Louie CK Exposed For Jerking Off In Front Of Women

[Mic-Nificent]

You just made up a bunch of scenarios that I didn't say, lol

I literally said first "if they consented" ...then you want into a bunch of scenarios of non-consent

This is ridiculous and youre a poor poster lacking of basic comprehension

There's no need to say "If They consented", because they've all said they didn't consent. If they consented this wouldn't be a huge story right now. nikkas was in here trying to argue that the absence of a "NO" is the same as consent, which it isn't.

Also you said "Especially if they consented" as if it's still not a crime even without their consent.

As the the example I laid out, you and a couple other people are the ones trying to argue that the shyt he did wasn't a crime just because he didn't touch them or chase them around. That's not how indecency laws work, which is what my examples showed.

Don't try to spin shyt as me misunderstanding. You and a couple other people said some outright dumb shyt that proved you don't know the law and couldn't be bothered to even look up the laws.

 

[GunRanger]

nikkas really in this thread talking about "It's not a crime" when the shyt is a crime.

Take that "She didn't say no" shyt to court and see how well it works out for you.

He asked permission first

They could have left at any time


These women knew what it was.

 

[Perfectson]

There's no need to say "If They consented", because they've all said they didn't consent. If they consented this wouldn't be a huge story right now. nikkas was in here trying to argue that the absence of a "NO" is the same as consent, which it isn't.

Also you said "Especially if they consented" as if it's still not a crime even without their consent.

As the the example I laid out, you and a couple other people are the ones trying to argue that the shyt he did wasn't a crime just because he didn't touch them or chase them around. That's not how indecency laws work, which is what my examples showed.

Don't try to spin shyt as me misunderstanding. You and a couple other people said some outright dumb shyt that proved you don't know the law and couldn't be bothered to even look up the laws.

You didn't misunderstand, you're just wrong.

Go ahead and quote what I said and show me the law which refutes anything I said. Don't lump me into someone else, quote anything I said and show me law.

Lastly, you said most states indecency doesn't matter if you're in a private setting and expose yourself in private. Can you show me what states have the law? I'm not talking about standing a window and exposing yourself to the public ejther , so don't be stupid like you've already have been. And your job isnt a private setting ejther ...since you wanna go into tangents, let's play your game

I swear the coli prosecutors be killing me... no way you're googling this shyt, so you must just be making stuff up as you go along

 

[Mic-Nificent]

You didn't misunderstand, you're just wrong.

Go ahead and quote what I said and show me the law which refutes anything I said. Don't lump me into someone else, quote anything I said and show me law.

Lastly, you said most states indecency doesn't matter if you're in a private setting and expose yourself in private. Can you show me what states have the law? I'm not talking about standing a window and exposing yourself to the public ejther , so don't be stupid like you've already have been. And your job isnt a private setting ejther ...since you wanna go into tangents, let's play your game

I swear the coli prosecutors be killing me... no way you're googling this shyt, so you must just be making stuff up as you go along

Actually I did look it up, you're the one making shyt up as you got along:

California Penal Code Section 314
Elements
As previously stated, a threshold issue is the willful exposure of a person's private parts.

Furthermore, indecent exposure is a crime of specific intent. The defendant must have intended to act for a lewd or obscene purpose. The prosecutor can establish intent by showing:

• That the defendant intended to direct public attention to the defendant's genitals; or
• That the defendant wanted to achieve sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual affront.

The defendant did not have to be completely naked or unclothed to be charged with indecent exposure; the prosecutor only needs to establish that the defendant's genitals were exposed.

California law also requires that the defendant acted in a public place. A public place might be a location in full view of people passing by. However, a private dwelling or inhabited building might also qualify as a public place for the purposes of indecent exposure if the defendant entered the premises without invitation or later provided the inhabitants with an unwanted display of the defendant's private parts.

This shyt is not difficult to find.

I also thought this shyt was common knowledge, but apparently you and a few other people don't know it.

 

[Absolut]

There's no need to say "If They consented", because they've all said they didn't consent. If they consented this wouldn't be a huge story right now. nikkas was in here trying to argue that the absence of a "NO" is the same as consent, which it isn't.

Also you said "Especially if they consented" as if it's still not a crime even without their consent.

As the the example I laid out, you and a couple other people are the ones trying to argue that the shyt he did wasn't a crime just because he didn't touch them or chase them around. That's not how indecency laws work, which is what my examples showed.

Don't try to spin shyt as me misunderstanding. You and a couple other people said some outright dumb shyt that proved you don't know the law and couldn't be bothered to even look up the laws.

The stories in the New York Times expose aren’t crimes. The 2 women literally gave a thumbs up when they were asked if he could pull his dikk out and beat off. What’s the crime?

 

[Perfectson]

He asked permission first

They could have left at any time


These women knew what it was.

Exactly, he removed his clothing and they watched him. He asked, they laughed (in one case) and watched him remove his clothing and do the act and didn't say no, try to leave, or anything. He never threatened them or told them they had to stay.

It's a slippery slope but there's nothing criminal in what he did , period.

fukk any dude who empowers a woman to make a decisions like this after the fact, this how brothers get hemmed up. Women have no problem reimagining how things went in their heads and after the fact and this is what you have here. And it's always the same type of women ...most hood Chics would not just sit there and watch this shyt

 

[Perfectson]

Actually I did look it up, you're the one making shyt up as you got along:

Lmao , the part in bold is talking about someone coming off the street and exposing themselves. It even talks about inhabitants of the building. There's no law you can find that puts any criminal intent on indecency one ones own private abode as I mentioned. None . Youre back to arguing shyt I didn't say.

Don't be stupid, if someoje comes out of the street and enters someone private residence and exposed themselves of course its indecent, this isn't even remotely what we are talking about.

This is what coli lawyers get you. You guys have no actual grasp or comprehension of the law... surely you can find some case that gives precedence to any of the bullshyt youre spouting

 

[Absolut]

Lmao , the part in bold is talking about someone coming off the street and exposing themselves. It even talks about inhabitants of the building. There's no law you can find that puts any criminal intent on indecency one ones own private abode as I mentioned. None . Youre back to arguing shyt I didn't say.

Guy bolded shyt that’s has nothing to do with this story. He was neither uninvited, or doing something unwanted since they said go ahead and then watched the whole creepy show. How this is being equated with real sex crimes is beyond me, but we got folks on here comparing it to rape and exposing themselves to children in the other thread

 

[Perfectson]

Guy bolded shyt that’s has nothing to do with this story. He was neither uninvited, or doing something unwanted since they said go ahead and then watched the whole creepy show

Im not gonna waste my Saturday with this shyt...thats all I know. Let him get all frenzied up about it

 

[Starboy52]

I would probably whip my phone out, record it, then send that shyt out in a group chat like, “I’m bouta eat, my nikkas”

 

[gho3st]

who knew he wasn't just acting in this cliip

 

[winb83]

I'm sorry but upon further review who the fukk cares? So what he beat off in front of some women and over the phone. He didn't hurt anybody. It's weird but all these companies dropping him and severing business ties with him over it is a bit much.

 

[NobodyReally]

I'm sorry but upon further review who the fukk cares? So what he beat off in front of some women and over the phone. He didn't hurt anybody. It's weird but all these companies dropping him and severing business ties with him over it is a bit much.

No you guys are the weirdos, honestly, defending pedos, rapists, and people who need to jerk off to subordinates and coworkers to get off.

Imagine any other business where the boss invites junior employees or mentees up to his room and then asks to disrobe and jerk off. I don't care what the junior employee or mentee says, that boss would get fired in ANY OTHER LINE OF BUSINESS. But because this is entertainment and you guys think this dude is funny or talented, he gets a pass? Nah, fukk that. It's fukking weird and gross and inappropriate, and I'm glad Hollywood is finally acknowledging it's NOT OK for people to take advantage of their power and put people in positions that would not be tolerated in any other line of work.

 

[winb83]

No you guys are the weirdos, honestly, defending pedos, rapists, and people who need to jerk off to subordinates and coworkers to get off.

Imagine any other business where the boss invites junior employees or mentees up to his room and then asks to disrobe and jerk off. I don't care what the junior employee or mentee says, that boss would get fired in ANY OTHER LINE OF BUSINESS. But because this is entertainment and you guys think this dude is funny or talented, he gets a pass? Nah, fukk that. It's fukking weird and gross and inappropriate, and I'm glad Hollywood is finally acknowledging it's NOT OK for people to take advantage of their power and put people in positions that would not be tolerated in any other line of work.

I'm not defending him I just don't really care that he's a weird exhibitionist. I've never watched his comedy but if a comedian I followed did shyt like this I would shrug about it.

Don't lump this guy in there with dangerous people like rapist and pedophiles. There's a clear difference between raping children and raping adults and some weirdo getting turned on because he has a woman watching him masturbate.

And technically here there's a power dynamic of him being famous but he was none of these women's direct superior. This isn't Kevin Spacey trying to have sex with a 14 year old box. At the worst this is indecent and inappropriate but not dangerous or harmful to others.

 

[NobodyReally]

I'm not defending him I just don't really care that he's a weird exhibitionist. I've never watched his comedy but if a comedian I followed did shyt like this I would shrug about it.

Don't lump this guy in there with dangerous people like rapist and pedophiles. There's a clear difference between raping children and raping adults and some weirdo getting turned on because he has a woman watching him masturbate.

And technically here there's a power dynamic of him being famous but he was none of these women's direct superior. This isn't Kevin Spacey trying to have sex with a 14 year old box. At the worst this is indecent and inappropriate but not dangerous or harmful to others.

So you're saying rape and pedophilia should be the standard now for facing consequences for inappropriate sexual behavior? That's really setting the bar high and it leaves a lot of room for other things. Are you saying everyone should just forget about it and carry on business as usual? From a business standpoint, what kind of message does that send about how these networks view the people who have to work with these sickos? It's not a good look.