stalkers / paparrazzi

[hepkatmama]

i'm a little confused and i'd like your opinions/links about the following:

1) in america, its illegal for a private person to stalk another private person. there are harrassment & stalking laws on the books right?

2) however if the person is rich enough to hire a private detective its okay mostly. criminals can even hire detectives to do surveillance on witnesses against them and that is legal.

3) the coup of capitalism says if you are REALLY wealthy you can not only buy surveillance of people's privacy but also sell them to the public.

someone please explain to me why its illegal for the poor but just good moneymaking for the rich to invade the privacy of an american citizen. how are those subtle differences so different by the legal precedents?

[PETA]

PIs are subject to state regulation and are motivate to collect information not for personal use.

The poor pedophile outside your daughter's window is there planning how he can get away with fucking her.

How's that for an objective response to such a neutrally worded question

[hepkatmama]

ok, didn't realize it was so neutral.

if pi's are subject to state regulation does that prevent them from working for like 1) a stalker who wants that second date at any cost 2) the pedophile outside your kids' school 3) the mafioso you are testifying against next year.

how is that legal since it is so obviously morally wrong?

even if its not for the PI or paparrazzi's own personal use, its definitely being used by the people with personal interest that hired them.

that dad who sodomized the rapist can't hire a pi to follow around the rapist before making his move.... or can he?

[reason]

anyone have any actualy legal documentation?

[hepkatmama]

Originally Posted by xian

The poor pedophile outside your daughter's window is there planning how he can get away with fucking her.

so the rich pedophile is out there hiring only the best papparazzi to capture her image to sell to his friends who would gladly pay extra to fuk her?

sorry the rich poor scenario is till confusing. i'm curious how the courts divide one from the other (really it seems like three levels)

[PETA]

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

ok, didn't realize it was so neutral.

if pi's are subject to state regulation does that prevent them from working for like 1) a stalker who wants that second date at any cost 2) the pedophile outside your kids' school 3) the mafioso you are testifying against next year.

The PI who collects information that's clearly being collected in order to commit a crime is quite probably subject to criminal charges of conspiracy and even more likely to be at risk of losing his license... his livelihood.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

how is that legal since it is so obviously morally wrong?

what's morally wrong? taking pictures of people in public? Collecting information for legit purposes is not morally wrong. PIs are regulated to keep them operating within legit parameters. Is is perfect? Of course not. But, if we had a perect world we'd not be discussing this at all.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

even if its not for the PI or paparrazzi's own personal use, its definitely being used by the people with personal interest that hired them.

Sure, usually to see if spouse is cheating.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

that dad who sodomized the rapist can't hire a pi to follow around the rapist before making his move.... or can he?

why would he, he knew where the kid lived

you're asking hypos with very ambiguous facts and we've got no specific rules to evaluate those facts with....

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

so the rich pedophile is out there hiring only the best papparazzi to capture her image to sell to his friends who would gladly pay extra to fuk her?

sorry the rich poor scenario is till confusing. i'm curious how the courts divide one from the other (really it seems like three levels)

Which rich pedophile paying a PI to capture whose image? If the purpose is illegitimate, as I said, the PI is subject to accomplice liability and license restriction or revokation

how about this.... I'll buy that you think being poor sucks because it provides fewer opportunities to do much of anything... including being able to pay for a PI to get nudie pics for that poor person

[hepkatmama]

are papparazzi subject to accomplice liability?

how are cases handled when a pi tells the spouse they are being cheated on and they walk out & kill the cheater?

how is accomplice liability established in cases like a criminal stalking his witnesses through the use of a p.i.?

is this one of those things where its ok unless someone gets violent? can they stalk & photograph all day long till blood is on the floor? is there ANY legal preventative measure to help the subject/potential victim avoid the future intentions of the criminal?

so if a poor but beautiful girl is being stalked by p.i. working for someone she doesn't like, what legal methods does she have to protect her privacy?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

are papparazzi subject to accomplice liability?

If I tell you a third time will you finally believe me? For fuck's sake, yes. However, chasing celebs for pics is almost certainly not a part of any crime.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

how are cases handled when a pi tells the spouse they are being cheated on and they walk out & kill the cheater?

Good lord... this is getting retared...

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

how is accomplice liability established in cases like a criminal stalking his witnesses through the use of a p.i.?

is this one of those things where its ok unless someone gets violent? can they stalk & photograph all day long till blood is on the floor? is there ANY legal preventative measure to help the subject/potential victim avoid the future intentions of the criminal?

so if a poor but beautiful girl is being stalked by p.i. working for someone she doesn't like, what legal methods does she have to protect her privacy?

OK, I got it. Your pissed off for poor people... or is it at rich people?

Either way, this has become silly. If a PI is knowingly acting as an accomplice to a crime he can be held to accomplice liability for purposes of criminal charges. License regulation is subject to other rules which I'd encourage you to look up in order to answer your other questions.

[hepkatmama]

i understand this is all silly to you. thanks for condescending to mostly answer the questions.

please let me know if my understanding is correct.

PI's & papparazzi are subject to accomplice liability only if their clients use the information to violently hurt the subject/potential victim

victims are only given police protection after a violent crime (not sexual crime) and never before any crime has been committed even if harrassment or stalking is evident.

so the client would have to make a written or recorded threat for the police to get involved in any preventative measures. otherwise the police stay out of it till after blood is on the floor.

chasing celebs for pics is not a crime & neither is strange adults looking through the bars of the schoolyard. because our thoughts are still private.

collecting info for legit parameters? point me to those parameters please. links?

ok, i think i understand. the links will fill in the blanks. one last question:

is it legit for criminal to stalk a witness through a pi since he is trying to develop his defense? where is the line crossed? how do some witnesses get protection while others don't?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

i understand this is all silly to you. thanks for condescending to mostly answer the questions.

I do excel in that regard.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

please let me know if my understanding is correct.

PI's & papparazzi are subject to accomplice liability only if their clients use the information to violently hurt the subject/potential victim

No, that's not what I said. I said that if a PI or papp. knowingly egages in activity in furtherance of criminal enterprise they may be subject to accomplice liabitlity.... well, didn't ever say exactlt that, but that's what I meant to say.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

victims are only given police protection after a violent crime (not sexual crime) and never before any crime has been committed even if harrassment or stalking is evident.

No, I said that the Bill of Rights as a general (and specific) matter prevents police from being able to act to prevent crime prior to the crime occurring. They cannot, generally, act on the notion that a crime might be committed.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

so the client would have to make a written or recorded threat for the police to get involved in any preventative measures. otherwise the police stay out of it till after blood is on the floor.

don't follow... but see above rule(s) and apply it (them) to this question.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

chasing celebs for pics is not a crime & neither is strange adults looking through the bars of the schoolyard. because our thoughts are still private.

I didn't say anything like that. This is what I was getting at when I said your hypos are ambuguous.

People in public cannot claim a privacy right not to have their pictures taken is much closer to what I said. That being the case papp. can snap pics of celebs in public if they wish.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

collecting info for legit parameters? point me to those parameters please. links?

Send my a $500 retainer please.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

ok, i think i understand. the links will fill in the blanks. one last question:

is it legit for criminal to stalk a witness through a pi since he is trying to develop his defense? where is the line crossed? how do some witnesses get protection while others don't?

May a criminal defendant employ investigators to assist in collecting information for his/her defense? Of course. But you're characterizing every question and filling every question with loaded presumptions. "Is is ok for a stalking man to still beat his wife while chasing celebs to take thier pics becauase their thoughts are their own?" That's a stupid fargin question.

Criminal activity is criminal activity. Your question essentially asked if one could justify a crime because it was done to assist in a criminal defense. No, one cannot. But, that begs the question... was the activity criminal?

[PETA]

so... are you a celeb who was illegally stalked by a papparazzo who was collecting information for the criminal defense of another?

[hepkatmama]

Originally Posted by xian

No, that's not what I said. I said that if a PI or papp. knowingly engages in activity in furtherance of criminal enterprise they may be subject to accomplice liabitlity....

the Bill of Rights as a general (and specific) matter prevents police from being able to act to prevent crime prior to the crime occurring. They cannot, generally, act on the notion that a crime might be committed.

People in public cannot claim a privacy right not to have their pictures taken is much closer to what I said. That being the case papp. can snap pics of celebs in public if they wish.

Send my a $500 retainer please.

May a criminal defendant employ investigators to assist in collecting information for his/her defense? Of course.

Criminal activity is criminal activity. Your question essentially asked if one could justify a crime because it was done to assist in a criminal defense. No, one cannot. But, that begs the question... was the activity criminal?

the presumptions are just my brain trying to wrap around a very complicated concept.

why don't celebrities have a "privacy right"?

& if criminals can employ investigators to help with their defense, why do some victims get police protection & others are just told to be careful?

is hiring a p.i. a legal method for a person to get around a do not contact or protection order intended to separate a victim from a criminal?

& the only retainer you get on the rave board is a day-glo binky & my deepest appreciation. lol

[PETA]

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

the presumptions are just my brain trying to wrap around a very complicated concept.

why don't celebrities have a "privacy right"?

Its not the person its the place... you cannot claim the right to privacy when you subect yourself to public view. Celeb or not.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

& if criminals can employ investigators to help with their defense, why do some victims get police protection & others are just told to be careful?

depends on resources and risk

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

is hiring a p.i. a legal method for a person to get around a do not contact or protection order intended to separate a victim from a criminal?

I think you have specific facts yo uhave questions about that you're trying to use "hypos" to get answers to. Again, a bit ambiguous.

Most TROs and other forms would still prohibit third party contact but it would depend on the specific order signed by the judge.

Originally Posted by hepkatmama

& the only retainer you get on the rave board is a day-glo binky & my deepest appreciation. lol

I'll send you a PM w/addy so you can mail me the binky

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by xian

I'll send you a PM w/addy so you can mail me the binky

Some chick gave me a binky at the Ghostland show, and it fell on the floor and was stomped on.


She wanted me.

[PETA]

Oh yeah!!!!