It appears that after conducting an investigation, in which the police talked with several witnesses and viewing surveillance video, there was no sexual assault.
And the woman who lied? Well.... she might face charges (but of course, there are no guarantees). Note that, once again, video to the rescue.
Link: http://www.wdbj7.com/news/wdbj7-sexual-assault-report-in-vinton-turns-out-to-be-false-20110429,0,418178.story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
i'm generally opposed to the growing police state surveillance. however, as i have posted here before it has aided several innocent men from being falsely prosecuted for rape.
i could create a crude joke of how whenever a male leave home he should attach an activated micro-cam to ---- oh never mind.
atlas
Well, Well,
Another false stranger-abduction/rape.
Let me guess, the woman was out with her lover longer than planned, and needed to explain her extended absence to her husband or boyfriend.
The news account gives no details, but isn't that how most all of these sorts of FRA accounts end up?
[And, again the police handled the case correctly. They investigated and reviewed surveillance to determine that it was a false claim, and reported it as such. No "manufactured" statistic, no LE created environment conducive to the FRA being made, and certainly no pay-off via a super-secret Federal bounty system for rape claims. Sorry to include that, but it seems the S is back up to his same old tired BS about "don't blame the women, blame the police".]
Two-party consent laws (for audio/video recording) need to be repealed immediately. Sure, making such recordings publicly available (outside the legal arena) should require two-party consent, but we have to let people protect themselves by recording what goes on around them.
Druk - ”Sure, making such recordings publicly available (outside the legal arena) should require two-party consent, but we have to let people protect themselves by recording what goes on around them.”
I’d fully agree. As long as the recorded information is not disclosed, except for reasons of legal protection, the 2-party consent should be a thing of the past.
It used to be that there were signs put up to warn people of video surveillance. But, anymore, it’s come to be expected that people are aware of the possibility of being surveilled in public place, and places of business. In these cases wherein public surveillance videos has lead to people being exonerated people, no one is arguing before the court that such exculpatory evidence should be excluded due to the fact that there was no consent given. That would be ludicrous to even try to argue.
So, the laws need to evolve to keep pace. Perhaps the law should be that a person will need to specifically ask that no recording be made in order to be afforded that legal privacy. And, perhaps there will need to be some rules about archiving materials, especially those of a sexual nature, unless consent is given for archiving them. Along with a preclusion of those materials being shared, privately or publicly, preventing the long term retention of them should be adequate protection in most any circumstance.
Post a Comment