified (the showing the face, publicly known/identifiable scars, tattoos, etc.) or if the photographs do not include (or attempts to include) a person's "private parts" (generally that does not include a person's legs, arms, back or head), it is considered simply a photograph of "the public" or "people" in a public place or setting (such as on a public street, in general (public) business or building open to the public, etc.)

The photographs need to be downloaded and submitted to an attorney for evaluation.

As for the "minister": I agree with all of the above comments!

KWSS1976 · #48 07-15-2009, 09:49 AM

Rhoni per you quote...if this lady would have been wearing pants this might not have happened cause he would not have seen any leg..

OnTheFritz · #49 07-15-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanas

The pictures weren't taken through a bedroom window or from a hiding place in a hedge. They were taken in a public setting. Thankfully, my wife has never embarrassed me by her clothing or conduct in a public place.

I'd probably call the guy and ask him to take the picture down, but I sure wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he was some kind of closet pervert.

BTW, this whole internet phenomena of guys talking about who they would manhandle given a chance also strikes me as silliness.

Doesn't matter if he's a pervert or not... Since he's so quick to judge the worldliness of the women in question, he shouldn't mind us being quick to call him a pervert.

moniker · #50 07-15-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

Doesn't matter if he's a pervert or not... Since he's so quick to judge the worldliness of the women in question, he shouldn't mind us being quick to call him a pervert.

But Fritzie, can't you see that is different?

I don't know how, but I'm sure Stephanas will explain it to us.