Viewing illegal acts on videos - what do you do?

[jlietz]

Its interesting that (as of when I am posting this) 5 people have reported (in the poll) viewing illegal acts and reporting them to the authorities, but no details I thought that would be the most interesting part of this thread, which is why I started it. Perhaps they felt it was not appropriate to share...

[dnix71]

If you want to know what can go wrong in the US legal system, visit Fark sometime. Is having pix of your own children "porn"? It could be if the local DA thinks it is. My sister used to take her daughters to beauty pagents when they were very young. If I had pix of them dolled up, I might be charged as a perv.

Animal cruelty isn't exactly a no-brainer, either. Bear-baiting is a sport in some places. Bull fighting that is legal in Mexico and Spain, would be considered a felony in the US, but bull-riding isn't, if done at a rodeo. The bull bucks like that because it's nuts are being crushed by a leather strap. That ought to be a crime, but isn't.

[jlietz]

For the record, bear-baiting is illegal in every country except Pakistan.

Edit: It turns out it is illegal in Pakistan, but is still practiced. http://www.wspa-usa.org/pages/391_bear_baiting.cfm

[Jeremiah58]

Very disturbing. I'm amazed that a couple people don't see it as that. I would definitely hand the tape over to the authorities.

Yep.
Specially if those dogs sexually abused a bear.

[adam]

If you want to know what can go wrong in the US legal system, visit Fark sometime. Is having pix of your own children "porn"? It could be if the local DA thinks it is. My sister used to take her daughters to beauty pagents when they were very young. If I had pix of them dolled up, I might be charged as a perv.

Child pornography requires prurient (sexual) display of the genitals or sexual acts (simulated or actual.) That would have to be one sick beauty pageant.

Animal cruelty isn't exactly a no-brainer, either. Bull fighting that is legal in Mexico and Spain, would be considered a felony in the US, but bull-riding isn't, if done at a rodeo. The bull bucks like that because it's nuts are being crushed by a leather strap. That ought to be a crime, but isn't.

I won't argue with you there, but I don't see what one's opinion of the law has to do with turning in evidence. If you come across evidence that looks like it may be illegal than turn it in and let the authorities sort it out. If it's nothing, than nothing will come of it

Also bull riding is not legal everywhere in the United States. In those states where it is legal, there is an exemption for it in the animal cruelty statute.

[classfour]

C'mon - that's what the mailbox at the Police Station is for!

If you're not up to that (or if they don't have a mailbox) drop a copy off at the Post Office.

If there's a victim: I'll squeal on their behalf, time be damned.

[theewizard]

you saw the tape, was the bear phyiscally harmed by the dogs, or just emotionally stressed

if the bear was harmed, and this guy wants it on DVD, he's not a sportsman type hunter, hes into cruelity

if the bear was just stressed, they may have been trying to condition the bear to stay away from human habit ation my getting the bear to ( fear ) the and then run from sign scent or sound of them

consider the contents the report if needed

[irongang]

Not illegal, exectly, but I was asked to get some screen captures from a tape of a guy who was supposedly so debilitated by a work-related back injury that he had to be on permanent paid medical leave. Which didn't stop him from running around on the court during halftime of a basketball game, doing slam-dunks off of a trampoline with the team mascot. Which was aired on TV and seen by the owner of the company that he used to work for. Smart!

[lordsmurf]

Child pornography requires prurient (sexual) display of the genitals or sexual acts (simulated or actual.) That would have to be one sick beauty pageant.

That's not necessarily true. They could skip the child porn charges and bring him up on obscenity, for those pageant photos. As we both know, that's the oh-so-lovely "community standards" test, and could be damned-near anything. I don't recall specific cases, but there have been instance where children in bathing suits have legally (at least until the appeal!) been considered "obscene" material.

[thecoalman]

Not sure if this was brought up but maybe he's a Game Officer and it was part of an investiogations or he's a with one of those organizations like PETA(People for Eating Tasty Animals :P ) .

As we both know, that's the oh-so-lovely "community standards" test, and could be damned-near anything.

Consider this, little Janey is running around in her bathing suit and mom is taking pictures. Little Janey starts posing mimicking models like she has seen on TV, you know how kids are. Mom continues snapping photos because she thinks its cute. Next thing you know Mom is brought up on charges for obscene photos... Don't laugh It could happen if it hasn't already.

[rhegedus]

Whilst I agree that photos of children are dependent upon context, could anyone explain what other context "chaining a bear to a stake and letting loose successive waves of dogs until the bear either wears out or the "fight" is stopped" could be taken in?

[TBoneit]

What about the Dogs?Were they being hurt by the bear? I'd suspect that even a swipe by a bear without its claws being used could break bones.

IOWs not just a possible bear cruelty but Possible dog cruelty too.

Or going the other way....

Maybe an animal trainer getting the bear trained for use in a movie/Tv show?

[jlietz]

I don't know if any dogs were injured, but it looks like the bear receives wounds on its back. There is a large bucket with water in it that the bear tries to use as cover (the bear sits in the bucket) for a portion of the video. All the while the rednecks are hootin' and hollerin', encouraging their dogs to attack. There's even one guy with a clipboard! Perhaps wagers were involved? Unfortunately, the video is abruptly cut short with a later recording.

Regarding the individual that sent the tape, I don't think it is fair to assume that they "get off" on this kind of stuff, or that they even know what the tape contains. The person that sent the tape may only be a family member of the original owner and may have had nothing to do with it. It is the people participating in the activity and the act itself that may be of interest to the authorities.

[bmiller]

Anyone who walks through life with blinders on ,sticking their head in the sand needs a moral update.Sometimes you do what you have to.With any luck a......s like the ones on the tape will have to answer for their actions .Too many people turn a blind eye to obvious disturbing acts like this.That's why they get away with it,and flaunt it like this.
Turn it in.You'll feel good about it in the end.

[TheFamilyMan]

Civic responsibility? Consider this:
There was a case here in San Jose, California (CA), last fall where a burgler turned over to police a camera that he stole that had a chip filled with child porn. Unfortunately for the burgler, he was a repeat offender under the CA "3 strikes" program and this was his third. For his civic duty, he had "the book thrown at him" even though he responded to his conscience; at least they arrested the true owner of the camera.

[thecoalman]

Prime candidate for "Americas dumbest criminals" . I don't think the police or prosecutor would have a choice so you can't blame them. What is really funny is as the one poster suggested above just dropped it in the mailbox with a little note as to where it was found.

[bmiller]

Stupid burglar.He should have sent or dropped it off with a note of the address it came from.That's like the bank robber who handed the teller a note with his address and name on the back.At least the burglar had a social conscience.

[TheFamilyMan]

Why was he so dumb? I'd say he was more likely courageous. In order for the child porn charges to stick, he had to testify that he specifically stole the camera from its owner. Anyways, my posting was a synopsis, he actually went through a lawyer who advised him to turn himself in. The point is, the burgler couldn't live with the fact that he knew that the camera's owner had done something so terrible and might continue doing it, even if it cost him significant time back in prison.

[handyguy]

I recall a few photo stores reported pictures that they got.

[thecoalman]

In order for the child porn charges to stick, he had to testify that he specifically stole the camera from its owner.

I do remember reading or seing this on the news, anyhow I would think the prosecutors would have a pretty good case with just the camera. The child must have been identifiable and most likely where the pictures were taken, odds are there would be only a few people that could be responsible. I don't know thw whole story so I won't specualte anymore but if he could have it done anonymously then he's stupid... :P At the very least if I was him I would have sent it to them and seen what came of it then turned myself in if needed.

I'll agree the man should be commended for what he did, not many people would if they were in his position. then again not many people would be in that position...

[zoobie]

I was looking for a short magic video...came across "magic key" so I d/l'ed it. Turns out to be some guy breaking into cars by smashing the driver's side window with a hammer. I was like....wtf?? Only thing sadder was the idiot behind him shooting it all. I considered turning this evidence in...but realized the guys were so stupid, they were probably already in prison.

[dnix71]

This Walgreens photo shop employee called the police over two under dressed women pictured with a five year old.

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070327/SHE0101/70327050/1973

[mordor]

There is this movie i saw when i was 14. Traces of Death , is like Faces of Death , but its only real stuff and much more disturbing.
Anyway, there is a scene were 2 guys burn a tied pig with a blowtorch. Its the most horrible thing i ever saw. They burn both sides of the pig, takes like 10 to 15 minutes and the animal still alive at the end.
Im 23 and this stuff haunt me till today.
It seems it was some tests to simulate Napalm effect. Its "legal".
I just hope these bastards burn in hell, along with baer baiting freaks.

[TBoneit]

Considering that the bear appeared to be injured and that there were viewers and so on, at least mail in the tape. Hopefully you can figure out how to be annonymous. In these days of security cameras everywhere not an easy task. DNA, Fingerprints, Paper and printer ID .... If they wanted to trace an annonymous package I suspect they could. An Annonymous letter? Maybe not buy the paper and envelopes at a Walmart, Stamps at a supermarket, wear gloves maybe.

[TBoneit]

This Walgreens photo shop employee called the police over two under dressed women pictured with a five year old.

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070327/SHE0101/70327050/1973

from that article "Both women are expected to be charged today with exposing a child to harmful material. " for being topless...

So if I left a playboy magaxine laying around and a fuve year old started looking at the pictures and someone else reported it, I'd be liable to arrest? Or Cinemax was on the TV when relatives were visiting with their kids? Or are the parents risking arrest when they take their kids to the beach at Sandy Hook here in NJ? (Nude beach, Federal park) Those boys and girls are seeing more than than just topless women.

If the women and the kid belonged to a Nudist association would that be a out? Do Nudists get exempted? Sort of like what Adam repoted as why some states have Bull riding and others don't.

[TBoneit]

Plus the poll is slightly flawed.

Where is the I saw illegal activites and co-operated with the police when the arrived. Where is the I only have seen minor infractions and there isn't enough time in the day to report every speeder or stop sign rolling stop?

[thecoalman]

Hopefully you can figure out how to be annonymous.

For Jlietz this would be impossible unless he's using a PO box and the only contact he has had is through his website... that's assuming he doesn't have that information in the whois datbase as well.

[Nelson37]

The only question is do you wish to live in a society wherein such activity is tolerated?

As for your responsibility, I would like to ask you who is the specific person who is responsible for reporting an attack on your wife or children, as opposed to the others who are not required to report such an event?

[thecoalman]

As for your responsibility, I would like to ask you who is the specific person who is responsible for reporting an attack on your wife or children, as opposed to the others who are not required to report such an event?

[Nelson37]

I guess more explanation is needed.

Most people do nothing in such situations because "somebody else" will do it. "The other guy".

In this case, the OP is IT. The point man. The one who does something about it or nothing gets done. You make the call. You tolerate this activity, you state clearly that it is acceptable and should not be stopped, or you do something about it. There is no middle ground.

I was trying to point out what the debate would be if someone witnessed your family being attacked. I would certainly hope "the other guy" in such a case had a shade more intestinal fortitude and a bit more compassion than some on this thread have shown. Or should they just "not get involved"?

My statement was intended to illustrate the point that EVERYBODY is responsible for the society we live in. There is no designated person to handle the problem for you.