It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Man Dressed as Woman Busted for Videoing in Ladies Bathroom

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So Breitbart has had resort to "reporting" three year old "news" to find anything they could use to stoke the hate? Doesn't that tell you something about what utter BS the GOP's crossdressing sex predator boogeyman is?

How much do you want to bet they purposefully made an "error" on the date so that the story would circulate a bit before they "corrected" it?




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

It's funny, this guy was WAY ahead of the curve because he was dressing as a woman before any of this crap was even an issue. What does that say? It says the threat has always been there regardless of what laws have been in place so the idea that the threat is going to be heightened is dumb hyperbole being used to incite emotional reactions from gullible and scared people.
edit on 5/25/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Breitbart appears to be trying too hard.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: mOjOm

I wouldn't be surprised if the freak was an uploader, seems rather voyeuristic in its nature.



You're probably right. Although I'd say a bit more than just a voyeur because there are many ways to just watch. Hidden online cams and such.

To go that next step to start doing it yourself and risk getting caught and all that is starting to play with thrill seeking too. Especially since he decided to dress up and do it in person. That takes something more than simply hiding a camera or something.

That reminds me. Do you remember the story about the guy who hid in the porta potty??? Now that dude must of had some issues there!!!



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Didn't we dance this flamenco last night or am I just suffering from extreme déjà vu? 😨



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



The "guy" is in custody and apparently will face stiff penalties if convicted.


I think this one sentence proves you did not read the article and simply made a knee-jerk reaction to the title of the article.

It's been three years and it seems like a pretty open and shut case. I can't find any updates but I'm sure he has already been convicted for a while now and has already faced stiff penalties. It seems as though you assumed this had just happened based on your wording here.

You really should read articles before posting them just to get stars and flags xue.
edit on 5/25/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Oh I'm sure he faced "stiff penalties" as a dress wearing sex offender in the California penal system home to some of the most violent and dangerous gang affiliated inmates in the country.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

He sure did. He got five years of probation! Despite prosecutors asking for over four years incarceration. The judge decided probation was sufficient though.

But I think we should all thank the OP for the sterling example that perverts have been perverting all along, and HB2 hasn't legalized exposing oneself to others or filming people taking care of their business.
edit on 25-5-2016 by Shamrock6 because: Typo



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Here's your update:

theavtimes.com...

Palmdale potty peeper is the article title. That slays me lol
edit on 25-5-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Oh but the 2013 is in the quoted part in the OP.

You still don't get the irony?

A history lesson is good once in a while.

You know, for clarity.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Unless he bonded out immediately he would have had to sit in jail in that dress for at least the first few hours then would have been given a uniform on his way into gen pop until either his court date or being bonded out.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

And if he just went in, made his waste delivery and left, there would be no story here, would there? The fact and issue is that he ILLEGALLY filmed women back then, it can still happen now. Only now, those that truly identify and present themselves as that gender need not FEAR using the restroom to perform a necessary bodily function anymore or seen as people like the story in the OP.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gothmog

And if he just went in, made his waste delivery and left, there would be no story here, would there? The fact and issue is that he ILLEGALLY filmed women back then, it can still happen now. Only now, those that truly identify and present themselves as that gender need not FEAR using the restroom to perform a necessary bodily function anymore or seen as people like the story in the OP.

Perhaps you didnt read my reply or for some reason didnt understand

Access Granted

There . Maybe now.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Repeating the same one-liner is unnecessary. As I said, access was granted them too, was it not? Otherwise how did he get in there? Only now, people that need to use the restroom for all legal activities can do so, unafraid.

Perhaps you don't understand me?



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I'm vaguely familiar with the booking process


I will say that his mugshot shows bare shoulders. So either it was a strapless dress (how very daring of him!) or they took it off him, depending on what he had under it.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

But you said "if" the guy is convicted in your OP. He was already convicted 2 years ago.

Try harder xue, you're slipping here. You should really read articles before you make a knee-jerk reaction.
edit on 5/25/2016 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Ahhh but that part was in the original story wasn't it.

Glad to see you are getting happy because you THINK you have something.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gothmog

No, it is still illegal to video in a bathroom.


How many mindless morons have you seen snapping selfies in bathrooms?
Everybody is getting pretty used to seeing cameras everywhere.

Hell, the pervs just have to pretend to be talking to somebody in the john and could be recording the whole time.

edit on 25-5-2016 by Bobaganoosh because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

And it would still be illegal.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Gothmog

Repeating the same one-liner is unnecessary. As I said, access was granted them too, was it not? Otherwise how did he get in there? Only now, people that need to use the restroom for all legal activities can do so, unafraid.

Perhaps you don't understand me?

It wasnt morally correct then per Obama and government mandated standards.
Now I grow tired of debating someone that knows the answer , but asks the question anyway. I will not answer any more inane replies from you
Game over and you are all out of tokens.,



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join