EPT20 Years for a Youtube Prank? - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Hibzy
United Kingdom445 Posts
| ||
|
schimmetje
Netherlands1104 Posts
So basically they're prosecuting him for making materials which made it seem like.. kids heard something their parents didn't want them to hear. From which follows that making kids hear something their parents don't want them to hear is a crime. Interesting precedent. | ||
|
annul
United States2841 Posts
On February 19 2011 10:35 chocopan wrote: Re possible civil actions, I don't know, you could try torts of trespass (purpose of entry outside agreed scope - should be relatively easy to argue, at first blush), assault (seeing a guy sing sexually predatory/explicit songs at your child on video could arguably give rise to reasonable apprehension of future battery/criminal acts - hard to argue because of relative remoteness of the threatened physical contact; I'd still argue it myself but it's weak), and probably also infliction of mental distress with the plantiff being the parents and possibly also teachers (this is the wishywashiest of these torts which makes it harder to argue but easier to win, depends a lot on the actual facts eg. how freaky/unsettling the video footage actually is, how freaked out the parents got (eggshell skull principle etc) - def worth arguing, hard to predict likelihood of success). did you even read the case? there is no trespass. he was an invitee of the school to perform a song for the children, which he did. there is no assault. there is no reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. the kids did not hear the sexually-explicit version. there is no IIED or NIED - he sung a chaste song to children, just as advertised. there is no eggshell skull plaintiff here (even if the parents could argue eggshell skull vicariously through their children, which in many states they cannot). for reals, read the case. don't act like a first year law student who reads two sentences and tries to go to town on it | ||
|
Gerbeeros
101 Posts
But prison time, and child molester/porn stamp in his records, way too much i think. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
| ||
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
| ||
|
The Terminator
Australia46 Posts
On February 19 2011 05:45 Apocalyptic wrote: I agree that 20 years is a ridiculous punishment, but this guy deserves to go to jail for this. I would say 3-12 months max. Doing something like this to innocent kids is sick, but come on guys, lets be reasonable. Umm... the kids weren't harmed at all... it was just a video edit, and you still think he deserves to go to jail? Are you kidding me? | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
| ||
|
Tomken
Norway1144 Posts
| ||
|
Helios.Star
United States548 Posts
| ||
|
Zerokaiser
Canada885 Posts
Fortunately, no reasonable person is going to lock this guy away for this. Unfortunately, it's the United States and more ridiculous shit happens on a regular basis in those courts. We're all going "Are you fucking kidding me?", just like I'm sure he is right now. Best of luck. | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
| ||
|
Securitate
Canada31 Posts
| ||
|
DarkGeneral
Canada328 Posts
He has done NOTHING wrong... 20 years???!?! This is the stuff of nightmares.. the stuff of riots... akh wow... | ||
|
chocopan
Japan986 Posts
On February 19 2011 11:33 annul wrote: did you even read the case? there is no trespass. he was an invitee of the school to perform a song for the children, which he did. When you invite someone, there is no trespass. You are correct. However, the grant is not without limits. For example, if you invite a salesperson into your home to discuss a product purchase, and then the salesman goes on to cook dinner in your kitchen (without you giving them permission to do so), that is beyond the scope of the original consent to allow entry, hence trespass may lie. On these facts, he entered the school purporting one purpose, but had another. One clearly not anticipated by the school staff. Hence, trespass may lie. there is no assault. there is no reasonable apprehension of bodily harm. the kids did not hear the sexually-explicit version. Whether the apprehension was reasonable is a question of fact. The issue of law would be if the anticipated physical contact was too remote. I expect myself a court would find it was indeed to remote. As I said in my original post, I wouldn't expect a tort of assault to be successful on these facts. I'd still argue it however. As regards your final point, that the children did not hear the sexual version, I like that one. Actually since it was on youtube they may have heard it but thats a factual issue. The interesting legal one is whether the apprehension has to be on the part of the child, or whether the aprehension of a parent would also satisfy the requirements of the tort of assualt. I'm not sure of the case law on this point although I'm pretty sure some would exist. Anyone? (Esp. in US jurisdictions?) there is no eggshell skull plaintiff here (even if the parents could argue eggshell skull vicariously through their children, which in many states they cannot) I have no info on the facts on this point in this case. Just raised it as an example of the sorts of things you would want to look into if you wanted to try and argue mental distress in this kind of factual scenario. Re vicariousness, depends who is the plaintiff. An eggshell parent can most certainly bring an action for distress consequent upon threats to their child, at least in the jurisdictions I am familiar with. It may be the case this has been limited by statute in some jurisdictions. ? for reals, read the case. don't act like a first year law student who reads two sentences and tries to go to town on it Your points are strong enough to stand without having to resort to ad hominem. ; ) | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On February 19 2011 12:42 chocopan wrote: When you invite someone, there is no trespass. You are correct. However, the grant is not without limits. For example, if you invite a salesperson into your home to discuss a product purchase, and then the salesman goes on to cook dinner in your kitchen (without you giving them permission to do so), that is beyond the scope of the original consent to allow entry, hence trespass may lie. On these facts, he entered the school purporting one purpose, but had another. One clearly not anticipated by the school staff. Hence, trespass may lie. cooking dinner in my house involves fire pots and pans and my food if the salesman sang a song in my living room without me looking i wouldnt be mad | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
Jesus, is there something illegal about this? | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
| ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On February 19 2011 12:42 chocopan wrote: Your points are strong enough to stand without having to resort to ad hominem. ; ) Someone knows their debate pyramid  Here i'll leave this here for the guy you were addressing, it maybe helpful to someone. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/gNjkX.jpg) | ||
|
yejin
France493 Posts
| ||
| ||
