Whilst I can see why video would be used in a prosecution, if it was video taken in the home (if it is video of the attack, surely it must be?) then why doesn’t the victim get a say in this.
If this was video of me taken in my home I’d expect the right to restrict its use and dissemination.
Or is the US now at the point where if you want justice and the evidence is perhaps distressing personal video clips, the deal is either justice plus public exposure and complete loss of privacy, or no justice?
“During a preliminary hearing last month, prosecutors played portions of Paul Pelosi’s 911 call plus footage from Capitol police surveillance cameras, body cameras worn by the two police officers who arrived at the house, and video from DePape’s interview with police.”
Distasteful as it may be - these are public government records.
Agreed; I’m not sure exactly what video footage is being discussed here but if the video was taken inside a private home then the victim of the video should have a reasonable expectation of privacy whether the video is “public record” or not.
If officers enter a woman’s apartment to apprehend a rapist that doesn’t mean she should have to be victimized again by having bodycam footage of her own rape shared on the internet.
I’m sure the Court considered that issue. Which regarding the government usually applies to searches and seizures. When you invite law enforcement into your home to respond to a crime- different factors are involved. Just as if you invite them in some evidence of a crime you may have committed becomes available to them. If it’s immediately noticeable.
Additionally- the prosecutor requested they not be released. Not the victim. The decision is based upon the government’s request.
Imaging being sucked into right wing conspriacies and deciding to do something about it by smashing the deep state. And instead of being a hero there is now a conspiracy you were a lover of Paul Pelosi.
And one of those factors remains a reasonable expectation of privacy. Obviously there are exceptions; if the cops responded to the call and found a panda smuggling operation in the Pelosis’ bedroom then that would be a matter of public interest that outweighed their expectation of privacy.
If the Pelosis don’t mind bodycam footage of the attack in their home being released then neither do I. But if they do mind then I’d expect the court to have a pretty compelling reason why the public should have access to footage of an attack inside their private residence.
Again, if a womanperson calls 911 because an intruder broke into hertheir home that doesn’t automatically mean that the public has a right to watch the bodycam footage of her rapetheir violent assault on YouTube.
As a member of the public, i have no idea why this man’s attack needs to be public record. I don’t want to see it or need to see it, i’d rather have the people directly involved (lawyers, law enforcement, etc) be involved and handle what needs to be handled.
So did anyone watch the video? All the debate aside, curiosity did get the better of me.
It’s only a few seconds and pretty violent, it’s weird how calm they were when they answered the door. The intruder had plenty of time to assault him before the cops arrive but he waits until the cops are there.
They also released security camera footage, there is no doubt the guy was an intruder who broke into the home. It’s also scary how easy it was for this guy to break into a monitored house.