This frikkin' insane!

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I didn't think the police had the right to charge everyone on that video with all the laws they supposedly broke based on the erroneous accusation of one person. I would think you would be pretty angry if someone falsely accused you of something, and then the police took liberties to charge you with a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.

Once the videotape is lawfully in the hands of the police, don't you want them to look into other possible charges?

I do. And I'm a defense attorney.

What about a traffic cam that catches someone speeding, but also catches someone in distress (kidnapped, what have you). Don't you want the cops to follow up on that?


Don't think about a charge like drug possession/use. You can't prove those cases unless you actually have testable materials.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So if the kids on the tape were shown smoking pot, they could be charged with possession? I didn't think the police had the right to charge everyone on that video with all the laws they supposedly broke based on the erroneous accusation of one person. I would think you would be pretty angry if someone falsely accused you of something, and then the police took liberties to charge you with a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.

Except for the fact that they charging you with... violating the law. As pointed out by asleep, if it can be verified and the foundation set (as well as meeting search and seizure requirements), they can be charged with whatever crime is on the tape... this leads to lesson #1: NEVER videotape yourself doing something of questionable legality .

Give you an example. Some people made a videotape of themselves purposely driving their car into a tree to get insurance money. They got insurance money for it and the tape got out (I think the makers of the tape thought it was funny and released to their friends and it took on a mind of its own from then). The police managed to see the tape and the makers were charged with insurance fraud and later were found guilty of it.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I understand what ur saying imran but my impression were that a 17 y is still a minor though able to go to adult prisn but not able to enter into a contract that will be enforcable. And on another note the girl was a willing particpant which means she should have been arested along with the guy under thelaws they are sticking to

[Ben Kenobi]

Why do you think it wouldn't be admissible? Its evidence of a felony. Get some corroboration, ie testimony from the girl about her age when it was taken, and you can make the foundation.

The girl who did give the testimony did not want the boy to be charged. That's why she never filed and I don't think he should be charged with the felony, if the supposed victim declined to press charges. If there was a domestic dispute and the wife declined to press charges then the police cannot take him away.

Without the complaint from the supposed victim, I don't see how the state is justified in arresting the boy. Otherwise police could round up folks for breaking the law irrespective of the wishes of the victim.

You could never get an mj conviction on just videotape. The state could never prove that it actually was mj and not some legal substance.

Then it isn't admissible for either. Again, from the tape and without the 15 year old witness, how can they confirm the ages?

There is absolutely no problem using a videotape for these purposes, so long as foundational requirements are met (and obviously, search and seizure rights are followed)

I don't think it's right to charge people based only on the video evidence. They needed the testimony of the girl to say that she was in fact raped.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I understand what ur saying imran but my impression were that a 17 y is still a minor though able to go to adult prisn but not able to enter into a contract that will be enforcable. And on another note the girl was a willing particpant which means she should have been arested along with the guy under thelaws they are sticking to

Well a 17 year old is a minor, but is over the age of consent. But perhaps I'm not understanding what you are saying there. On the second point, all statutory rape laws are designed to protect the one under the age of consent. Therefore, they are never charged because it is for their benefit.

[q=Ben Kenobi]If there was a domestic dispute and the wife declined to press charges then the police cannot take him away.[/q]



You have a very strange view of the law. Of course they can. The police can press charges independent of a wife's wishes (especially in cases where the police see the wife was beaten pretty badly and may be scared to actually press charges).

Again, from the tape and without the 15 year old witness, how can they confirm the ages?

Um... because the people involved told them what ages they all were? You act like these people don't know how to lay foundation for a prosecution. They've been doing this stuff for a lot longer than you've been thinking about it.

They needed the testimony of the girl to say that she was in fact raped.

No, they just need evidence that the girl was 15 years old at the time of the sex (whether it be through her mouth or some other method). That's ALL they need outside the tape.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

I think all i a saying is that the boy is jsut as much as a minor the the girl. And if the girl was a willing partipant then why wasnt she arrested along with the boy. I suppose it has to do with weird laws in georgia, cause i recall a thread i started about an 18 yo in school being paddled and the police didnt act on battery charges against the school cause a parent signed consent forms for this person that is no longer a minor

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Ben Kenobi]If there was a domestic dispute and the wife declined to press charges then the police cannot take him away.[/q]



You have a very strange view of the law. Of course they can. The police can press charges independent of a wife's wishes (especially in cases where the police see the wife was beaten pretty badly and may be scared to actually press charges).

No kidding. I've represented maybe 150 dv defendants, and in a great majority of those, the victim recanted almost immediately. That didn't get my clients out of jail, though it did mean that their case would get dismissed and they'd get out of jail after a month.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... because the people involved told them what ages they all were? You act like these people don't know how to lay foundation for a prosecution. They've been doing this stuff for a lot longer than you've been thinking about it.

Exactly. Its especially easy to show when these kids are all in school together. Its not like it would take a lot of sleuthing to pinpoint the name of the girl and her age at the time of videotaping.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They needed the testimony of the girl to say that she was in fact raped.

No, they just need evidence that the girl was 15 years old at the time of the sex (whether it be through her mouth or some other method). That's ALL they need outside the tape.

Strict liability.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I think all i a saying is that the boy is jsut as much as a minor the the girl. And if the girl was a willing partipant then why wasnt she arrested along with the boy. I suppose it has to do with weird laws in georgia, cause i recall a thread i started about an 18 yo in school being paddled and the police didnt act on battery charges against the school cause a parent signed consent forms for this person that is no longer a minor

Prosecutorial discretion.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have a very strange view of the law. Of course they can. The police can press charges independent of a wife's wishes (especially in cases where the police see the wife was beaten pretty badly and may be scared to actually press charges).

Yes, but as you said they usually need some justification to go over the head of the other person, and before they lay down the charge they have to first consult with the victim. They can't just look at the tape and say, well they broke 7 laws there, they need to talk to the victim first to confirm. I don't see any evidence that they in fact interviewed the victim before the arrest and both charges being laid on both boys.

Secondly, I don't think we can really compare beating your wife to such an extent that she fears for her life and having oral sex. There isn't the pressing danger involved that ought to compel the police to override the wishes of the 'victim'.

Um... because the people involved told them what ages they all were? You act like these people don't know how to lay foundation for a prosecution. They've been doing this stuff for a lot longer than you've been thinking about it.

Did they do that before they charged them, or did they simply charge them as soon as they saw the videotape? It seems to me the police watched the video and saw both acts so they charged everyone with both acts since they couldn't be sure who did what. They then offered the plea bargain, and made a scapegoat out of the one kiddo who refused to take the plea.

No, they just need evidence that the girl was 15 years old at the time of the sex (whether it be through her mouth or some other method). That's ALL they need outside the tape.

Ok, and if the girl is unwilling to finger any of the boys, then what?

[Ben Kenobi]

That didn't get my clients out of jail, though it did mean that their case would get dismissed and they'd get out of jail after a month.

That's exactly what should have happened here.

Instead this kid is looking at 10 years in jail and has already served 18 months.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yes, but as you said they usually need some justification to go over the head of the other person, and before they lay down the charge they have to first consult with the victim. They can't just look at the tape and say, well they broke 7 laws there, they need to talk to the victim first to confirm. I don't see any evidence that they in fact interviewed the victim before the arrest and both charges being laid on both boys.

When the laws broken are strict liability laws, yes you can. You can look at pictures and videotape to determine that someone is underage. It happens everyday in child porn cases. You don't need a victim to say that they were under whatever age, you can use an expert if necessary.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, I don't think we can really compare beating your wife to such an extent that she fears for her life and having oral sex. There isn't the pressing danger involved that ought to compel the police to override the wishes of the 'victim'.

A victims wishes are always subservient to the wishes of society, regardless of age. A prosecutor that pays heed to the whims of a victim is not a very good prosecutor.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Did they do that before they charged them, or did they simply charge them as soon as they saw the videotape? It seems to me the police watched the video and saw both acts so they charged everyone with both acts since they couldn't be sure who did what.

Except they could prove (and did) that this male was engaged with this 15 year old female, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They then offered the plea bargain, and made a scapegoat out of the one kiddo who refused to take the plea.

The legal process at work. Charged with crime. Offered deal. Refuses deal. Goes to trial. Loses. IT happens. Everyday.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ok, and if the girl is unwilling to finger any of the boys, then what?

Unfortunate wording

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


That's exactly what should have happened here.

Instead this kid is looking at 10 years in jail and has already served 18 months.

Why?

How do you think child porn prosecutions work? Do the victims testify in those cases?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I think all i a saying is that the boy is jsut as much as a minor the the girl. And if the girl was a willing partipant then why wasnt she arrested along with the boy. I suppose it has to do with weird laws in georgia, cause i recall a thread i started about an 18 yo in school being paddled and the police didnt act on battery charges against the school cause a parent signed consent forms for this person that is no longer a minor

Say wha? I'm not sure we are understanding each other. The boys, AFAIK, were ALL above the age of consent. The 15 year old girl was under the age of consent. Or are you talking about the 17 year old girl? And I doubt in any statutory rape case in the country (imagine the boy is 20 and the girl is 15, which IIRC, is a crime in any state) the 'victim' would be charged. As for the 17 year old girl, I doubt any state would be prosecuting her either.

[q=Ben Kenobi]They can't just look at the tape and say, well they broke 7 laws there, they need to talk to the victim first to confirm. I don't see any evidence that they in fact interviewed the victim before the arrest and both charges being laid on both boys. [/q]

If there wasn't adequate foundation, don't you think the judge would disallow the evidence? Or if not that judge, the appellate judges above him?

They don't require the victim to confirm anything. If they can get evidence from other sources, that's plenty good.

The Supreme Court case was NOT on faulty evidence. No one (prosecution or defense) was disputing the manner in which the police got the information.

Look at it this way, if they see a brutal assault on a person on a street camera, do they need to wait for the victim to wake up from his coma to confirm before they can arrest the assaulter?

It seems to me the police watched the video and saw both acts so they charged everyone with both acts since they couldn't be sure who did what.

Um... yeaaaah. Apparently in your world, the police don't really do an investigation before they perform an arrest. I'm sorry, but its quite a leap to assume that the police saw a tape of minors having sex and just assumed something was wrong there and then arrested everyone without doing some background checking.

There is such a thing as false imprisonment and the police like to avoid such charges.

Ok, and if the girl is unwilling to finger any of the boys, then what?

*snicker*

Seriously, though, all they need is for someone to lay the foundation for the tape (that it is what it is, basically). And the 17 year old girl was willing to do so. Outside of that, you have close up of the boys faces on the tape and evidence of their ages at the time. That's enough, not only for arrest, but probably for conviction.

[Ben Kenobi]

When the laws broken are strict liability laws, yes you can. You can look at pictures and videotape to determine that someone is underage. It happens everyday in child porn cases. You don't need a victim to say that they were under whatever age, you can use an expert if necessary.

And did they use an expert in this case?

A victims wishes are always subservient to the wishes of society, regardless of age. A prosecutor that pays heed to the whims of a victim is not a very good prosecutor.

How is society served by putting this kid away for 10 years? Please show me how this prosecutor is serving society in applying the enormous sentence, plus the awful plea bargain. Any prosecutor worth his salt would have tried to lower the sentence to something much more reasonable.

Except they could prove (and did) that this male was engaged with this 15 year old female, beyond a reasonable doubt.

But not before they charged them. You can't charge someone without sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed.

The legal process at work. Charged with crime. Offered deal. Refuses deal. Goes to trial. Loses. IT happens. Everyday.

The plea was 6 years. I fail to see how the prosecution is serving society in any of the decisions that he made.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But not before they charged them. You can't charge someone without sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed.

From your link earlier:

At the party scene, the police found a video camera and a tape of several of the teens having sex with the 17 year old and receiving oral sex from the 15 year old. After viewing the tape, the police arrested six young men, including Petitioner, for rape of the 17 year old and aggravated child molestation of the 15 year old.

They kind of charged him at the same time for both crimes. Don't you read your own links? They had the tape, they knew the girl was 15 (how else could they charge him with aggravated child molestation of a 15 year old without knowing that). That's sufficient evidence right there.