Police Abuse

Brickbat: I've Got Your Picture


A judge has sentenced former Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer Thomas Allen to 36 months probation after he pleaded guilty to taking photographs secretly of girls' underwear. Allen worked with the department's youth programs, and one of his jobs was to take photos of the youth Explorer program. While doing that, he secretly photographed some of the girls' underwear. He will not have to register as a sex offender.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: Perry vs. Rand, Millennial Poll, Sealing the Border, Jailing Free-Range Parents, Licensing Times Square Cartoon Characters, Defending Sweatshops, Zany After-show and More!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “[Judge Lisa] Bell said in her sentence that Allen will not have to register because of his voluntary efforts to control his addiction. Because Allen is charged with peeping, Bell had to decide whether to put him on North Carolina’s sex offender registry.”

    Yeah, it’s not like he secretly peeped into an occupied room, with the victim’s age being “18 and older.” *That* would have warranted being put in the registry.


    1. And it’s not as if he secretly peeped on someone 18 or over, with photographic equipment:


      1. But how is that hero supposed to make it home safely if he has to follow all of the same laws that we serfs have to follow? (Also, that comb-over is teh sexxxay.)

        1. Simple – they stay home and live as shut-ins. It’s best for everybody.

    2. He’s a hero, a HERO, cut him some slack

  2. Dude knows he is talking a LOT of smack


    1. We’re on to you AnonBot! Stop trying to manipulate our online conversation!

  3. He will not have to register as a sex offender.

    That’s on account of fucking people and invading privacy are part of the job description, so he thought he was only doing his duty.

    1. It appears he was not explicitly instructed NOT to fuck people and invade privacy. If it’s not in the training or the Union contract – well. Then the civilians need to pony up for more training. Cause these guys’ LIVES are on the line.

      Good call from the judge, IMHO.



    2. I will never understand how the local citizens didn’t show up at this guy’s house with torches and pitchforks after such a lenient sentencing. I don’t like to use the word “sheeple”, but there it is.

      1. Would you if you were a local?

        1. Cover his house and car with panties?

      2. The more appropriate response would be to show up at the DA and judge’s houses. They hold the power to rein in the cops, yet they don’t.

        1. Can’t they go to all three on a rage-crawl?

          1. Tap a keg at each one as you go along

        2. They hold the power to rein in the cops

          They also hold the power to summon a couple dozen cops to beat the shit out of anyone who protests in front of their house.

  4. “He did more than anybody could ever ask from somebody with an addiction.”

    You mean, like, register as a sex offender and resign?

    1. The man has a disease you insensitive prick. A DISEASE. You wouldn’t throw somebody in jail or take away their livelihood for having diabetes or cancer, so you can’t very well demonize the poor guy for being stricken by the disease of addiction.

      I wonder how many defense lawyers for convicted pedophiles or child pornographers have been laughed out of court trying to use that argument.

      1. Probably not as many as have been laughed at by cops arresting drug-users.

      2. Indeed, you wouldn’t allow someone to be kicked out of his house or divorced for having diabetes or cancer, ….

    2. But that guy with the joint, that motherfucker is going to jail. And that guy who was drunkenly taking a leak in public, he can’t come within 15 miles of a school for the rest of his life, because FYTW.

      1. You mean the non-cop with a joint, or the non-cop drunkenly taking a leak in public.

        Cops don’t go to jail for that shit. They only go to jail for outing bad cops.

  5. At least the comments on the original story recognize that he only got special treatment because he’s a cop. Often times the comments are apologetic.

  6. It’s not clear from the story whether the panties were ON the girls when they were photographed. If the pictures were just of panties on the locker room floor, that’s a little different from pictures of underage girls wearing the panties or wearing only the panties.

    1. Yeah, this irritated me too. Leaving that detail unclear strikes me as a deliberate obfuscation as well, which makes it doubly annoying. Either the editor/reporter were trying to whitewash a cop’s misdeeds, or they were deliberately puffing up a non-story in order to sell more papers.

      If I’m going to find a story disgusting, is it too much to ask that I at least know why?

      1. “If I’m going to find a story disgusting, is it too much to ask that I at least know why?”

        Apparently, the answer is “Yes”. Oh, and FYTW!

      2. Me too. No clarif’n at the link. Is this bowdleriz’n? No details of how this happened. Were they required to change their underwear, and he photographed their dirties? Or were they required to change outerwear, and he snapped them as they were changing? Very frustrating not to know this.

    2. “Chief Rodney Monroe told WBTV that Allen took photos through the victims clothing during physical training that captured portions of their undergarments without their consent.”
      So, apparently, they were wearing the panties when he took the photos. So…he’s definitely a major perv who should have to live under a bridge like every other poor sap who got caught with inappropriate pictures of underage girls.
      I loved the part where the judge said he had already been punished by losing his career. Like other men convicted of similar offenses and JAILED don’t lose their careers. We are DEFINITELY in a feudal system where those employed by the castle have completely different rules than everyone else. Welcome to serfdom, America!

      1. Wait a minute…through the victims’ clothing? What, did they get them wet? During “physical training”? Does that mean a time during a session where they expected to be seen, and his misdeed was capturing that sight on film?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.