P+D I totally agree with what you said. What I was trying to get across is, while the act of having sex with a comatose person is just sick and wrong on many levels, the police should've had more common sense and not tape them. Those cops have to be perverts and getting off on that on some level.
While I do not condone what the man did, or what the cops did, both parties had horrible judgement and are both guilty. If anyone else gave consent for the man to do such actions, that person is just as guilty as the man and the cops. Like I said before, if he wanted to get his rocks off, he should've gone to a hooker or done something else than have sex with his comatose wife.
Furthermore, he should've known that his wife wouldn't feel anything from his actions and have no pleasure in it, which makes him even more self centered. He's the type of man that gives all the decent men a bad name. Both parties are guilty here, there's no question, but I think the cops are the lesser of the two evils. At least they tried to stop it, but they chose the wrong course of action.
After looking at this post, I decided to go back and look at the article again. When I did, I got even more confused about this whole "case". In the article it says...
MADISON, Wis. -- Police who videotaped a man having sex with his comatose wife in her nursing home room violated his constitutional rights, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
David W. Johnson, 59, had an expectation to privacy when he visited his wife, a stroke victim, at Divine Savior Nursing Home in Portage, the District 4 Court of Appeals ruled. Therefore, police violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches when they installed a hidden video camera in the room, the court said.
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/09/12/news/doc48c9a2a779d69845259783.txt
But then it also says...
Police obtained a search warrant to videotape the room and installed the camera, which ran for three weeks. Johnson, who is free on bail, was charged based on that evidence.
Wondering what exactly a search warrant entitled police officers to do, I looked it up. Upon looking at the exact specifications and legalities involved with a search warrant, I saw this...
A defendant has standing to challenge the legality of a search on Fourth Amendment grounds only if he has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place searched. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148 (1978). The defendant bears the burden of establishing his legitimate expectation of privacy. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980).
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s117.htm
So, now I'm
really confused, but I've realized that this "case" just goes to show how
hypocritical our laws are here in the US.
The police had an
authorized search warrant (for suspicion of
illegal activity; IE -
rape), but the courts decided that they were violating his right to privacy by installing hidden cameras in his wife's nursing home room because it was an "
unreasonable search". How was it "unreasonable" at all? :dunno:
The nursing home staff contacted the police because they believed that this guy's wife was in danger. They were suspicious that he was having sex with her, so they contacted the authorities. The police, with
reasonable suspicion that this man was raping his wife, then installed cameras to catch him in the act, in order to use it as evidence against him. But, the court dismissed the video tapes as evidence because it "violated his right to privacy"...
What about the wife's right to privacy? Her husband was RAPING her, which is the
ultimate invasion of privacy, not mention...it's highly illegal and highly frowned upon in society.
So, basically, what the court is saying is that HIS privacy means more than his comatose wife's.
BULL...
FUCKING...
SHIT.
