California DOJ Raid Home and Seize Videos!


#1

foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/06/california-law-enforcement-officers-seize-planned-parenthood-videos-activist-says.html?intcmp=hpbt2

I guess persecution is to be expected when fighting for the unborn, but this is pretty ridiculous!:mad:


#2

I am certainly no defender of Planned Parenthood but . . .

A guy obtains a fake driver’s license (illegal) to videotape people without their knowledge (illegal) and allegedly edits the tapes to make them misleading (illegal if true), is indicted in Texas for these actions, is under formal investigation in California for these actions, is subject to a legal search of his premises, pursuant to a validly executed search warrant (presumably) to gain evidence regarding the pending indictment and separate investigation, at which time the officers find potential evidence (the videotapes in and unedited form) and take them into custody, and you think this is “persecution”?

Sound more to me like a legitimate “prosecution”.

I hate the abortion industry but his methods are illegal and he is subject to legal recourse as a result.


#3

Yep. No persecution here. Rather a lawful investigation and attempted prosecution of a person accused of multiple crimes. :thumbsup:


#4

Common, long accepted investigative journalism practice.

Not true, the full video is available unedited on the website.

[quote]
is indicted in Texas for these actions, is under formal investigation in California for these actions, is subject to a legal search of his premises, pursuant to a validly executed search warrant (presumably) to gain evidence regarding the pending indictment and separate investigation, at which time the officers find potential evidence (the videotapes in and unedited form) and take them into custody,

The rest of this is technically correct though.

and you think this is “persecution”?

Sound more to me like a legitimate “prosecution”.

I hate the abortion industry but his methods are illegal and he is subject to legal recourse as a result.

Given that the same treatment has not been given to other investigative journalists, the term persecution is correctly applied. This single instance of use of common practice has been unjustly singled out not because of their method or practice, but because of who their investigation focused on.
[/quote]


#5

That may be true, but that would be one reason why they’d want to make sure and seize the videos. They can compare what he has to what was posted. If the videos match, then his story checks out. It seems to me, that could only help his case.


#6

This part is interesting. If I remember correctly, the grand jury heard nothing about the videos, only about Daleiden using a fake id. Maybe I’m misremembering.

Texas authorities initially began a grand jury investigation of Planned Parenthood after the undercover videos were released in August.

But the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of misusing fetal tissue and indicted Daleiden and a colleague, Sandra Merritt, in January on charges including using fake driver’s licenses to get into a Houston clinic


#7

#8

Well, given that grand jury proceedings are not public, and anybody who reveals what happens in a grand jury proceeding is subject to severe prosecution, I don’t think it is possible for anyone to make that claim credibly.


#9

Why do they need to seize the videos? Is there any question that he was recording the video to use as a journalistic expose? Of course not and no serious person could deny it.

There is no justification for this behavior. They would NEVER do such a thing to ABC or 60 Minutes. But because he’s not well known as yet, and because he’s targeting the monstrous evil of Planned Parenthood, the left is attacking with everything they got.


#10

Except for this:

ABC has procedures and policies to facilitate undercover work. ABC’s News
Policy Manual states that “*n the course of investigative work, reporters should not
disguise their identity or pose as someone with another occupation without prior
approval of ABC News Management.”32 This manual further states that “news
gathering of whatever sort does not include any license to violate the law

I suggest you take at look at the case of Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in October 1999.*


#11

I’m not sure why you are giving the benefit of the doubt to those who are bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood and support intrinsic evil. There is nothing harmless about this misuse of justice and misuse of the power of the government.

Given that the same treatment has not been given to other investigative journalists,except he isn’t an “investigative journalist”, he’s just a guy with a camera and a hidden mike

I didn’t know that individuals aren’t endowed with the freedom of press. What other rights do you believe individuals don’t possess?

the term persecution is correctly applied. actually, its not. Not even close. No one is doing anything to “persecute” this guy right now. They just took some video tapes into custody.

This is not some harmless fact-finding mission. It’s government persecution and I don’t understand why you give the benefit of the doubt to those who support evil and not to the person who defends innocent life.

This single instance of use of common practiceI am in no way convinced this is common practice and you will have to show me some credible source, [other than Lifesite news or this guys lawyers] who say this is common journalistic practice. Moreover, even if it is, saying “they break the law too” is NO defense.

Hidden cameras and secret recordings are a staple of modern journalism and standard practice. While it technically might be breaking the law, the law is null and void when compared to First Amendment rights of free press. It is not wrong nor illegal for journalists and individuals to do such acts while performing investigative journalism.

has been unjustly singled out not because of their method or practice, but because of who their investigation focused on.

Quite probably true, but so what? Still not “persecution”. He broke the law. In several different ways. No whe faces the consequences. Its still not “persecution”.

No, he hasn’t broken the law. The law has always held an exception for freedom of press. This is blatant persecution. Again, I don’t understand why you give the benefit of the doubt to those who support evil and not to those who protect innocent life.


#12

#13

Here is an interesting article on the topic of journalists breaking the law to get a story, from a journalist. I agree with her perspective, which is:

" As a freelance journalist you have to make your own judgements and be prepared to take risks. Often you come under a lot of pressures from employers and clients. In the end, it’s you who could get locked up. In this case, knowing I could face prosecution, I weighed up the risk to my safety (the drug cartel were known to be violent) and the public interest in telling the story. I chose to report it."

spiked-online.com/newsite/article/7148#.VwVKBD_2b9o

In other words, journalists know that if they break the law to get a story, they are taking a risk. They weigh the benefit of getting the story against the burden of being prosecuted. Its part of the job.

Now, if this guy who taped PP says that journalists routinely break the law to get a story, well that may be so, but ABC, and all the major news sources have policies to the contrary. If he means “freelancers”, then that may be so, but 1. they know they are taking a risk and 2.I can’t find a single instance where a journalist used a fake government i.d. to get a story. Even the lady in the article above says all she faked was a utility bill.


#14

Please show me where the 1st amendment says you can break the law.


#15

Really? Source please.


#16

I am not “giving the benefit of the doubt” to anybody (unlike you). I am taking the know n"facts" as presented and making simple unemotional judgments based upon them.

We know he faked a government issued i.d.
We know he taped people without their knowledge.

We know both of those things are illegal

We know that the fact that other people may break the law and get away with it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to whether you or I can be prosecuted for breaking those same laws.

We know that it has been alleged that he edited the tapes in a misleading manner.
We know that only the original tapes can show the truth or falsity of that allegation

We know that he has already been indicted in Texas
We know that the California A.G. has opened a formal investigation.
We know that in furtherance of the formal investigation, a search warrant was properly issued and executed upon.

We know that as of now, nothing has been done by the California authorities to hurt this guy. Only the original tapes were seized. He wasn’t taken into custody, He wasn’t jailed. He wasn’t even charged.

We know that 'per·se·cut·ed" “per·se·cut·ing”

is defined as

1
: to punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

Hence, we know that by definition, he has not be “persecuted”. Not yet anyway.


#17

Which will end up just like the indictments of Tom Delay and Rick Perry. They were political attacks from a ridiculously leftist and biased DA in one county.

We know that the California A.G. has opened a formal investigation.

A District Attorney that is bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood.

We know that in furtherance of the formal investigation, a search warrant was properly issued and executed upon.

It is a fishing expedition, nothing more. A horrendously biased expedition and a misuse of government power.

Again, I don’t understand why you give the benefit of the doubt to those who support evil and seem so willing to bring the hammer down on those who are protecting innocent life.


#18

Quit reacting with your heart, read what I said instead of what you think I think, and actually read what I said.

You are the one “giving one the benefit of the doubt”, not I. You are making assumptions. I am merely stating facts.


#19

#20

It’s my understanding that they were prepared for the possibility of lawsuits.

I may be getting my facts mixed up, but I thought that there was some kind of connection between the team that did this expose and the incident with Acorn. I didn’t follow that case, but have a vague memory that the media praised that undercover action.

This country has made its peace with abortion. We have hardened our hearts, and I feel we’re at the stage of “prophet” where the more we shout the truth, the more people stuff fingers in ears.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.