Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on November 05, 2007, 08:26:10 PM
-
Hawaii
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies.
The one-party consent rule does not apply, however, to the installation of a recording device in a "private place" that will amplify or broadcast conversations outside that private place. All parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place must consent to the installation of a recording device. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3).
Civil penalties for unlawful interception or disclosure include the greater of actual damages or any profits made by the violator, $100 for each day of violation, or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-48. A hotel room has been found by the Hawaii Supreme Court to be a private place where a recording device cannot legally be installed without the consent of the room's occupants. Hawaii v. Lo, 675 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1983).
It is a felony to install or use a surveillance device in a private place to view a person in a "stage of undress or sexual activity" without the person's consent. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9. It is a misdemeanor to possess materials obtained in this manner. If the person is not in such a stage, it is a misdemeanor. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111.
Tucker Chapman is on probation: Felony=back to prison... oops!
unless I'm reading this wrong, I'm no lawyer.
-
nothing?
-
Not sure about this. If it was just a recording of telephone conversation, seems like only one party has to consent (in this case Tucker).
I'm not sure what amplifying or broadcasting conversations outside of a private place means, but that could get the kid in trouble.
-
Not sure about this. If it was just a recording of telephone conversation, seems like only one party has to consent (in this case Tucker).
I'm not sure what amplifying or broadcasting conversations outside of a private place means, but that could get the kid in trouble.
Yea, I don't know if I'm reading it correctly with the way a lawyer would. The big thing I see in this that while one party consent rule does not apply and either party can record the conversation, it only applies if there is not a tortious purpose, which could probably be demonstrated here. Second, while it says you can record private conversations, it expressly lists disclosure of the conversation as a felony. I would love for someone who has a little knowledge of law to weigh in on this. So far I haven't heard anything from the media in this area.
-
The way this reads, it looks like he could be responsible for damages too, which would be huge.
-
The way this reads, it looks like he could be responsible for damages too, which would be huge.
the stupid kid.
ruined his dad's career, probably cost the family everything.
he'll get no inheritance. fmaily will hate him forever. he'll be sued into bankruptcy.
The greatest irony will be when the girl dumps him when he's not rich and famous anymore.
-
What dog said is bad, but a betrayal of this sort, it's worse...
-
It's arguably worse. What if his kid sees this girl as his future wife and mother of his kids? Pretty cruel comments.
Still, I cannot justify what the kid did.
-
It's arguably worse. What if his kid sees this girl as his future wife and mother of his kids? Pretty cruel comments.
Still, I cannot justify what the kid did.
I'm sure he's in love. And that word infuriated him. But he put his emotions before his intellect on this one. He'll be working a REAL job for the next 50 years, instead of living off Daddy's money, for the next 50 years, because of his decision.
It'll be hilarious news when she leaves him in a year because he's not a free-spirited, porsche-driving, careless kid anymore.
-
It's arguably worse. What if his kid sees this girl as his future wife and mother of his kids? Pretty cruel comments.
Still, I cannot justify what the kid did.
that's about my view too.
-
If the kid wanted his dad to stop using racial slurs he should have made the tape and then played it for his dad telling him that if he didn't stop he would release it to the media.
yeah it's blackmail but justifiable and not as stupid as destroying the family biz and airing their dirty laundry in public
-
Are you people really saying this ...
Obviously the kid should live of his Dad and not try and contribute anything meaningful to society of his own.
Yeah, god knows his dad's contribution is important enough.
Give the kid a break, he had principles and outed a racist.
-
Are you people really saying this ...
Obviously the kid should live of his Dad and not try and contribute anything meaningful to society of his own.
Yeah, god knows his dad's contribution is important enough.
Give the kid a break, he had principles and outed a racist.
"outing" a racist is more important that family ties?
Who gives a shit what words he was using, it was a PRIVATE conversation, not intended for those outside the conversation to hear. The little rat bastard sold out his family for $$$$, that's all there is to it. I hope the skanky whore leaves his ass for betraying his father.
-
"outing" a racist is more important that family ties?
Who gives a shit what words he was using, it was a PRIVATE conversation, not intended for those outside the conversation to hear. The little rat bastard sold out his family for $$$$, that's all there is to it. I hope the skanky whore leaves his ass for betraying his father.
I not saying they are more important, only he can judge that as it is his family and his decision.
Apparently he is going to lose money so everyone tells me.
-
"outing" a racist is more important that family ties?
exactly, and yes gcb we're actually saying this ;)
-
Hawaii
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies.
The one-party consent rule does not apply, however, to the installation of a recording device in a "private place" that will amplify or broadcast conversations outside that private place. All parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place must consent to the installation of a recording device. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3).
Civil penalties for unlawful interception or disclosure include the greater of actual damages or any profits made by the violator, $100 for each day of violation, or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-48. A hotel room has been found by the Hawaii Supreme Court to be a private place where a recording device cannot legally be installed without the consent of the room's occupants. Hawaii v. Lo, 675 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1983).
It is a felony to install or use a surveillance device in a private place to view a person in a "stage of undress or sexual activity" without the person's consent. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9. It is a misdemeanor to possess materials obtained in this manner. If the person is not in such a stage, it is a misdemeanor. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111.
Tucker Chapman is on probation: Felony=back to prison... oops!
unless I'm reading this wrong, I'm no lawyer.
there's no tort involved. end of story.
if there is a tort involved, it's an "invasion of privacy" type tort. so who knows?
-
there's no tort involved. end of story.
if there is a tort involved, it's an "invasion of privacy" type tort. so who knows?
no but there is "disclosures of private communications" which are "punishable as felonies" ;)
-
no but there is "disclosures of private communications" which are "punishable as felonies" ;)
disclosure of private communication is not a felony, unless he had a criminal/tortious purpose ;)
-
disclosure of private communication is not a felony, unless you the pvt communication is protected . . . ;) last I heard, dog was a bounty hunter, not a fed agent
Hawaii
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies
I believe that is interpreted that you can record the conversation for personal use at a later time, maybe to remind yourself of details, but not to disclose the content of the conversation to others....
-
Hawaii
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies
thanks. i read that . . . you don't get to the felony, unless you have a criminal or tortious purpose.
and like i said earlier, there might be an invasion of privacy tort.
i'm pretty sure hawaii has not criminalized the sale of rants.
-
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording,
As long as one of the participants is the one doing the recording, it's legal.
-
as long as he didn't have a tortious purpose. invading somebody's privacy is a tort . . . don't know what the elements for invasion of pvcy are in hawaii, but he could probably make out a case.
although the son could defend by saying dog is a public figure.
-
disclosure of private communication is not a felony, unless he had a criminal/tortious purpose ;)
That's exactly what I said ;) I do not know how the law would be interpreted. Tortious, tort: a wrong or injury committed against a person or property. If all that has to be demonstrated here is the intent of recording a private conversation to wrong or ingure... Sounds like a close call to me but I don't know, not a lawyer...
-
no but there is "disclosures of private communications" which are "punishable as felonies" ;)
and that's true, is says "or" before disclosures of private communications...
-
That's exactly what I said ;) I do not know how the law would be interpreted. Tortious, tort: a wrong or injury committed against a person or property. If all that has to be demonstrated here is the intent of recording a private conversation to wrong or ingure... Sounds like a close call to me but I don't know, not a lawyer...
read the rest of my posts, they're very illuminating. ;)
then google invasion of privacy
-
as long as he didn't have a tortious purpose. invading somebody's privacy is a tort . . . don't know what the elements for invasion of pvcy are in hawaii, but he could probably make out a case.
although the son could defend by saying dog is a public figure.
public figure wouldn't nullify privacy laws would it? I know it enables you to say things that you might not get away with otherwise. but...???
-
read the rest of my posts, they're very illuminating. ;)
then google invasion of privacy
I did...
-
public figure wouldn't nullify privacy laws would it? I know it enables you to say things that you might not get away with otherwise. but...???
dog's lawyer would have to show a privacy interest in the conversation. since the public is interested in "dog," and not in a character he plays . . . it would be pretty easy for the son to defend on the grounds that the conversation was one that legitimately concerned the public.
so, tucker will probably not be going to prison.
-
dog's lawyer would have to show a privacy interest in the conversation. since the public is interested in "dog," and not in a character he plays . . . it would be pretty easy for the son to defend on the grounds that the conversation was one that legitimately concerned the public.
so, tucker will probably not be going to prison.
hmmm... I've read a little more into it and it seems this is so. A supreme court case seems to back all this also. But I'm sure he'll have a nice warm seat next to Brutus :D
-
ask linda tripp..she knows all about taping phone conversations...
-
It's arguably worse. What if his kid sees this girl as his future wife and mother of his kids? Pretty cruel comments.
Still, I cannot justify what the kid did.
Damn it's amazing how you rush to judgement.
Have you even heard the tape?
Well I have, and Dog said the "n" word to explain how he says it but not in a racist fashion (yeah kinda like when black people say it all the time), he was urging his son to think about his future.
-
Damn it's amazing how you rush to judgement.
Have you even heard the tape?
Well I have, and Dog said the "n" word to explain how he says it but not in a racist fashion (yeah kinda like when black people say it all the time), he was urging his son to think about his future.
Oh please. Yes I heard the tape. The N word rolled off the man's tongue because it is a regular part of his vocabulary. He was expressing his true feelings about people of the darker hue. I doubt he refers to people of the lighter hue with derogatory names. It is when the doors are closed and the crowds are gone that people show their true character.
And then there is this from the National Enquirer (not exactly the paragon of accurate news, but they released the tape):
"DOG" RACISM SCANDAL GROWS -- FAMILY & FRIENDS COME FORWARD WITH MORE EXAMPLES
Dog the Bounty Hunter's vicious racial outburst shocked America, but it came as no surprise to those who have known him for years.
A former colleague, his ex wife, his step-daughter and an ex girlfriend have now come forward exclusively to The NATIONAL ENQUIRER revealing that Dog has been using racist language as long as they can remember. They have all heard it directly from him.
A&E network has pulled his show off the air but has not canceled it. Meanwhile, more shocking examples of Dog's racism are being revealed.
"I think Dog is a racist — no question," said Dog's former wife Lyssa Chapman. Lyssa was married to the fallen Dog the Bounty Hunter star from 1982-1991 and is the mother of three of his children, including Tucker, whose relationship with a black woman prompted Dog's venomous rant.
"He ran down every single minority group when I was with him, and n---er was a daily word for him," Lyssa told The NATIONAL ENQUIRER. "He called Mexican people 'beaners' or 'wetbacks' and Asian people 'flangeheads.'
"I would tell him not to talk that way in front of our kids, but he just ignored me."
Lyssa recalled an incident in Denver in which she says Dog lashed out at an interracial couple in a grocery store.
"Dog said to the woman, 'I know that's got to be your pimp! I know you wouldn't be f-----g him if you weren't getting paid!'
"They were husband and wife, but when the man started to object, Dog just went crazy, screaming at him, 'I'll kick your ass.'"
Dog also made his views clear to colleagues.
Peggy Munoz, now a private investigator in Lakewood, Colo., was a former bail bondsman working the same turf as Dog Chapman from 1989 to 2005.
She claims Dog once sat in her office and explained his "approach" to the bail bond business.
"Dog said, 'I don't like to bond out n----rs because they don't have any money and I have trouble collecting on them.
"'And I don't like to bond out Mexicans because, well, they just run.'"
Dog's step-daughter Nicole Gillespie, daughter of Dog's ex-wife Tawnee, says she regularly heard hateful language from Dog when she was growing up.
"My mother was half-Mexican, and if they fought, Dog would call her a 'dirty spic whore' and a 'dirty Mexican slut,'" said Nicole.
"I remember playing rap music at the house and he would shout, 'Turn that n....r s..t off my radio!'
"I don't think he likes gay people either, and he's always using the words 'queer' or 'homo.'
"That's what he taught his kids was the right way to talk. When they got older, they had to un-learn the racism that Dog taught them. It's sick. It's like a disease, and it spreads."
Gina Mederios was Chapman's live-in girlfriend for two and a half years, starting in 1995. She told The NATIONAL ENQUIRER: "I think Dog's a racist, no question. He used the word n....r all the time around the house. I wouldn't allow him to say it around me, because I wasn't raised that way."
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/dog_bounty_hunter_racism/celebrity/64337
-
Dog spoke the truth.
He has nothing to be ashamed of.
WJH.
-
Yep, these HIspanic women don't say n igg er, that's not right. They say "myate" which makes it much better. Give me a break. Everyone wants thier 15 minutes and they are doing at his expense. The thing about racism in this day and age and at a person to person level is that 1.) it will always exist, 2.) taking away his show won't change his attitude and 3.) every race/culture/ethnicity has it.
-
Nothing funnier than a born again Christian Bigot
Go with Christ Brah!
-
Nothing funnier than a born again Christian Bigot
Go with Christ Brah!
As opposed to the life-long variety that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson represent?
-
As opposed to the life-long variety that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson represent?
no they are exactly the same - all born again Christian Bigots
-
The funny part is Dog acts like he's an Indian? I don't know if he has any in him, but he looks pretty white to me. Reading through Beach's post above, holy crap, he hated most minorities and here he was playing Indian on TV... ::)
He called Asian people flangeheads? LOLOL... I don't care, that's funny shit! I see it now, Dog walking down the street, spots an asian and yells at him as he passes: "FLANGEHEAD!!!" Asian abrubtly jumps back into kung fu pose... they walk on both shaking their theads. LOL...
-
Damn Dog is a cool mofo
-
LOL, next time I get rear ended by an Asian chick, I'm going to call her a Flangehead :D no not really, but it's funny to think of... The stereotype on their driving skills is unfortunately extremely justified. They drive down the road, completely oblivious to the task at hand, driving...