Nanny Sues Hidden-Camera Manufacturer

[homestarmy]

Haha, that's funny, they don't censor bullshit but they sensor the second half of the word by itself hahahaha!

 

[homestarmy]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

I don't get this. It's a video recorder right?

Either way, 2 years in prison is NOTHING. If it were 10 or 20, I'd think otherwise.

The bitch doesn't seem to get that you DON'T SCREW with other peoples' kids. Capiche?

Ok, let's put you in prison for two years. Starting today, ok?

Bunghole ready?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
suing the camera manufacture = BS

suing the parents or whoever was in charge of her getting locked up = OK

well it really depends on how the cam was sold. people may be beleive this is a real video camera and not understand its takeing pictures 1 every sec (or whatever its set up for). then see the nanny playing with the child and beleive they are abusing them.

I have no problem with her sueing both of them. Hope she gets a lot from them both.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Germany or Florida!

Well since FL took care of those german tourists back in the day, FL is the clear winnar!

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: buck

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Germany or Florida!

Well since FL took care of those german tourists back in the day, FL is the clear winnar!

ohhh booo! heh

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: iroast

Originally posted by: DBL
sounds like it could have some merit. How could you possibly tell exactly what was going on if there was a significant time lapse?

Her beef shouldn't be with the camera manufacturer then

Sure it could depending on how the camera was marketed. Don't you remember those X1 ads?

What about the X10 ads?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Germany or Florida!

Man, I wish I still got that show on my local radio station. Used to listen to it all the time.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: guoziming
I remember some girl sued a photographer (successfully, i might add!) for taking her picture without her knowledge. She was sitting on a public building's front steps. and it wasn't anything dirty, just a normal picture.

/random

How is that possible? You have no expectation of privacy in public.

eh? yeah that is nuts. how was she able to win? as i said in other threads there are to many stupid people being on jury's

Being in public doesn't give someone the right to take your picture. This is more important than ever with the proliferation of photos on the internet.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
suing the camera manufacture = BS

suing the parents or whoever was in charge of her getting locked up = OK

The way lawsuits work, the fact that the parents or the prosecutor might be liable, doesn't mean the camera manufacturer isn't. That is what the suit decides, whether they are or not.

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: JDrake
link to video?

:laugh:

Clicking on your smiley does NOTHING!

http://www.local10.com/news/7744682/detail.html

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: mugs
What about the X10 ads?

I remember one set that showed parents using it to watch over a babysitter. If you marketed your product and its video was not suitable for this purpose I'd imagine your company could be held liable.

Besides, as someone else has mentioned, it's up to the courts to decide who's liable. Most likely the suit names all the relevant parties (company, parents, state..etc.) and exactly whom is responsible as well as compensation will be determined in court.

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: mugs
What about the X10 ads?

I remember one set that showed parents using it to watch over a babysitter. If you marketed your product and its video was not suitable for this purpose I'd imagine your company could be held liable.

Besides, as someone else has mentioned, it's up to the courts to decide who's liable. Most likely the suit names all the relevant parties (company, parents, state..etc.) and exactly whom is responsible as well as compensation will be determined in court.

AFAIK, you cannot sue the police or state for prosecuting you in error. If the cops mess up, too bad for you.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: guoziming
I remember some girl sued a photographer (successfully, i might add!) for taking her picture without her knowledge. She was sitting on a public building's front steps. and it wasn't anything dirty, just a normal picture.

/random

How is that possible? You have no expectation of privacy in public.

eh? yeah that is nuts. how was she able to win? as i said in other threads there are to many stupid people being on jury's

Being in public doesn't give someone the right to take your picture. This is more important than ever with the proliferation of photos on the internet.

but as mugs said you do not have a expectation of privacy in public. so a person can take pictures of anyone on a public setting.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Tom
Being in public doesn't give someone the right to take your picture. This is more important than ever with the proliferation of photos on the internet.

Yes it does. Selling it is a different matter.

 

[waggy]

holly crap. the article mermaidman listed.

"Because Brett Schwartz refused to turn over the original tape to the police, investigators made a copy of some portions of the tape. The full original recording was then destroyed when it was put back in the surveillance camera and the tape was recorded over"


WTF and the convicted the girl on this!?

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
AFAIK, you cannot sue the police or state for prosecuting you in error. If the cops mess up, too bad for you.

Oh no?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: guoziming
I remember some girl sued a photographer (successfully, i might add!) for taking her picture without her knowledge. She was sitting on a public building's front steps. and it wasn't anything dirty, just a normal picture.

/random

How is that possible? You have no expectation of privacy in public.

eh? yeah that is nuts. how was she able to win? as i said in other threads there are to many stupid people being on jury's

Being in public doesn't give someone the right to take your picture. This is more important than ever with the proliferation of photos on the internet.

1. The case in question was in Canada
2. If you are in a public place (in the United States), I don't believe there is anything you can do if someone takes your picture unless the picture is used for profit. Even if you can be seen from a public place, I don't believe you have any expectation of privacy.

 

[msparish]

You people need to read the article more closely. First, she was never convicted. Second, it never specifies how much time she spent in jail, just that she had waited 2 years for a trial. Most likely, a "long time" means until bail money was rounded up. She probably spent a couple days in jail...which if I were innoncent, I would be livid about.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: msparish
You people need to read the article more closely. First, she was never convicted. Second, it never specifies how much time she spent in jail, just that she had waited 2 years for a trial. Most likely, a "long time" means until bail money was rounded up. She probably spent a couple days in jail...which if I were innoncent, I would be livid about.

read the posting from mermaidman.

from teh link.

"Muro, a Peruvian migrant who did not have proper documentation, has spent more than two years in jail on eight charges of aggravated child abuse. She could have faced up to 40 years behind bars if convicted."


so yes i think we read it correctly. but thanks for playing!

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: JDrake
link to video?

:laugh:

Clicking on your smiley does NOTHING!

http://www.local10.com/news/7744682/detail.html

If I suspected my baby sitter of abusing my child, this baby sitter would never set a foot in my house again. Setting her up so I can take pictures of her abusing my child would be the last thing on my mind. My next baby sitter would be TOLD that there is video surveillance in the house. Hopefully this would keep her honest.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
AFAIK, you cannot sue the police or state for prosecuting you in error. If the cops mess up, too bad for you.

Oh no?

I am going to get off topic, but this is the off topic forum.

If cops are around me I treat them like a frikin rhino, NO SUDDEN MOVEMENTS! Especially if they have their hands on their guns. And I am not even black. How could you not know that you always keep your hands in plain sight around cops? Especially in NYC.

 

[Stuxnet]

If I caught a nanny/babysitter intentionally harming my child, she wouldn't be able to sue anyone until she had my foot surgically removed from her chest cavity and my pen0r from her left eye socket.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
If I caught a nanny/babysitter intentionally harming my child, she wouldn't be able to sue anyone until she had my foot surgically removed from her chest cavity and my pen0r from her left eye socket.

What does that have to do with this post?

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: jbourne77
If I caught a nanny/babysitter intentionally harming my child, she wouldn't be able to sue anyone until she had my foot surgically removed from her chest cavity and my pen0r from her left eye socket.

What does that have to do with this post?

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A nanny who was arrested after police viewed hidden camera video recordings that appeared to show her shaking a 5-month-old baby is suing the recording system's manufacturer.

Not to mention the title...

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
AFAIK, you cannot sue the police or state for prosecuting you in error. If the cops mess up, too bad for you.

Oh no?

Negligence is a completely different story. So is when a police officer commits a crime (in the case of Diallo).

I believe you cannot sue the police for not protecting you or doing their job within the confines of SOP.