▲ 465 ▼ LAPD officer who recorded colleagues’ racist comments charged with felony eavesdropping (www.latimes.com) submitted 1 week ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world 57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 21 points 1 week ago (2 children) All party consent state. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 17 points 1 week ago (1 child) Were they working at the time? Do LAPD officers wear body cams? Seems like law enforcement officers, at least while working, should reasonably expect to be recorded all the time, which would be implied consent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (1 child) You're right (and it's great to see someone that understands implied consent) but they're absolutely going to make him fight for it. Meaning that if the goal is to discourage the behavior, they'll charge anyway and let the defense attorney argue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week ago I know. The cruelty is the point. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* I hate that 12 states are all-party consent. If you're part of a conversation you should be allowed to record it, and 38 states agree. I went to jail after being falsely charged with assault and it was only my recordings of our conversations that saved my ass. To think in California I could have been charged with a felony for providing evidence my accuser was a scheming liar is crazy to me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 17 points 1 week ago (1 child) Were they working at the time? Do LAPD officers wear body cams? Seems like law enforcement officers, at least while working, should reasonably expect to be recorded all the time, which would be implied consent. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (1 child) You're right (and it's great to see someone that understands implied consent) but they're absolutely going to make him fight for it. Meaning that if the goal is to discourage the behavior, they'll charge anyway and let the defense attorney argue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week ago I know. The cruelty is the point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (1 child) You're right (and it's great to see someone that understands implied consent) but they're absolutely going to make him fight for it. Meaning that if the goal is to discourage the behavior, they'll charge anyway and let the defense attorney argue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week ago I know. The cruelty is the point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 9 points 1 week ago I know. The cruelty is the point. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* I hate that 12 states are all-party consent. If you're part of a conversation you should be allowed to record it, and 38 states agree. I went to jail after being falsely charged with assault and it was only my recordings of our conversations that saved my ass. To think in California I could have been charged with a felony for providing evidence my accuser was a scheming liar is crazy to me. permalink fedilink source parent