Ashley Gonzalez, a 22-year-old who worked as an overnight security guard at St. Michael the Archangel Church on West 34th Street in Manhattan, is calling for the arrest of 75-year-old Father George …More
Ashley Gonzalez, a 22-year-old who worked as an overnight security guard at St. Michael the Archangel Church on West 34th Street in Manhattan, is calling for the arrest of 75-year-old Father George William Rutler.
News 12 obtained video she recorded that she said shows Rutler watching pornography on his computer in front of her. News 12 has blurred the alleged sexually explicit video.
News 12 obtained video she recorded that she said shows Rutler watching pornography on his computer in front of her. News 12 has blurred the alleged sexually explicit video.
AlexBKaiser and one more user link to this post
Wayside Shrine Maker
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The man in the video does not look like Fr. Rutler. The woman's story will fall apart.
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
This case stinks of a weird, weird set-up. Why does this purple-haired security guard hire a "black ops" private investigator to help her file a police report? Why not go to an attorney or, you know... go to the police to file a police report? ;-)
Mr. Tactical Mirror-Shades Black Ops better check his NY law 1.) watching porn isn't a criminal act. Sinful, to be sure, but not criminal. 2.) there …More
This case stinks of a weird, weird set-up. Why does this purple-haired security guard hire a "black ops" private investigator to help her file a police report? Why not go to an attorney or, you know... go to the police to file a police report? ;-)
Mr. Tactical Mirror-Shades Black Ops better check his NY law 1.) watching porn isn't a criminal act. Sinful, to be sure, but not criminal. 2.) there are no witnesses to the alleged assault and no physical evidence any such assault took place 3.) there are no other corroborating allegations by anyone else.
Meaning, this is entirely her say-so. Then there are the contradictions a competent defense attorney would ask this young lady...
. If she hasn't been back to work at the church since she was allegedly attacked, how did she secretly film the priest? More importantly, if this "security guard" is that frightened of a white-haired 75 year old man, why did she go back at all?
Aside from the fact, of course, it's a dream assignment that's ridiculously easy work. Let's face it, even allowing for a few additional buildings like the rectory and a social hall, a church has a fairly small footprint and the buildings themselves are pleasant and heated.
This "security guard" isn't having to walk mile after mile after mile outside in a New York winter checking shipping containers at the docks or through an unheated multi-building warehouse facility.
No, she stayed because the supposed assault obviously meant less to her than the nice fat pay-check she gets from a cushy do-nothing assignment, exactly the sort that are reserved for the "Gonzalezes" in New York.
Sounds like she's angling for a pay-out of some sort, especially since the security company offered to re-assign her and she declined even that.
If anyone should be filing a complaint, it's the priest. The security guard was assigned to ensure the safety of the buildings. She has no business sneaking into the rectory and filming him without his consent.
Addtionally, if there are any arrests to be made, it should be the security guard! New York law considers recording someone without their consent AND where the subject have a reasonable expectation of privacy (like in his office after hours with the door mostly closed) to be trespassing .That's if the New York court system goes easy on her.
By all rights, A non-permissive recording of another person's image for voyeuristic, profitable, defamatory or exploitative purposes constitutes a Class D felony, punishable by two to seven years in jail. She's defaming the priest by publishing a video of him doing something in private.
If a jealous ex-boyfriend snuck into Ms. Gonzalez's bedroom, recorded her masturbating, and published the video without her knowledge of consent, you can bet the NY courts would land on that dirtbag on just those grounds.
'course, since this NY, and she's a woman and a Gonzalez, the laws are applied just a bit differently....
Mr. Tactical Mirror-Shades Black Ops better check his NY law 1.) watching porn isn't a criminal act. Sinful, to be sure, but not criminal. 2.) there are no witnesses to the alleged assault and no physical evidence any such assault took place 3.) there are no other corroborating allegations by anyone else.
Meaning, this is entirely her say-so. Then there are the contradictions a competent defense attorney would ask this young lady...
. If she hasn't been back to work at the church since she was allegedly attacked, how did she secretly film the priest? More importantly, if this "security guard" is that frightened of a white-haired 75 year old man, why did she go back at all?
Aside from the fact, of course, it's a dream assignment that's ridiculously easy work. Let's face it, even allowing for a few additional buildings like the rectory and a social hall, a church has a fairly small footprint and the buildings themselves are pleasant and heated.
This "security guard" isn't having to walk mile after mile after mile outside in a New York winter checking shipping containers at the docks or through an unheated multi-building warehouse facility.
No, she stayed because the supposed assault obviously meant less to her than the nice fat pay-check she gets from a cushy do-nothing assignment, exactly the sort that are reserved for the "Gonzalezes" in New York.
Sounds like she's angling for a pay-out of some sort, especially since the security company offered to re-assign her and she declined even that.
If anyone should be filing a complaint, it's the priest. The security guard was assigned to ensure the safety of the buildings. She has no business sneaking into the rectory and filming him without his consent.
Addtionally, if there are any arrests to be made, it should be the security guard! New York law considers recording someone without their consent AND where the subject have a reasonable expectation of privacy (like in his office after hours with the door mostly closed) to be trespassing .That's if the New York court system goes easy on her.
By all rights, A non-permissive recording of another person's image for voyeuristic, profitable, defamatory or exploitative purposes constitutes a Class D felony, punishable by two to seven years in jail. She's defaming the priest by publishing a video of him doing something in private.
If a jealous ex-boyfriend snuck into Ms. Gonzalez's bedroom, recorded her masturbating, and published the video without her knowledge of consent, you can bet the NY courts would land on that dirtbag on just those grounds.
'course, since this NY, and she's a woman and a Gonzalez, the laws are applied just a bit differently....