[FredZarguna]

So the FL Supreme Court was under the impression that a criminal in the process of perpetrating violent crime is entitled to an expectation of privacy. Courts that allow the privacy wiretap laws to restrict the taping of crimes in progress make a mockery of law.

This guys victim needs to lure him into her home, kill him, and claim self-defense.

[4rcane]

I don’t understand the legal reason or the principle behind not allowing the recording to be admissible evidence. No criminals ever give permission to be recorded.

[Secret Agent Man]

That law should be ignored when criminal activity is recorded.

It’s a stupid law. If I am talking to someone and want to record what happens for my safety and security, I have that right.

They let police violate this law.

[goodwithagun]

In Ohio, only one party must be aware of recording. Still, these laws forbidding a criminal act's recording being submittable is akin to gun control: only criminals benefit from them.

[bert]

he is now free and an easy target

[bgill]

This needed a permission law?

[adorno]

If a third person had witnessed the rape, would that witness’s testimony be allowed in court against the rapist?

One could argue that, that third person is ‘means of recording’ for the event, in the same way as a video or audio recording. Would the court dismiss the witness as not being legally allowed to ‘remember’ the crimes.

[DPMD]

California Superior Court Judge M. Marc Kelly will be having none of this nonsense in his court. Any child rape victim trying to secure evidence in his or her rape will be severely dealt with.