Harvester on 27/1/2011 at 09:41
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Aspergers?
I don't think it's that relevant whether or not he has Asperger's. I have it and I know right from wrong just like anyone else, and so do all people with Asperger's I've ever heard of. Even in court I don't think it's that relevant. Maybe RBJ or demagogue can educate me if people with Asperger's ever get lighter sentences because of it, but if they do, I don't agree with it. Even with Asperger's, he should know not to put cameras in other people's homes (even if he thinks that it's justified 'for his art', anyone with Asperger's is smart enough to understand that it's against the law and damaging to other people), and I think he should get the book thrown at him with no concessions given.
I just hope for his sake that in jail he won't behave like a douchebag as much as he did on these forums because that's not going to play out well for him.
Muzman on 27/1/2011 at 09:51
Once more: Where's it say he put a camera in someone elses house? Is there another write up on this somewhere?
Fingernail on 27/1/2011 at 09:54
There's a bit of misinformation perpetuating; he didn't set up a camera in his neighbours' home, or in the ceiling of a girl's bedroom (and it surprises me that demagogue didn't engage a little more in the facts before speaking of the validity of the case).
The camera was in the roof tiles of HIS house, pointed at his neighbours' house. Presumably it was the case that this couldn't be defended as a security camera, otherwise he wouldn't have opted for the "but it was for my art" defense.
Doesn't necessarily change any arguments, but we can (can we?) avoid hyperbolising it to the extent that he's sneaking into their house to install surveillance equipment in toilets and bedrooms.
Harvester on 27/1/2011 at 09:58
Okay, sorry I misunderstood the issue. Doesn't change my argument but I should have read more carefully.
Muzman on 27/1/2011 at 11:05
Well I'd wager the difference between watching and recording people in their own home and breaking in and installing a secret camera would vary the size of the book to be thrown enormously.
Depending on the images he kept, priors and any previous nuttiness the former is probably just a fine.
Matthew on 27/1/2011 at 11:16
Quote Posted by nickie
There is nothing that I can find in 'Londonderry' Magistrates or Crown/County Court judgements from December 2009 (new charges) onwards. Can't find the judge either. As he was charged, you'd have thought there'd be some decision somewhere. Unless the charges were dropped maybe.
The Magistrates Court isn't a court of record (in the note of judgements sense rather than the contempt sense) so there would not necessarily be a note of any conviction online or offline, unless the case involved an interesting point of law that the judge wanted to have recorded. I note the High Court is mentioned but that was probably only involved in his bail application rather than the criminal case itself.
Kolya on 27/1/2011 at 13:22
I don't doubt that he was a douchebag. The facts speak for themselves. But I do wonder what quotes we could pull up from the depths of TTLG about anyone else here, to "prove" that they had issues, in case they ever get in conflict with the law.
It's just like that terrible article someone linked in the thread about the Arizona killer. When people start digging for dirt, they'll find it. And suddenly these old posts take on a very different meaning.
nickie on 27/1/2011 at 15:24
Thanks Matthew - I was hoping you'd turn up to clarify.
demagogue on 27/1/2011 at 16:26
Quote Posted by Fingernail
(and it surprises me that demagogue didn't engage a little more in the facts before speaking of the validity of the case).
I didn't mean to speak to the facts. My first sentence was: I don't know the details of what he did, so that would obviously affect one's judgment.
And I phrased that sentence hypothetically, "IF he had done X, then Y", based on what was (I thought was) being alleged. I didn't want to really spend a lot of time fact-checking something I'm not invested in, but still strangely felt like saying something rather than just keeping it to "It depends on details I don't know", which I'll be prudent and fall back to now if what you're saying is right.
Anyway, again, yeah it always depends on details, and there are usually more details than we know. IF we're only talking about cameras in his own house, then ... it sounds better in the sense a person might be under the impression that's not an invasion of privacy when it's in their own space (mistake of law), but I wouldn't be surprised if the law itself doesn't care much where they are (... as for motivation, I think it wouldn't matter much in any event).
Fingernail on 27/1/2011 at 16:46
Sadly, saying "if he did x" can easily be interpreted as "if he did x, as he has been accused of...", when in fact he wasn't accused of that. Particularly so to those who also didn't read the articles. Particularly if you sound like you're talking with authority.
Of course it could have an impact on the legal outcome, but I think what we're really interested in is what he (maybe) did and why. So we shouldn't start talking about things he definitely isn't accused of, or didn't happen.
I mean, if he was already on the sex offenders register for exposing himself to members of the public then it can't be good for his sentencing. The authorities should've kept a closer eye on the guy.
