More Mel Gibson weirdness

**Bob Loblaw** · 07-12-10, 03:48 PM

Seriously? Geez, Mel...about 11 years ago, a famous scientist named Albert Einstien invented the "tape recorder." You should look into it, because that little invention has ended your career. Hmmm....Albert Einstein was jewish....IT'S ALL A PLOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY BY THE EVIL ZIONISTS TO DESTROY YOU!!!!!!!!!!! YOU WERE RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

RadarOnline: Tape captures Gibson death threat against ex-girlfriend - CNN.com

Originally Posted by Crazy Mel Gibson via CNN

"I'll threaten," he says. "I'll put you in the f...ing rose garden."

**Ducky** · 07-12-10, 04:05 PM

You know, untreated syphilis can cause people to go insane.

**Jenna** · 07-12-10, 04:10 PM

**Captain America** · 07-12-10, 04:23 PM

What's Hebrew for idiot?

**pgg** · 07-12-10, 05:52 PM

Be interesting to see how the recordings where obtained. In CA there are only a couple of exceptions listed for being able to record someone without their permission. Law Enforcement are able to, and if a judge puts it into a restraining order the person is able to. Would have to see a copy of the order though for that

**121Traffic** · 07-13-10, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by pgg

Be interesting to see how the recordings where obtained. In CA there are only a couple of exceptions listed for being able to record someone without their permission. Law Enforcement are able to, and if a judge puts it into a restraining order the person is able to. Would have to see a copy of the order though for that

I heard this on NPR. You guys have the all-consent rule...all parties being recorded have to consent to it. But will that make it a Fourth Amendment issue? Wife was doing the recording as I recall. She was not acting as an agent of the state as far as anyone knows, so while she may face a charge for obtaining it, won't the prosecution still be able to use it? Under what doctrine would it be suppressed? Citizens cannot, by definition, violate the Fourth Amendment, and the Exclusionary Rule only exists to suppress evidence gained through police misconduct or gross negligence.

If my property is stolen, and I see it through the window at my neighbor's place, and I kick the door in to get it, I'm going to possibly be charged with the burg. My neighbor is still going to have to answer for possessing the stolen property though.

Either way, it sure will eff up his rep.

**MacLean** · 07-13-10, 01:36 AM

I bet it doesn't hurt his career one bit.

**pgg** · 07-13-10, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by 121Traffic

I heard this on NPR. You guys have the all-consent rule...all parties being recorded have to consent to it. But will that make it a Fourth Amendment issue? Wife was doing the recording as I recall. She was not acting as an agent of the state as far as anyone knows, so while she may face a charge for obtaining it, won't the prosecution still be able to use it? Under what doctrine would it be suppressed? Citizens cannot, by definition, violate the Fourth Amendment, and the Exclusionary Rule only exists to suppress evidence gained through police misconduct or gross negligence.

If my property is stolen, and I see it through the window at my neighbor's place, and I kick the door in to get it, I'm going to possibly be charged with the burg. My neighbor is still going to have to answer for possessing the stolen property though.

Either way, it sure will eff up his rep.

I would want to see the restraining order first before making a case about the legality of the recording. Sometimes a judge will allow the protected party to record any contact between them. I would also have to see what it says regarding telephone contact. Some allow it some don't. The criminal threats section (422PC) I don't think would apply as the threat has to be immediate and the victim has to be in fear of their life right then. The DV issue though would be investigated then filed with the DA with a request for charges. I think to much time has lapsed for a probable cause arrest.

**121Traffic** · 07-13-10, 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by pgg

I would want to see the restraining order first before making a case about the legality of the recording. Sometimes a judge will allow the protected party to record any contact between them. I would also have to see what it says regarding telephone contact. Some allow it some don't. The criminal threats section (422PC) I don't think would apply as the threat has to be immediate and the victim has to be in fear of their life right then. The DV issue though would be investigated then filed with the DA with a request for charges. I think to much time has lapsed for a probable cause arrest.

Right, but even if the wife obtained the recording illegally, i.e. she gets charged for the applicable offense of recording without consent, I still don't think that should keep the prosecution from being able to use the recording as evidence of broad abuse. Again...a private citizen cannot violate the Fourth Amendment, unless she was acting specifically as an agent for the state. Not trying to be argumentative, but under what legal doctrine would they suppress the evidence? Or are you not even arguing that it would be suppressed, and should I should buy you a steak because I'm being a shit?

Not saying it should be their whole case, but I would think the recording could still be part of the entire body of evidence in the case. His comments (intended to harass, annoy, or alarm) would certainly constitute harassment here...especially if the calls were of a repeated nature, odd time of the night, after she told him not to call, etc.

Here in CO, only one party's consent is needed to record. The closest applicable statute would be Wiretapping, including intercepting a cordless phone conversation. We have this subsection. Basically says that the recording can't constitute all of your probable cause, and it has to be used in conjunction with other evidence, but it can be used nevertheless.

Colorado Revised Statutes]

(4.9) It shall not be unlawful for a district attorney or law enforcement officer to listen to a recording of or to read a transcription of the contents of an electronic communication involving a cordless telephone when the district attorney or law enforcement officer has come into possession of such materials from a third party. In order to use such materials as evidence in a prosecution for a crime other than wiretapping or eavesdropping, the district attorney or law enforcement officer shall have a reasonable basis for believing that the recording or transcription is reliable and shall also have separate probable cause based on corroborating evidence to support a reasonable belief that the crime was committed. Nothing in this subsection (4.9) shall preclude a district attorney from prosecuting a person for a violation of section 18-9-303 or 18-9-304.

**Xiphos** · 07-13-10, 07:45 AM

He's completely melted down the last few years. Complete. Jack. Ass.

**IMGreat101** · 07-13-10, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by MacLean

I bet it doesn't hurt his career one bit.

you are right.

ole mel could get a gig with Imus?

**pgg** · 07-13-10, 12:34 PM

I could see it being used as evidence. Some of our judges are retarded enough that they would supress it. About the only good it would do though is maybe an admission on the DV case and/or a restraining order violation depending on what the order says. If he is continually calling her and harrassing her there is a section for that (653m PC). It is only a misdemeanor though.

And you owe me a steak