re: Toviano...Anyone have an update?

quote:

---

I was right. You were wrong

---

I said this in my first post of the thread:

quote:

---

That said, if he can get the charges reduced or dropped, possibly by working it out with the victim or by showing that she consented, I can see a path back to the field

---

I’ll admit I’m surprised he’s back at practice this quickly. Maybe the girl’s claim was bullshite. Maybe the bag man came through. Maybe he’s taking a plea deal.

I don’t know, but my arguments with you in this thread have been about your asinine takes regarding what is legal and illegal.

You said that her knowledge of a previous recording meant she consented. I showed you where the law requires consent to the specific instance of recording.

You said you can have a security camera anywhere you want inside your home. That’s objectively false. It’s a crime to capture sexual intercourse or nudity without consent anywhere a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, regardless of whether it’s inside your house. This is very well-documented.

You said that the video voyeurism statute only applies if the camera was set up for “lewd and lascivious purposes.” I showed you the statute, which clearly says that it can apply without lewd and lascivious purposes.

You said that consent is not required as long as there is audio, then tried to support it by quoting the single-party consent law - which, ironically, only applies to audio and electronic communications.

Feel free to claim victory all you want but almost everything you’ve said in this thread is objectively, verifiably false.

Nominated for a Golden Globe for cinematography, film editing and best director.