She Said a Police Officer Sexually Abused Her. His Body Camera Tells a Different Story [VIDEO]
98 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cliff2;47770982]First example sounds like stalking. There are laws against that you know.[/QUOTE]
Well alright, someone just quickly pulling out their phone/camera in public, filming your face for a fair 10-15 second while you uncomfortably try to dodge him, then he just puts the phone back to his pocket and walks away, never saying a word to you either.
Stalking? I don't see how. Criminal offense? Maybe. Weird? Yeah.
[QUOTE=gekko;47770933]So, you would have no problem with someone filming your face, and following you in public while constantly filming you, and you only? With their personal camera phone or such? You couldn't do anything about it, except like, go home. You can't attack the person, and the person doesn't have to respond to you. I see a problem.
Not a really serious offense though, but a crime regardless. And by going to certain (public) places you also accept/agree that you might show up on cameras, or someone might unintentionally film you. You can't really file a police report because of that lol.[/QUOTE]
You just described Surveillance Camera Man, who apparently had all his videos deleted by Google.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47765023]Should at least take in consideration that she was drunk at the time of making the accusation.[/QUOTE]
Its entirely her fault AND responsibility for being drunk though. Shes a fucking idiot and scum. She also didnt appear to be black out drunk as she was able to talk decently, walk, and seemed pretty self aware so she knew what was going on. Shes a real piece of shit who knew exactly what she was doing.
This is the first time ive ever seen someone try and defend someones illegal actions because they were drunk, im pretty shocked.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47768031]yes i'm sure that if several measures to encourage and facilitate prosecuting false allegations were put in place, no actual rapists would ever try to use that in their favor (because let's face it, what self respecting rapist would ever lie in court to try and hinder legal procedures and investigations against them?), and it would definitely not mean more bureaucratic hurdles for traumatized victims to overcome[/QUOTE]
You mean like people who falsely accuse others of raping them?
They would only be able to do so if there is a strong indication that the allegations were false, as opposed to simple lack of evidence on the accuser's part. I already explained that.
Besides, victims who go to court already have to relive their trauma in the first place. Having to clarify some things about possible indications of the accusation being false doesn't sound like it would add a lot of material to go through when they already had to explain all the details in the hope of inculping their rapist. So it wouldn't discourage victims to report in a significant way.
I also don't see how that's limited to rape cases either. Perjury during testimonies is punishable by law too and the witnesses are sometimes just as traumatised by the event, like for instance in murder cases.
Rape victims aren't the only persons to deserve justice. When being accused of being a rapist is likely to ruin your life, even if you were disculped, a system that prevents abuse of such accusations is mandatory.
[editline]21st May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=joes33431;47768087]the argument was not that laws and punishments should be abolished, the argument was that punishment alone is not an effective solution, and that if you want to mitigate the impact of false allegations, then something other than prosecution is likely necessary.[/QUOTE]
Prosecution is still necessary though. The solution you propose would do jack about people who simply don't care about others, ie people like those who falsely accuse others of rape.
I also don't know what makes you believe deterrence is an ineffective way to prevent something from happening. Most legislation is based upon this principle, and in the case of false rape allegations it's simply the only possible measure.
[QUOTE=Covalent;47763421]Dashcams, illegal?
What in the shit are you doing, Germany.[/QUOTE]
It's some weird interaction with privacy law (which is comparatively strict here).
Giving the recordings to anyone (police, insurance, whatever) can net you a 300k€ fine (upper limit), but recording itself is technically not forbidden afaik (as long as it's not active on anyone's private property and you intend to never give them to anyone else whatsoever).
Giving them to the court if you are involved in the issue seems to be fine though.
The last important ruling about it is from October, so the matter doesn't seem settled and there will likely be sane legislation [I]eventually[/I].
Right now it's pretty inadequate in my opinion, but I probably have slightly less concern about privacy in public than most other people here. What I would definitely be opposed to would be the state implementing anything resembling constant surveillance.
[editline]21st May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;47771199]Its entirely her fault AND responsibility for being drunk though. Shes a fucking idiot and scum. She also didnt appear to be black out drunk as she was able to talk decently, walk, and seemed pretty self aware so she knew what was going on. Shes a real piece of shit who knew exactly what she was doing.
This is the first time ive ever seen someone try and defend someones illegal actions because they were drunk, im pretty shocked.[/QUOTE]
It's extremely common to consider intoxication as extenuating circumstance.
That said I've also heard of legislations where the opposite is the case (but I don't now specifics so take this with a big grain of salt.)
It probably really heavily depends on how it's seen culturally, the specific circumstances, as well as whether the situation directly causing it is outlawed when intoxicated (e.g. you won't get away with speeding while DUI).
I don't get this, why did they remake an article from 2014?
[editline]21st May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killuah;47766490]they are because you have to at least let people know that they are recorded[/QUOTE]
Someone should get a vinyl wrap of the entire car with "ICH RECORDEN DICH, NICHT SUE MICH BITTE" and mirrored text on the front.
[QUOTE=Reds;47761881]Body cameras already paying for themselves in all directions.[/QUOTE]
Yet very few states use them... Smh.
[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;47771497]I don't get this, why did they remake an article from 2014?
[editline]21st May 2015[/editline]
Someone should get a vinyl wrap of the entire car with "ICH RECORDEN DICH, NICHT SUE MICH BITTE" and mirrored text on the front.[/QUOTE]
"Ich zeichne Sie auf, bitte verklagen Sie mich nicht."
I'm actually not sure if the recording itself is illegal.
If you don't target anyone in particular it's fine if they are in the resulting material afaik (in public. There are additional laws regarding recording in other contexts that make it a lot more shady there.) You just have to make sure you remove all identifiable marks before you publish the video.
It seems dash cams are completely illegal in Austria though. You'll get stopped if you have one there according to the terrible tabloid that came up when I checked the situation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.