The "harm" you list has nothing to do with what he's charged with... which is manufacturing child sexually abusive material. Actus reus is needed, too. Pay closer attention to wikipedia D.A.s are often political creatures, and I suspect this is grandstanding and/or "he's gotta be guilty of SOMETHING!" rather than a legit charge. A judge can overturn a guilty verdict if the jury overreaches. As can appeals courts. OK. Not IMO. There's 0% chance he'll be found guilty of a sex crime. Ed O.
It's not a civil matter, though. Should it be? Perhaps. But it's not, and the dumbass who made the video is literally in a fight for his freedom. Do I think he is a sex offender, based on the information? Probably not. Do I feel that I could prove a case in front of a jury? Probably. My personal feelings have nothing to do with what reality is, and what I feel could happen in front of a jury if it gets to that point. He needs to get a good lawyer and plea the hell out of this to try and get it down to a misdeamor, some probation and community service, and not having to register as a sex offender. The D.A. isn't go to charge someone with a felony and then just walk away from the case.
Those a fine opinions, and I agree with some of them. I would never, ever, allow this case to go to a jury, though, if I was his defense attorney. I think it's crazy and costly, and rarely is a judge going to overturn a verdict involving a convicted sex offender.
Oh, and Ed, the fact that you seemingly have 100% confidence in a jury probably means you chose the right profession. Also, I missed the section of Wiki where proving "harm" was necessary to get a conviction. Will you point that one out to me?
I'm not speaking as his attorney. I'm speaking as if I were in his shoes and trying to launch a music/comedy/whatever career. Where did I say that it was? Ed O.
No it's not. There are two questions: 1. Should what he did be a crime punishable by a long prison sentence and/or lots of community service, and 2. Will he be convicted of what he's been charged with. I referred to harm in regards to #1, while it's not relevant to #2. Ed O.
Whether I agree with you that it was dumb or not, it appears that the alleged criminal DOES agree with you. http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2011/02/evan_emory_speaks_i_feel_like.html Ed O.
Harm isn't relevant to any part of a conviction or sentence. As I said, it's irrelevant to this guy's present reality. I suppose you could be asking philosophical questions. If that's the case, I see the basis for our disconnect. In reality, if Little Johnny is put on the witness stand and tells how traumatized he is over this whole mess, it doesn't really matter what the philosophy or concept of "harm" is to the alleged criminal.
Did you read the thread? How is the child traumatized? That's a huge stretch to me. You called the child not seeing the video an "excuse", and I'm confused how you think that is not an important part of this. Ed O.
I don't believe in the concept of "evil" speech. Freedom of Speech means exactly that to me, including the often cited "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater". Only cowards and tyrants attempt to censor verbal or written communication. If there's a violation here, it's along the lines of fraud (assuming he meant to profit from the video). He openly admits being a liar, which throws him into the LOSER column for me. A dishonest man is no man at all.
He's being teased. He feels violated. He is untrusting of adults after this. He's making it up. Maybe somebody in their class shared the video. It doesn't matter what your interpretation is, or your feelings on whether or not a kid was harmed; it is what the D.A. can put on the stand to help build, and ultimately prove, his case.
Being the party legally responsible for the childrens welfare during school hours, and the ones who gave permission fro him to shoot video of the kids, I think the parents have a solid case against the school but a very weak one against the dumbass.
I have a lot of empathy for the guy. I truly believe that he had no sexual intentions in making that video. I hope he comes out of it OK.
The parents aren't suing the dumbass, though. The D.A. filed a criminal charge. It's his/her case to win or lose.
I skimmed this thread and it seems that nobody really knows what to make of it without seeing the video. However, there are times on Tosh.0 that they use children in what might be considered to be an offensive way. Dave Chappelle had a skit on his old show where he had kids talking to stuffed animals fashioned after STDs. Jail for them both?
It's a civil matter, and quite clearly so. PapaG is right that the kids will "forever be associated with the video" and the recourse is to sue the guy for all he's got, assuming they can prove actual damages. I'm not seeing that anyone is a victim of any crime in this case.
