especially when we have to sit and view evidence on those pornography cases!
The attorneys for the male (alleged partner) had argued that people engaged in committing a crime -- in this case paying for sex -- have no right to privacy under a state law aimed at protecting innocent people in dressing rooms and locker rooms. Mills(the judge) agreed to dismiss the counts, leaving 13 counts related to promotion of prostitution.
(from Victoria's Secret, actually)...
I agree with the dismissal of the charges, but not because of what the defense is arguing.
Those charges should be dropped because, as far as I can tell from what evidence has been alluded to, the defendent (in this case, the so called pimp) was not a party to the taping of the clients.
To argue that that it is OK to break the law where it pertains to victemizing alleged law breakers (None have been convicted.) is ludicrous.
Where does one draw the line on this slippery slope? Is it OK to beat the alleged law breakers with sticks? How about knives, or guns?
And who gets to decide who is a law breaker and who isn't?
Is it OK for me to run down a jay-walker?
Next case...
(still not a lawyer)
especially when we have to sit and view evidence on those pornography cases!
The whole trial is such a waste of public funds....let the woman go!!!
This is still the not in the room partner.
Yeah I had heard they were already running into problems trying to put together an unbiased jury.....meanwhile kids are starving and people are in the cold during snow...
I agree with your disagreement for the reason to drop the charges. If any or all of the so called Johns are found innocent, should or will the privacy violations be reinstated for those counts?
From what I have read, the so called pimp had access to all the videos via skype or some other live feed. It sure sounds like the two of them were readying an extortion scam.
several johns have pleaded guilty and paid fines....so, convicted, they are.