Date: Sun 07 Sep 2003 - 09:07:29 GMT
> Ok, thanks for this ! But was he convicted for taking a video earlier
> to that specific incident !? Strange anyway if you ask me !
The crime for which he was paroled had nothing to do with video- snapping; he had jumped parole, and was captured as a result of his taking and submitting that video (because his actions showed the cops where to find him). It was good that he took it and turned it in, but that action should not be a free pass for his violating parole on a previous unrelated offence.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Virginia Bowen
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 10:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Serious concern/ addition 2
> Just want to set the record straight if you're talking about the
> incident in Los Angeles -- the man who took the video was violating
> his probation for a prior conviction, so was jailed for probation
> violation, not for violating privacy.
> Murrieta, CA
> "My treasures do not clink together nor glitter. They gleam in the sun
> and bray in the night."
> -----Original Message-----
> Yes, but that is not to say that all problems are solved. Recently,
> policemen were set free after they bodily harmed a black young man.
> Those policeman were set free, the guy who took the shot was
> prosecuted for violating the privacy of those man ! Oh, come on Jon,
> still such matters work trought and on one final daythehorror will
> start again.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 07 Sep 2003 - 09:09:48 GMT