Using Videotape To Prevent Rape Accusations

[Hersh2000]

Most of you missed the point which is why living in a politically correct society sucks as people don't want to address facts/issues that they don't want to hear and thus respond with answers that have nothing to do with the question and when called on it, come up with other BS. It almost reminds me of those fools at CNN who question publicly the Columbian Government for using "The Red Cross" to rescue hostages. How dare they!

Anyway, the post had nothing to do with condoning rape or asking about the legality of secretly filming video of having sex with a partner. Specifically, if you secretly filmed yourself having sex just to cover yourself if some gold digger or nutcase falsely accused you of raping them when you in fact had consentual sex, the other person would not know you taped them unless you used that to convinced law enforcement that she was lying and falsely accusing you. I doubt she could then go ahead and press criminal charges/civil charges that you secretly videoed her when it was established she went ahead to press phony legal charges against you.

I then asked several hypothetical questions on what these tapes would accomplish in different scenarios. None of this had anything to do with condoning rape or secretly videoing and distributing sex tapes to other people other than for law enforcement reasons. As I said, the pathetic thing in the United States is people read things into things that don't exist strictly out of ignorance and when call on it, attack the the person doing the calling. Ain't life grand.

I was looking into marketing of this kind of survailance stuff just as a safeguard against people who make false accusations. Yes, the best way to avoid these false accusations is not to get involved with these people in the first place. As an aside, in the NBA, women would have sex with players who used a condom and then took the used condom and impregnated themselves with the sperm so they could sue for child support.

[jk]

Anyway, the post had nothing to do with condoning rape or asking about the legality of secretly filming video of having sex with a partner. Specifically, if you secretly filmed yourself having sex just to cover yourself if some gold digger or nutcase falsely accused you of raping them when you in fact had consentual sex, the other person would not know you taped them unless you used that to convinced law enforcement that she was lying and falsely accusing you. I doubt she could then go ahead and press criminal charges/civil charges that you secretly videoed her when it was established she went ahead to press phony legal charges against you.

Oh, I see. You are considering blackmailing your girlfriend into not reporting you for forcing her to allow you to drive the Hershey Highway.

If the tape was illegally recorded, you will not be able to use it as evidence so not, it would not prevent a false accusation.

[mmmagique]

"fruit of the poisonous tree"

I am curious though, and not to get ot, but, were you there when these women 'impregnated themselves' with sperm out of a condom? (or do you have an illegally acquired tape?) I'm just wondering how you know this.

~Christina

[jk]

"fruit of the poisonous tree"

I am curious though, and not to get ot, but, were you there when these women 'impregnated themselves' with sperm out of a condom? (or do you have an illegally acquired tape?) I'm just wondering how you know this.

~Christina

It was big news a few years back. I don;t remember the player I heard about but I understand it was true.

[cyjeff]

Most of you missed the point which is why living in a politically correct society sucks as people don't want to address facts/issues that they don't want to hear and thus respond with answers that have nothing to do with the question and when called on it, come up with other BS. It almost reminds me of those fools at CNN who question publicly the Columbian Government for using "The Red Cross" to rescue hostages. How dare they!

Anyway, the post had nothing to do with condoning rape or asking about the legality of secretly filming video of having sex with a partner. Specifically, if you secretly filmed yourself having sex just to cover yourself if some gold digger or nutcase falsely accused you of raping them when you in fact had consentual sex, the other person would not know you taped them unless you used that to convinced law enforcement that she was lying and falsely accusing you. I doubt she could then go ahead and press criminal charges/civil charges that you secretly videoed her when it was established she went ahead to press phony legal charges against you.

I then asked several hypothetical questions on what these tapes would accomplish in different scenarios. None of this had anything to do with condoning rape or secretly videoing and distributing sex tapes to other people other than for law enforcement reasons. As I said, the pathetic thing in the United States is people read things into things that don't exist strictly out of ignorance and when call on it, attack the the person doing the calling. Ain't life grand.

I was looking into marketing of this kind of survailance stuff just as a safeguard against people who make false accusations. Yes, the best way to avoid these false accusations is not to get involved with these people in the first place. As an aside, in the NBA, women would have sex with players who used a condom and then took the used condom and impregnated themselves with the sperm so they could sue for child support.

No, YOU are not listening.

You cannot use illegally obtained videotapes in a trial.

This is the same if the police illegally wiretapped your phone. If they don't have a legal reason for the taping... and "I don't trust the woman I want to bone" doesn't approach that standard... then the taping isn't admissable.

[Hersh2000]

So you are saying if you have proof that exonerates you, you can not use it because it was illegally obtained. Therefore, we can arrest people we know are innocent and throw them in jail.

Scenario 1: You have consentual sex with a woman. You are with her for an hour, 9-10 PM. She then reports you for raping her. She claims you did this the entire time you were with her which she says was 1 hour. The police see your video but according to you, ignore it even though it totally contradicts and invalidates her statement. The DA says your proof is illegal, I always thought it was the prosecuters stuff that has to be legally obtained and goes ahead and prosecutes you. The judge will not allow your evidence into court under your it was illegally obtained evidence to exonerate you- again I never heard of that one before. Meantime, the newspapers publish the whole story saying the woman is clearly lying because of the video. As this is not allowed and the judge says you must make your decision based strictly on what was introduced in court, you decide to give him a guilty verdict. Sorry, this scenario don't ring right.

[cyjeff]

So you are saying if you have proof that exonerates you, you can not use it because it was illegally obtained. Therefore, we can arrest people we know are innocent and throw them in jail.

Scenario 1: You have consentual sex with a woman. You are with her for an hour, 9-10 PM. She then reports you for raping her. She claims you did this the entire time you were with her which she says was 1 hour. The police see your video but according to you, ignore it even though it totally contradicts and invalidates her statement. The DA says your proof is illegal, I always thought it was the prosecuters stuff that has to be legally obtained and goes ahead and prosecutes you. The judge will not allow your evidence into court under your it was illegally obtained evidence to exonerate you- again I never heard of that one before. Meantime, the newspapers publish the whole story saying the woman is clearly lying because of the video. As this is not allowed and the judge says you must make your decision based strictly on what was introduced in court, you decide to give him a guilty verdict. Sorry, this scenario don't ring right.

If the evidence you want to present in court was obtained illegally - and I don't know how to tell you any more clearly that filming women without their consent during sex is illegal on a number of levels, then it will be deemed inadmissable in court.

As if it doesn't exist.

In the same way that you couldn't put a gun to her head and get her to say it.... if the evidence is illegally obtained, it is illegal evidence.

If you then contact the newspapers with your evidence, you will not only be liable for criminal charges but civil ones as well. Big ones. And judges really don't like people that go around their orders in an effort to influence the jury.

That assumes, of course, that the media cares about your case one whit... because they won't... because THEY don't want to be sued as well.

[BOR]

So you are saying if you have proof that exonerates you, you can not use it because it was illegally obtained. Therefore, we can arrest people we know are innocent and throw them in jail.

The "exclusionary rule" is NOT always absolute in a criminal proceeding as far as "illegally obtained government evidence", as we see in this recent case and admission:


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1360.ZO.html


Your query seems to focus on if illegally obtained evidence which was garnered by YOU which is exculpatory in nature can be admitted by YOU in mounting your defense?? The govt. did not obtain this evidence, you did!!!

I am not an authority on the Rules of Evidence, but if an evidentiary hearing were to take place by your request, I am not so sure the court would forbid it's admission??

You can certainly argue you have a right to face your accuser, and the TAPE may be exculaptory in nature as to impeach her??

Does the Due Process and Fair trial provisions of the federal constitution mandate such admission??

I do not know, but am open to any case law on the subject.

[BOR]

Oh, I will add after thinking about this, that "statutory" violations and the collection of evidence, even if the govt. violated them, do not generally trigger the "exclusionary rule", "constitutional" violations do!!

Here, the alleged violation is a statutory one, so even if we apply the same standard to the videotaper as the govt., the "illegal" tape will be admissable!!

[mmmagique]

Set up your business, and let us know how it works out for ya, ok?

p.s. Get ALOT of insurance.

~Christina