tvc184

Of course you would. Lawyers are paid to argue. However and for the sake of discussion........ There are many laws in this category that say things like with intent to arouse sexual gratification of any person. In other words merely committing an act in itself might be no crime. This law carries no such element and only requires that intent to invade privacy in an area where privacy is expected. I have no clue as to the facts of this case (but read tons of speculation) but recording in a locker room fits the law as to location and it also appears to fit the invasion of privacy. There is no other intent in the law except that privacy intended to be invaded. I can only assume that the "intent to invade" is an issue like a coach has a camera in his office in order to secure it and a person opens the door and in the background you can see a locker room. I believe such as case would be hard to prove intent to invade privacy. Much like many stores have huge camera systems and if one of them happens to catch an open door to a restroom or locker room, it is not likely a crime as there was no intent that could be proven to record that background glimpse. That does not appear to be the if a person actually planted a camera in the locker room and with it focused on lockers and where people undress. Note that this very law mentions no defense to prosecution that there was a sign saying it was being recorded. While a sign is not in question in this case, a store putting up a sign in a dressing room that this area is being recorded is still a crime. This also appears to fly in the face of an earlier comment by someone else that it is legal to catch people stealing by placing a camera in a locker room. The state seems to negate that claim in this very law. For further discussion ....... There is what is commonly called wiretapping. This is the TX law on that and it includes "oral communication". Sec. 16.02. UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS. (b) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. Here we can see that merely intercepting oral communication is a crime. Again, I do not know what happened but if there is also audio and at least one person in a conversation did know that it was being recorded (a defense to prosecution), it appears to be wiretapping. Unlike the video/photography issue in the locker room, the wiretapping law requires no other intent that I can see other than the intent to intercept the conversation. I know that any lawyer could argue a case (but might not take a case). At the very least it appears that making a video and/or audio in a dressing room for video or conversation anywhere if not a crime, is right up to the threshold of one. In fact it might be close enough to require your argument in court. To restate, I have no clue what evidence anyone has, if any at all and if any does exist, whether it rises to the level of a crime. The laws listed are interesting on whether you can record audio, video or photographs in a private location no matter any sexual intent or while trying to catch a crook. I am sure that you know that even law enforcement cannot do either without a wiretapping warrant. In my opinion.

Can you cite that law?

The following quote is attributed to several people but no matter who actually said it, the sentiment is correct. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

This is kind of the actual answer. Obviously both issues are legal. On one issue many (most?) people on the left are offended or at least claim to be as they are told that it is offensive. On the other it is perfectly acceptable for some of those same people to burn the American flag but not fly the other. It depends on who is offended or who is given their marching orders.

Both are equal.

He is unprofessional, he is sometimes silly, he makes crazy statements and he beat the best the Democrats claimed that they could put up. They say statistics are for losers such as we gained more yards in the football game but got beat 42-21. Hillary and her supporters proves that saying with an exclamation. The Dems are now scrambling after losing the Senate and House elections for four straight cycles. Keep on worrying about popular vote. The last three presidents have been in office for 8 years so you might have until 2024 to worry about your next viable candidate.

First off, Trump has been doing that all along and got elected doing so. Even several Democrats are now calling for Nancy Pelosi to move aside as being irrelevant and being out of touch with the public. I find this funny as the Democrats nationwide and very much so in this forum, were spelling the doom of the Republican Party a couple of weeks ago. "What are you going to do after Hillary destroys Trump?" and other such dire predictions. Members of this forum predicted the end of conservatism and Republicans. So my question is this. How did the darling of the liberal left, the heir apparent to Barack Obama, the claimed smartest woman in the world... lose the election? Now her supporters, who themselves have set the Democrats back several steps by not selecting a decent candidate, are now hanging on a few more losing votes being cast for her in her loss as a talking point. They are claiming that Trump is making crazy statements.... which is true and he has been doing it since day one. So Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million, 2.3 million or 4 million. She is also finished in politics and may have ended several other Democrats with her. As I watch some Democratic legislators say, we have found that we are out of touch with the public. When a guy like Trump, who is not a good candidate, wins the elections, it is hard to argue with them. But of course, people in internet forums will continue to do so by worrying about what he tweets instead of taking a long look in the mirror.

That is a great movie by the way. If you don't mind reading subtitles, it is a top tier movie. I have read a couple of books on the end and inside the bunker and this movie follows history.

Where are the cops when you need one? In this case right there. No telling how many lives the officer saved by immediately shooting the suspect.

Maybe some low fives... behind closed doors..........

At this point why does anyone care?

I care about few promises. I care about the Second Amendment, about conservative or constitutional judges and prosecutors being appointed to the federal courts and attorneys and a couple of other issues. Trump was not my choice by several people. Out of 17 people running for the Republican primary he was near the bottom. When it came time for the general election I did not vote for Trump because he was going to build a wall, because he was going to prosecute Hillary or some of the other stuff that he was spouting because he thought it sounded cool. In short, I did not vote for Trump because he would keep all of his promises, I did so because I was afraid that Hillary would keep hers. If Trump says he will sign an assault weapon ban and other major gun restrictions or if he appoints clones of Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the SCOTUS, I will be very disappointed. Even then there will be no loss as Hillary would be guaranteed to do exactly that. A Hillary vote is a guarantee of horrible legislature and at worst, Trump is a roll of the dice with loaded dice in conservative's favor.

The best part, "We have everything except no policemen or firemen.... because we haven't found any that would live here".

The most true to life police show as far as the way they investigated crimes. Got to love Joe Friday-isms.

What is one of the funniest things that Obama has repeatedly and continues to say is (I just saw it again today), "I don't want to rush to judge". WHAT? Anytime he can get involved in a local police officer's actions he rushes to judgment and almost invariably is wrong.

He isn't called the Divider In Chief for nothing. What may be the most disgusting by Obama is the memorial service for the officers gunned down in Dallas. He was supposed to be speaking in honor of police officers that gave their lives in the line of duty but he chose it as an occasion to talk about slavery and Jim Crow laws. What does slavery that ended more than 150 years ago got to do with officers being killed defending people? Nothing but no chance to divide shall be passed.

And locally I have not heard an APB in over 30 years although it might still be in use. In this area we usually use ATL-Attempt To Locate or regionally I have seen BOLO-Be On Lookout. Some police language is generally universal in this country but some tends to be regional. An example might be like the term "skel" or "skell". In the northeast the police use (or at least used to) use the term to describe the homeless or vagrants on the street. If you say that to an officer in the south he will likely have no clue what you are talking about. Universal language is usually in the form of dispositions after a call is made like see report/see investigation, gone on arrival (GOA), unable to locate (UTL), subject/person located, see accident report, etc. The 10 codes, numbered codes, signals, alerts, etc., can be way different. An example is that locally 10-1 means that your radio transmission is broken up and I can't understand you. 10-2 means loud and clear. In Norfolk, VA 10-1 and 10-2 means officer needs assistance which is the ultimate call for help. A call for assistance is like I am in deep such as a shootout, a bad fight, etc. In this area 10-2 simply means I can now here you clearly. Locally we use the word "Code" such as Code 1, 2 and so on. Other areas use "Signal" also in addition to 10 codes, and codes. I know in Florida Signal 0 used to mean (and maybe still does) officer needs assistance. Say that around here and an officer will likely reply, "You want me to signal what?". Clear as mud?

Stopping a described suspect is not profiling in any sense of the law. To be a lawful stop however, there has to be a limited time frame and distance from the crime scene and that is in any case, not just racial profiling. The more general the description, the less reason to justify a detention. If it is a city the size of Beaumont and there is an armed robbery at 3:00AM and a description given, even a general description, and a look alike is found 10 blocks away 15 minutes after the robbery, it will likely be viewed as a reasonable detention. If it was a tall thin black male with a white t-shirt on three days ago and you see someone fitting that description, it will likely not be viewed as a lawful detention. Those are kind of easy extremes to get the point across but every single police interaction between them and the public is open to question. The police can lawfully talk to you with a chance encounter/consensual contact, a detention with reasonable suspicion or with probable cause. Even if an officer walks up and says "hi" while you are on the street, if he continues to speak to you other than just passing you by it can be called into question. If an officer just walking down the street sees you and says something like, "Come here for a moment" and you stop to talk to him, that is a detention under the Fourth Amendment. When an officer does or says anything that would make a reasonable person believe that he had better stop, it is a detention even if nothing further happens.

So we have the right to an opinion but if that opinion is that someone else is wrong, it is automatically wrong? You are talking in circles. Let's see, if you believe someone is wrong but you say they are wrong then you are wrong for saying that they are wrong but the person that you are talking about is also wrong because he believes that you are wrong. Talk about a paradox. That also means that no one is ever right.

I just saw that this person was released and not a suspect.

Tell most of the protesters that Kerry is the Secretary of State and most will probably say, "Wasn't she in Django Unchained?".

The sad part is that most of the people complaining have no clue as to the founding of the country or what any of it means. Ask the same people protesting and it is likely that more than half of them cannot name the current vice president, the secretary of state or both.

Probably more than 95% of cases (both criminal and civil) settle out of court. It is many times in civil court to settle than it is to fight it. It is a business decision. If it costs and additional $5 million to win and prove you are not responsible or $1 million to settle, businesses will almost always take the cost effective ends by offering the settlement. It is called deep pockets. You sue someone with a lot of money for the hopes that any defense will be so expensive as to make an offer likely without having to prove your case.

Thoughts are that for the Democrats or left wing believers, free thought is no longer a right or sought out. Everyone must march in lockstep. All others banned. The incessant whining by left wing loons is almost unbelievable. I sometimes wonder if anyone actually believes that pure crap spit out or if it is just a political ploy to keep something in the news. It is like an entire room full of 5 year olds throwing a temper tantrum.

Surely this is for comedy relief. If anyone actually believes any of the fear mongering that is off the chain, they need to take a deep breath and come back to reality. Internment camps? Registering? Fear of going back 50 years? Next someone will claim that lunch lines separated by race are being proposed and that minorities will get 3/5th's of a vote.