Tweet
If he had opened the car door had a look and then walked away, would he have been charged, my bet is no. He was charged because he filmed it, and that is consistent with what the police said and that is what I take objection to.
-
G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
-
Let's be clear though I think he is a low life piece of ....G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
The fact is, he didn't do that. And his motives matter. If he'd opened the door to help, been grossed out and walked away because he couldn't handle it, again nothing wrong in that.Originally posted by GUT View Post
He opened the door, trespassed criminally, getting in teh way of people who were actually trying to help and then attempted to sell the tape.
He attempted to profit off his illegal criminal trespass.
I honestly don't care at all about his arrest. More and more people who stop to film gore and put people's last dying moments on camera for the entertainment of disturbed people SHOULD be punished. We are coming to an age where technology has long outstripped privacy laws and privacy laws aren't doing enough to keep up.
Those teenagers had a right to privacy and to not be filmed as they lay gasping and dying. How would you like to be lying there bleeding to death and have someone shove a camera in your face?
What about the rights of those kids? I am entirely sick of the argument that the first amendment protects this kind of crap. That's not what the first amendment was intended for. He deserves everything he gets. And a huge beat down by those kids parents and relatives. They should all be allowed to kick his ever loving butt.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
-
Well make that a crime, but also apply it to the various press.Originally posted by Ally View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
It doesn't need to be a crime for this case. The man committed a crime. Criminal trespass. He was charged with the actual crime that he actually committed. I am not entirely sure what you are outraged about in this case.
A man committed a crime, and he got arrested for the crime he actually committed - criminal trespass. If he hadn't opened the door and gone into the car, he would have been safe as he would have committed no crime. He committed a crime. He got arrested for the exact crime he committed. They didn't trump up any fake charges against him or charge him with anything he didn't actually do.
What precisely is the outrage?
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
-
My outrage is that the police are reported to have said that if he wasn't filming it he wouldn't have been charged. But he would still have committed the offence he was charged with. IE f those reports are correct he wasn't charged because he opened the door, but because he was filming, which is not itself an offence.Originally posted by Ally View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
Exactly. The fellow's eminently deserving of public censure, and I do hope his neighbors will let him know what they think of him. The police have plainly misused their powers of arrest, though, and that concerns me rather more than callous conduct on the part of a private citizen.Originally posted by GUT View Post- GingerComment
-
If I met him in the street I'd be inclined to tell him what I thought of him, but it seems he has been arrested for being a low life piece of ... rather than because of his crime.Originally posted by Ginger View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
I would love to finish that sentence with an anagram of the word "this", but the point is I agree with GUT. This guy is an opportunistic creep. The sort who had he been near the Titanic as it went down would have been captivated by the sinking - the White Star liner slid under seemingly so gracefully.Originally posted by GUT View Post
By the way, reading this thread it reminded me of the "slap on the wrist" given those charming paparazzi, whose chase in Paris nearly twenty years back helped cause the crash of Princess Diana's car inside a tunnel, and the death of her, her boyfriend, and the driver. Yes, the driver had been drinking, which helped cause the crash, but without the chase there would have been less likely any cause for the crash. The rumor I heard was the Judge/magistrate did not throw the book at the paparazzi involved (who spent the time after the crash photographing the results instead of helping - sound familiar?) was a wave of real threats by them and their fellow photo ghouls to go after political and judicial figures in France if they were indicted for manslaughter (as they should have been).
JeffComment
-
Originally posted by GUT View Post
But what you are failing to comprehend is that the filming is the EVIDENCE that he committed a criminal act. If he hadn't filmed it, there would be no evidence of it. It's no different than the moron kids who filmed themselves committing vandalism. Without the tape, there's no evidence they did anything wrong.
The sequence of events is this: the man opened the car door, filmed it, put it on Facebook and tried to sell it. People complained to the police. The police said, there's nothing illegal in filming a disaster we can't arrest him for that. Then they watched the tape and saw him committing criminal trespass ...he filmed himself committing a criminal act.
If he had stood to the side and filmed it, he would not have been arrested but he filmed himself breaking into their car. He's a moron.
Let all Oz be agreed;
I need a better class of flying monkeys.Comment
Comment