tom, of course judgment of relative severity and investigation-worthiness is relevant to the thread, especially since the poster complaining of being harassed about it is *the one who brought it up in the first place. *
Not every allegation of a crime is investigated and run out to its end. Prosecutors use their discretion, based on their own human judgments about probabilities and significance. To try to isolate a situation for discussion in a vacuum is to ignore the primary factors that must be considered. The judgment a poster displays in selecting what allegations and evidence to consider is not only relevant but central to the debate. The attempt to isolate it is itself a reflection of that judgment, and not a positive one. Fair enough?
Bricker, I asked a question above and didn’t get an answer, but do you know how this incident differs from the hidden camera investigative journalism we’ve seen employed over the years?
I hear you, but in this case wouldn’t the sollicitor be the guy who posed as a parody of a pimp ? I mean, he’s the one who urged the ACORN ladies to find him some way to twist the paperwork, ain’t he ? Whether he actually did it “for realz” isn’t really an issue here, assuming the ACORN workers believed he was (e.g. holding someone at Airsoft gunpoint counts as armed robbery, even if it’s a toy gun, because the victim thinks s/he’s in mortal danger)
As Hamelet suggests, there’s likely a conviction to be had for the underlying actual crime of tampering with the odometer. I suppose we could imagine some strings done in states that don’t have the bilateral conspiracy requirement we discuss above, and the car “owner” equipped with hidden camera could agree with the used car lot worker to roll back the odometer and complete the crime of conspiracy as well.
Did he? I don’t remember him asking them to do anything wrong, but perhaps I missed it. What dialog of his do you think would be solicitation? He’s jsut advising them of the crimes he intends to commit (prostitution) and they initiate the tax fraud and mortgage fraud ideas. (So far as I can see, anyway).
One other difference I’d point out: this thread asks if a crime was committed, so we’re discussing that narrow point. But when “60 Minutes” exposes a car repair scam or an odometer fraud scam, they are primarily interested in simply highlighting the wrongdoing, not securing a criminal conviction. It’s a success story for 60 Minutes when people wathc the tape and learn what shady practices are being done at the car lot, regardless of whether they’re prosecutable.
Serious question. Is it tax/mortgage fraud, or are ACORN just trying to explain to Mr. I Have A Pimp Cane (oh, god, he does, and it’s horrible) how to fill out the form in a way that’s readable? Eg, “No, sir, you do not put down ‘I gotz three bitches’. You say ‘Three dependents’.”
Remember, there is a responsibility to fill out your taxes even if you are Al Capone, and they can’t prosecute you on it, because that would make tax time forced testimony against yourself. Also, are ACORN mandated reporters?
Cross-posted from the Pit thread lauding that staunch palladin of truth and justice, Glenn Beck. (Configuration check: if your Rado Shack Ironometer doesn’t report a snark level of at least 700 millihicks, you need to recalibrate…)
Sorry, I must have worded my previous question poorly, as neither you nor Hamlet have shed light on what I’m trying to learn. Which is: whether or not the investigative journalists are guilty of anything (conspiracy discussion aside). Some posters have mentioned they they recorded illegally, which I’m pretty sure is a crime in some states, California for one. If so, how does an investigative journalist with a hidden camera do their job? Is that activity illegal?
Hamlet, do you know? and thanks for your answers thus far.
There are several answers. In this case, for example, the filmmakers had no intent to follow through on the crime they were in the midst of creating. Every crime has two parts: an actus reus, the guilty act, and the mens rea, the guilty state of mind. You mts commit an illegal act, and INTEND to commit an illegal act. In the case before us, the filmmakers had no guilty intent, no guilty state of mind.
That doesn’t absolve them of the illegal recording charge, mind you; to the extent that crime was completed, they certainly had both a guilty act and the guilty mind.
How does an investigative journalist work around that? It depends on the specifics of state law, and I can’t really give a generic answer to a question that’s highly fact-dependent.
Haven’t watched it, to tell you the truth - I’m not *that *concerned about some foreign social workers’ group, nor the latest Fox News “gotcha !” ;). Pearl Harbour this ain’t. I was just being idly curious, is all.
I have no idea what poster you believe is complaining of harrassment. I have seen no claim by any poster that he or she believes they are being harrassed. I noted a deliberate hijack that has nothing to do with this thread and suggested that that conversation be moved to a separate thread.
Since you now raise the issue that harrassment might be a motive for the hijack, I will probably consider that any continuation of this theme in this thread will be considered as harrassment.
Huh. I thought that it worked the other way round, Bricker, that they had to report. Thus the various odd things that people claim they do for a living. Well, live and learn.
I’ll give you the standard lawyer answer. It depends.
California penal code 632 makes it illegal to record others without there consent. The California Supreme Court has seemingly held that those investigative journalists can be held responsible for violations, and there are cases where people have successfully sued those journalists for taping them without their consent. Even NBC has settled a case over one of their “To Catch A Predator”. Every case I could find on the subject were all civil cases, with a person suing for damages over the illegal taping.
But I have yet to find any examples of a criminal prosecution of an honest to God journalist for doing it. Likely this is because journalists would raise their Freedom of the Press (which in many cases acts as a bar to recovery for the AIRING of the information if not the GATHERING of the information) which would add to the headaches for very little payoff.
There is a mess of different kinds of law involved, and it does depend a lot on the local statutes, so I’m not going to continue with the necessary research. I hope this helps. If you have a more specific question, let me know.
