Using Videotape To Prevent Rape Accusations

[Hersh2000]

"Again, as other posters have noted, the best defense is to follow the path of having sex with persons that you are in long term committed relationships with. Outside of that, every "stint" opens the door for you to find out exactly how unpleasant, vindictive, mental, psycho, or gold-digging the other person, who you don't really know that well, can be."

Believe it or not, I'm in total agreement with you. I basically had been in a long term relationship but when I think about women I dated/slept with 20 years ago,
I definately would not have slept with most of them, knowing what I know now.
No I didn't get any STD's, no I'm not wealthy or a celebrity, but the fact is alot of them I didn't know and I wouldn't have taken the chance in retrospect of someone turning out to be a nutcase.

[Hersh2000]

"Again, as other posters have noted, the best defense is to follow the path of having sex with persons that you are in long term committed relationships with. Outside of that, every "stint" opens the door for you to find out exactly how unpleasant, vindictive, mental, psycho, or gold-digging the other person, who you don't really know that well, can be." Aardvarc

Believe it or not, I'm in total agreement with you. I basically had been in a long term relationship but when I think about women I dated/slept with 20 years ago, I definitely would not have slept with most of them, knowing what I know now. No, I didn't get any STD's, no I'm not wealthy or a celebrity but the fact is alot of them I didn't know and I wouldn't have taken the chance in retrospect of someone turning out to be a nutcase.

I still don't see anything wrong with taping yourself privately having sex if that tape might prove your innocent of a false accusation. I'm also not saying to show the tape off or anything, either. The bottom line is, I'd rather be a sleazebag as someone said then someone put in the position of being accused of rape. But again, if it helps to console the politically correct, I totally agree with Aardvarc's statement. I just was interested in the use of tapes to prevent being arrested,charged,convicted, etc., and at this point, I really haven't gotten any direct answers on that point that seem credible- I'll have to reread them later, I just dashed this off and have to leave the house. If it turns out I misread some things, I'll revise this post.

[aardvarc]

My suspicion overall, without any particular state's statutes in mind, is that if at any time the party who did NOT consent found out about the taping, they would most certainly be able to bring a civil case for things like emotional distress, at the very least, based on them having a reasonable expectation of privacy. So even if such acts weren't criminal in any given state, the whopping amounts that a jury could potentially award have much more capacity for long term damage/punishment.

This would only apply in a personal and private setting, whereas people like baby-sitters, many of whom have tried to bring similar cases once they found out they were being video taped via a nanny-cam, would generally NOT have that reasonable expectation of privacy since they are acting as a paid employee while in the home.

[cyjeff]

If you are saying that sexual relations outside of a standard legal structure (i.e. marriage) is dangerous in a number of legal reasons, you are correct.

What you are really asking for is a method of making sure that we protect ourselves from a person we don't trust a moment but still want to have sex with.

I don't have an answer for that.

Video is already available.... don't forget to follow her into the bathroom to make sure she took her pill or to photograph his v-scar.

[mmmagique]

§ 565.252. Invasion of privacy, first degree, penalty


1. A person commits the crime of invasion of privacy in the first degree if such person:


(1) Knowingly photographs or films another person, without the person's knowledge and consent, while the person being photographed or filmed is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the person subsequently distributes the photograph or film to another or transmits the image contained in the photograph or film in a manner that allows access to that image via a computer; or


(2) Knowingly disseminates or permits the dissemination by any means, to another person, of a videotape, photograph, or film obtained in violation of subdivision (1) of this subsection or in violation of section 565.253


2. Invasion of privacy in the first degree is a class D felony.


Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.250(3) further provides in relevant part that:


“Place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy”, [is] any place where a reasonable person would believe that a person could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the person's undressing was being viewed, photographed or filmed by another.

[mmmagique]

258 Mich.App. 175, 670 N.W.2d 675

Briefs and Other Related Documents



Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Jessica LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Frances LeGROW, Defendant-Appellant.
Bethany L. Dennis, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Frances LeGrow, Defendant-Appellant.
Amy Shemanski, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James Frances LeGrow, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 234723, 234726, 234727.

Submitted May 6, 2003, at Detroit.
Decided Aug. 21, 2003, at 9:05 a.m.
Released for Publication Oct. 16, 2003.


Three ex-girlfriends brought invasion of privacy and infliction of emotional distress action against boyfriend who had secretly videotaped his consensual sexual encounters with them. The Circuit Court, Genessee County, Judith A. Fullerton, J., entered judgment on jury verdict for ex-girlfriends. Boyfriend appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jane E. Markey, J., held that: (1) as a matter of first impression, boyfriend's bedroom was a “private place” under invasion of privacy statute; (2) ex-girlfriends presented a factual question regarding whether their consent to engage in sexual activity included express or implied consent to be videotaped; and (3) ex-girlfriends presented a factual question regarding whether boyfriend caused intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress when he secretly and without their consent videotaped each girlfriend having sex with him.


Affirmed.


Joel P. Hoekstra, J., concurred and filed a separate opinion.

[jk]

Now that's not what the OP wanted to hear. All he wanted to know was if his video of him having sex with a girl that happened to run out before he forced her into anal sex would get him aquitted of the rape charges she filed.

the answer is; no.

It's just that simple and that's a fact, Jack.

[mmmagique]

Oh! I'm sorry! I thought he might like some case law from this "idiot" who answered his oh so bright question correctly in the first place.

Thank you for clearing this up!!

~Christina

[cyjeff]

Yeah, the facts get in the way sometimes.

I still don't understand the intention here.

This technology exists. What would have been the business plan?

[jk]

Oh! I'm sorry! I thought he might like some case law from this "idiot" who answered his oh so bright question correctly in the first place.

Thank you for clearing this up!!

~Christina

It was a valiant effort but if fell on deaf ears, or I guess blind eyes would be more accurate analogy.