Being caught on a camera constitutes implied consent, according to a St. Louis jury

View previous topic View next topic Go down

default Being caught on a camera constitutes implied consent, according to a St. Louis jury

Post by Nucky on Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:30 pm

I saw this on another forum. There's definitely something going on behind the scenes here. It seems that the majority of courts in the US are corrupt.

http://jezebel.com/5594774/jury-decides-consent-is-not-required-for-girls-gone-wild

_________________
Great minds think alike. Greater minds do not.
avatar
Nucky
Admin

Posts : 6140
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : Oakland County, MI

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Being caught on a camera constitutes implied consent, according to a St. Louis jury

Post by melodiccolor on Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:35 pm

I don't know if the court was corrupt or not; there is no telling what the jury had to work with or how they arrived at their verdict.

One thing is for sure, a huge miscarriage of justice occured. I also know that instructions to the jury can virtually garantee a win or loss in corrupt courts and jurisdictions; this I know from direct experience. Been on a couple of juries.

_________________
Life is complex.  Parts of it are real and parts of it are imaginary.  (read in a novel by Gregory Benford.)

Absurdity is one of the great joys of life.

All you need for a rich life is to see more.
avatar
melodiccolor
Admin

Posts : 11794
Join date : 2008-04-27
Location : The Land of Seriously Sombrerosy Wonky Stuff

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Being caught on a camera constitutes implied consent, according to a St. Louis jury

Post by RBM on Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:29 am

Any system made by Man, can be corrupted by man, so this is where the species is in it's development, sad to say.

jezebel.com wrote:The woman sued Girls Gone Wild for $5 million in damages. After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts

90 minutes seems like a short time to me, but understandable in light of the jury foreman's remarks - which from my chair looks like a lot of assumptions were made. Maybe the law provided guidance on those assumptions, maybe not and the jury filled in the gaps.
avatar
RBM

Posts : 1035
Join date : 2009-04-10
Age : 64
Location : Lincoln NE

View user profile

Back to top Go down

default Re: Being caught on a camera constitutes implied consent, according to a St. Louis jury

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum