- Dołączono
- 28 Sie 2018
At this point it is two-fold, it's the principle of the thing, but moreover it's the legality....I apologise if this seems late, but can I just clarify something, because the whole bodycam discussion is too much to catch up on -
What is the goal of obtaining the bodycam footage that everything else, from Nick himself, to his plea deal, to the police testimony, the forensic results, to these transcripts, don't otherwise provide? Is it to achieve some legal objective, or are we looking for something specific that Nick is being manipulative about or that the police didn't note? Is it just the final confirmation? Is it just on principle?
Because while Nick was entitled to think he was shielded from criticism, his bitterness on our 'standards' is at least explicable, because Hardin is intervening on our behalf in his case, a guy we used to consider a friend of the forum, and make a case to change the applicability of private and public footage for something he does not want shown - which yes, may include further embarrassing his children, as he so often says - but is also against the site's usual ethos. Whether he deserves it or not, I can't blame him for thinking it's personal.
The law says the public is entitled to it, full stop.
The fact that it's not been released, is indicative of corruption. It's illegal.
At first we just wanted it to laugh at it, of course, but now it's a matter of not allowing officials to just break the fucking law because this fucking nepobaby has rich mommy and daddy who know the prosecutor (allegedly).
It's funny how Nick rants about the state breaking the law until it's in his favor.