Yes, although the offense level is pretty mild. I think most-every NRA member and a high percentage of gun owners that read post #13 would assume the poster wanted them personally to consider the questions offered at the end.
ETA: it’s a big step down (or is it up?) from the normal penis jokes / comments they often hear from the Left, so like I said, not a big deal.
Isn’t this the same tactic pro-life protestors do when they try to force people to look at images of dead fetuses?
I’m pro-choice but making me watch a video of an actual abortion to support that position isn’t exactly my cup of tea.
No, I wouldn’t watch it. Why on earth would I want to watch that?
I think there are people in law enforcement and related areas who will want to see this recording and I think they should be allowed to see it.
I don’t have much of a problem with the idea of it being generally available online, but I doubt I’d want to see it.
Perhaps there could be a website (or just a dark, locked room) full of things that no one should ever really see or hear. This video could be the second item curated; Timothy Treadwell & Amie Huguenard’s last recording would of course be the original reason for the creation of such a repository.
I wouldn’t watch the video. I did not watch any of the beheading videos either. Back in the day I rented one of the “Faces of Death” type videos and I stopped watching maybe 1/3rd of the way through.
I assume the owner of the camera will get the video back once law enforcement is finished with it. They should do with it whatever they wish.
We had a mass shooting about three blocks from my office ten years ago. The local news showed still frames of the shooter entering, taking out their weapon, and aiming. That was it. It brought the tragedy home even more and I’m glad to have seen it (if just to answer the question of “how could someone do that?”), but I wouldn’t want to see more.
Another thought: back then, this was still unusual enough to be international news - I got messages from as far away as Romania asking if I was all right. Today, it might be a one-day story.
There just ain’t enough rolleyes.
This. I don’t have any problem with it being available, so long as it’s clearly labeled and I can avoid it.
What about “generally” was unclear?
The idea of a forced ultrasound is abhorrent but I don’t believe that they make you watch.
Well, they don’t “make” you in the sense that you only have to watch if you are having an abortion. But it’s irrelevant anyway.
I agree that it’s irrelevant but how do they “make” you under any circumstances? Is the victim of the forced ultrasound not allowed to close their eyes or turn their head?
I don’t know if I would watch it or not, but I can’t imagine the Pastor of that church deciding to release it to the public. How horrible that would be for those who were involved!!
I can’t imagine the pastor choosing to release it either, but honestly I’ll be rather surprised if it doesn’t get leaked online by someone.
You’re probably right about that.
I’m thinking in my state it would probably be released because of the very strong open public records law here. I have no idea about there or in federal custody. I don’t see how who the original owner of the time is an issue at all. It’s now evidence.
Does your freedom of information law override copyright law? The church presumably holds the copyright in the tape. Does the fact that the video has been seized as possible evidence mean that the church loses its copyright?
My admittedly-limited understanding of copyright laws seems to recall that there was a fair use exception that would appear to cover news organizations that wanted to air the video.
Possibly. But that’s a bit different from saying that once the state seizes property, the owner of the property loses their property interest.
“Fair use” assumes that the individual has access to the material under copyright already, and wishes to use it.
Does “fair use” have a broader sense, and mean that the state, which has seized someone’s property, is then required to share it with a their party alleging fair use, even if the owner of the property objects to the state sharing the property?
Why would the state seizing property for the purposes of law enforcement mean that the property-owner loses their property rights?
IANAL (obviously) but I think the requirement to share the “property” comes in the form of FOIA-style laws that require the government to turn over records. This is an explanation of TX’s law: Texas Public Information Act – Freedom of Information Foundation Texas and here is the AG’s handbook on the issue. I’m not going to take the time right now to read through it and try to figure out if evidence of a crime for which there’s no realistic expectation of prosecution (because the suspect is dead) can be withheld or not.