Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — California prosecutors on Tuesday charged two anti-abortion activists who made undercover videos of themselves trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood with 15 felonies, saying they invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent.

    The charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress come eight months after similar charges were dropped in Texas.

    State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat who took over the investigation in January, said in a statement that the state "will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations."

    Prosecutors say Daleiden, of Davis, California, and Merritt, of San Jose, filmed 14 people without permission between October 2013 and July 2015 in Los Angeles, San Francisco and El Dorado counties. One felony count was filed for each person. The 15th was for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy.
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c50e9...ned-parenthood

  • #2
    One thing democratic hate is to have the truth exposed. It's the Russian done it syndrome.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #3
      The Caliban really hates it when people start thinking they are entitled to the truth.
      Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

      Comment


      • #4
        "We must enforce the Law" theme goes out the window real quick here sometimes....
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Good to know someone cares...

          Of course, back in the days of Tricky Dick in the White House, he routinely recorded every meeting a a "criminal manner"; i.e., without the knowledge or consent of those he recorded.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
            "We must enforce the Law" theme goes out the window real quick here sometimes....
            Yes, YOUR side does that every single *******ed time the Law conflicts with anything you want, ANYTHING at all. Your willingness to trash the Justice system at a whim every time it suits you means that only suckers care about that kind of thing any more.
            Welcome to a hell of your own creation.

            From Eric Snowden to Wikileaks, you guys just want to send everyone that tells us the truth about anything straight to the Gulags, don't you?

            But here is something for you to take to your grave; it is always the weaker side that has to try to censor the opposition, use its wiles to silence whistle-blowers and imprison everyone that is finding out the truth.
            YOU ar weak, your political religion is dying, and you guys just can't stand it, can you?
            "Why is the Rum gone?"

            -Captain Jack

            Comment


            • #7
              If the people were willing to do a crime, they should pay the price. Ignorance of it being a crime, is not an excuse.

              Pruitt
              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

              Comment


              • #8
                All these 'activists' seem to subcribe to the rock bottom method of journalism......

                https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SqDP8SnPVA0

                Comment


                • #9
                  "they invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent"

                  How else will they find out the truth?

                  The Left doesn't like being exposed and will be very vindictive against those who expose them.
                  {}

                  "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                    "they invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent"

                    How else will they find out the truth?

                    The Left doesn't like being exposed and will be very vindictive against those who expose them.
                    Kind of like government officials leaking stuff to the press... oh wait, the right gets very upset about those laws being broken. Laws being broke that supports their point of view is OK.

                    So which is it? You want the law enforced or not? Remember the calls about 'selective law enforcement?"

                    No 'truth' came out by the way.
                    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                    “To talk of many things:
                    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                    Of cabbages—and kings—
                    And why the sea is boiling hot—
                    And whether pigs have wings.”
                    ― Lewis Carroll

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      "We must enforce the Law" theme goes out the window real quick here sometimes....


                      But that is the problem. It doesn't seem like they are enforcing the actual law.

                      State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat who took over the investigation in January, said in a statement that the state "will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations."
                      And said:
                      “The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” Becerra said.

                      This is interesting because, as I understand it, the recordings took place in a public area. Generally speaking, we cannot expect "privacy" in a public place.
                      The statute applies only if the speaker had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
                      Speaking openly in a restaurant doesn't support the claim of an expectation of privacy.
                      I anticipate that those charges related to recordings in the restaurant will be quickly dismissed. If not, California has opened a huge can of worms and even the MSM might not support it.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                        But that is the problem. It doesn't seem like they are enforcing the actual law.

                        State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat who took over the investigation in January, said in a statement that the state "will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations."
                        And said:
                        “The right to privacy is a cornerstone of California’s Constitution, and a right that is foundational in a free democratic society,” Becerra said.

                        This is interesting because, as I understand it, the recordings took place in a public area. Generally speaking, we cannot expect "privacy" in a public place.
                        The statute applies only if the speaker had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
                        Speaking openly in a restaurant doesn't support the claim of an expectation of privacy.
                        I anticipate that those charges related to recordings in the restaurant will be quickly dismissed. If not, California has opened a huge can of worms and even the MSM might not support it.
                        The video's were not recordings made by recording others talking in public. They were direct conversations between those charged and those being interview. If they had simply overheard the public conversation your point would be valid. They did not do that.
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                          If the people were willing to do a crime, they should pay the price. Ignorance of it being a crime, is not an excuse.

                          Pruitt
                          Actually, it is, since expecting anyone to know all of the laws is untenable these days.

                          Imagine you are dropped into downtown Kabul - how many of the local laws do you know? Remember - any number of them carry the automatic death penalty.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Actually, it is, since expecting anyone to know all of the laws is untenable these days.

                            Imagine you are dropped into downtown Kabul - how many of the local laws do you know? Remember - any number of them carry the automatic death penalty.
                            When you claim to be an investigative journalist, which these people do, then it behooves you to know the laws covering secret video taping of conversations.

                            So yes, you are supposed to know the law concerning the area you are claiming to work in. Other areas maybe not so much.
                            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                            “To talk of many things:
                            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                            Of cabbages—and kings—
                            And why the sea is boiling hot—
                            And whether pigs have wings.”
                            ― Lewis Carroll

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              The video's were not recordings made by recording others talking in public. They were direct conversations between those charged and those being interview. If they had simply overheard the public conversation your point would be valid. They did not do that.


                              Actually my point is completely valid and it has to do with what the speaker did to maintain privacy, not whether it was overheard by a 3rd party.

                              If you are going to do something in a public place, you cannot assume that you have a right to privacy. So if the speaker whispers, he can argue that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, if he uses a normal speaking voice (as I recall was the case in the videos) his demand for privacy is significantly less reasonable as he wasn't taking any steps to maintain that privacy.

                              While the following is talking about government surveillance, it addresses the concept of privacy.



                              What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. [p352] See Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253; Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X