He’s her ex fiancé, the likelihood of them being “without her consent” is about the same as a female teenager actually being “raped” by her boyfriend when they’re caught by her parents.
Maybe, maybe not. The images should make that clear. E.g. it seems that the videos were taken clandestinely. If the camera is out there in the open, visible to her, then not so much.
It's possible even for an attention whore RINO to be victimized.
I'm sure you'd rather call it 'simpery' than you being called out for your raving lunacy. But given how obsessed you are with that episode, it must have left a mark.
Let me remind you that you were saying that Tulsi should get no position in the Trump administration, even one unrelated to guns, because you think that children should be able to buy machine guns. It looks like your own guy disagreed with you there. No wonder you're seething at me.
Still doesn’t mean anything under the law or make a case for… rape. At worst you have a guy who has a nude video of an ex fiancée, in DC it’s a single party recording consent state, so if he interacts with her at all in the video and/or didn’t publish the material or sell it then it’s at best a grey area.
I wasn't talking about the rape stuff, only about the images.
Also, I'd be absolutely shocked if 'single party consent' applied to taking nude or sexual pictures of people, in whatever state. Everything I can find about 'single party consent' is about audio only, but of course, I spent 10 seconds on it.
Also, I'd be absolutely shocked if 'single party consent' applied to taking nude or sexual pictures of people.
It really boils down to usage. If he tried to use them for anything (i.e. blackmail), sell them, or distribute them then he would likely be in prison already. Based on the story they were entirely for personal use, which is again a gray area. For example if the footage is from security cameras in his house, he’s allowed to own that footage under single party consent. His home, his cameras, his consent. That doesn’t change unless a crime was committed in the film or the film itself was distributed in some fashion.
The photo I saw her talking about was clearly taken from a kitchen facing a common area and what looks like it might be a sliding glass door.. Not exactly where one would expect a camera to be hidden if the intent were to take naked photos.
He’s her ex fiancé, the likelihood of them being “without her consent” is about the same as a female teenager actually being “raped” by her boyfriend when they’re caught by her parents.
Maybe, maybe not. The images should make that clear. E.g. it seems that the videos were taken clandestinely. If the camera is out there in the open, visible to her, then not so much.
It's possible even for an attention whore RINO to be victimized.
No they fucking wouldn't.
Oh we are all well aware of his simpery. Start talking shit about Tulsi Gabbard if you really want to see him go.
I'm sure you'd rather call it 'simpery' than you being called out for your raving lunacy. But given how obsessed you are with that episode, it must have left a mark.
Let me remind you that you were saying that Tulsi should get no position in the Trump administration, even one unrelated to guns, because you think that children should be able to buy machine guns. It looks like your own guy disagreed with you there. No wonder you're seething at me.
RETARD ALERT
Still doesn’t mean anything under the law or make a case for… rape. At worst you have a guy who has a nude video of an ex fiancée, in DC it’s a single party recording consent state, so if he interacts with her at all in the video and/or didn’t publish the material or sell it then it’s at best a grey area.
I wasn't talking about the rape stuff, only about the images.
Also, I'd be absolutely shocked if 'single party consent' applied to taking nude or sexual pictures of people, in whatever state. Everything I can find about 'single party consent' is about audio only, but of course, I spent 10 seconds on it.
It really boils down to usage. If he tried to use them for anything (i.e. blackmail), sell them, or distribute them then he would likely be in prison already. Based on the story they were entirely for personal use, which is again a gray area. For example if the footage is from security cameras in his house, he’s allowed to own that footage under single party consent. His home, his cameras, his consent. That doesn’t change unless a crime was committed in the film or the film itself was distributed in some fashion.
The photo I saw her talking about was clearly taken from a kitchen facing a common area and what looks like it might be a sliding glass door.. Not exactly where one would expect a camera to be hidden if the intent were to take naked photos.