What People are Thinking But Not Saying About the Michael Petrelis / Supervisor Scott Wiener Peeping Tom Conviction

All right, so we have last year’s post, peaking-at-wieners-wiener-in-city-hall,” from blogger Michael Petrelis:

“Scott Wiener was standing at the urinal and had just started to tinkle as I entered and the camera took 4-6 seconds to focus, enough time for him to put away his wiener and zipper up.”

Of course when I think of the word “peeking,” I’m thinking it’s to:

“Look quickly, typically in a furtive manner.”

Now let’s see how California Penal Code subdivision  647(j) might apply here:

“647. Except as provided in subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor…
(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.”

So, where’s the “injustice” here?

I’m not seeing it.

Les mise-en-scene. (This shot could be used to show how the mirrors on the second-floor bathroom at City Hall were mounted too low, just saying)

So this…

“It gives me great pleasure to announce that my legal hassle with an elected official, after he abused the power of his office as a member of the Board of Supervisors to put me through the law enforcement wringer over eight months and waste $26,000 in City dollars, has concluded.”

…is wrong. It’s the kind of thing you’d say after getting acquitted perhaps, but it doesn’t apply to this case, IMO.

And this too…

“Had I taken a photo of an ordinary gay citizen in a public men’s room, and he complained to the legal authorities about it, I seriously doubt the complaint would have resulted in the investigation and prosecution I have faced.”

…is wrong. I mean, this is testable, right? Go do the same thing again to an “ordinary gay citizen in a public men’s room” and you just might have another expensive legal hassle from The Man.

Supervisor Scott Wiener is super-human. That’s why he’s so tall and why he only needs to sleep just three hours* every Earth-day, correct? He came to our planet to fight for the rights of millionaire property owners and members** of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which is his right to do.

He should be able to do so without having to worry about camera-toting Mike Petrelis whenever nature calls.

Anyway, that’s not necessarily what people are saying online.

It’s just what most people are thinking.

*Or so I’ve been told, something like that. Prove me wrong!

**The members with unpopular restaurants especially. These crybabies want a free market except when they don’t. Someday we’ll get San Diego-style cleanliness letter grades posted in front of restaurants the way Chris Daly wanted. Someday.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “What People are Thinking But Not Saying About the Michael Petrelis / Supervisor Scott Wiener Peeping Tom Conviction”

  1. bd3517 says:

    Yeah, I don’t see the outrage here. Taking pics of someone while they pee is a jerk maneuver and clearly illegal. It seems like Petrelis has a mindset where the perceived correctness of his position overcomes any legal/ethical constraint. While I think this makes sense for situations like Act Up in the 80′s, it seems like he’s stuck in “by any means necessary” mode and relishing his attention and victimhood for something clearly wrong.