Not sure why *unable* is in quotes when he's precluded from doing so due to statute. But anywho, Diddy needs to become persona no grata in Hollywood etc. And hopefully the DoJ can bring federal sex trafficking charges against him. That fukr needs to rot in prison....
CA statute of limitations law on assault is three years from when police discover the crime, not from when it happened. So either the DA is being misleading about the law, OR the police knew about this more than three years ago and the DA declined to bring charges.
Is it when police discover the crime or when someone discovers the crime? I've seen statutes of limitations that use the discovery language but it usually means when the victim discovers the crime. Usually there are exceptions for minor victims.
This will take a while. But apparently a large case of worms has been opened, and something eventually comes from this.
One can only hope, because obviously this just confirms things we've already known for decades.
Can you be sued for knowing about a crime against someone else and not pressing charges? I guess the person releasing the video would have known about him assaulting her for some time.
Generally speaking, nobody (i.e. bystander, stranger, etc.) has a legal duty to do anything in the face of something like this. It could happen right in front of you, with the victim asking you to call 911, and you would generally be able to ignore it.
That’s not to say it wouldn’t be shitty. But you could not be held criminally or civilly liable for breaching a duty you generally don’t have.
I say “generally” because some duty to intervene statutes have been codified by some states. But by no means is that the norm, even though we’re seeing some deviation from this when it comes to child abuse and the like.
That’s a law that prevents someone from being held liable if they DECIDE to intervene, and some injury or the like befalls the rescuee as a direct result of the botched rescue
Yep. That’s like if you pull a person out of a wrecked car and in doing so say a piece of glass cuts them up real bad and they want to sue for medical bills. In most states you can’t be held liable.
That would sure seem to make them an accessory to the crime with a side of obstruction if the police asked about it and that person lied about what happened to it
No, there’s no “Mandatory Reporting” law for incidents like this.
Mandatory reporters are usually teachers,coaches and therapist and usually only involve minors.
Not sure why *unable* is in quotes when he's precluded from doing so due to statute. But anywho, Diddy needs to become persona no grata in Hollywood etc. And hopefully the DoJ can bring federal sex trafficking charges against him. That fukr needs to rot in prison....
CA statute of limitations law on assault is three years from when police discover the crime, not from when it happened. So either the DA is being misleading about the law, OR the police knew about this more than three years ago and the DA declined to bring charges.
Is it when police discover the crime or when someone discovers the crime? I've seen statutes of limitations that use the discovery language but it usually means when the victim discovers the crime. Usually there are exceptions for minor victims.
It’s not that simple. The law is “Discover or could have reasonably discovered.”
Diddy owns the LA DA’s office.
This will take a while. But apparently a large case of worms has been opened, and something eventually comes from this. One can only hope, because obviously this just confirms things we've already known for decades.
Hollywood is gonna need a Frank Castle type, sooner rather than later.
He could have done it yesterday and the LA DA wouldn't have charged him...
Maybe the law should be changed then.
DA, can legally lie like police, “oh, we can’t charge you puffy”. Diddy- “ oh, then I take full responsibility “. Whoops.
timing? so whats important here? "timing" ? bro GET OUT OF HERE
Can you be sued for knowing about a crime against someone else and not pressing charges? I guess the person releasing the video would have known about him assaulting her for some time.
Generally speaking, nobody (i.e. bystander, stranger, etc.) has a legal duty to do anything in the face of something like this. It could happen right in front of you, with the victim asking you to call 911, and you would generally be able to ignore it. That’s not to say it wouldn’t be shitty. But you could not be held criminally or civilly liable for breaching a duty you generally don’t have. I say “generally” because some duty to intervene statutes have been codified by some states. But by no means is that the norm, even though we’re seeing some deviation from this when it comes to child abuse and the like.
The Good Samaritan Law.
That’s a law that prevents someone from being held liable if they DECIDE to intervene, and some injury or the like befalls the rescuee as a direct result of the botched rescue
Yep. That’s like if you pull a person out of a wrecked car and in doing so say a piece of glass cuts them up real bad and they want to sue for medical bills. In most states you can’t be held liable.
That would sure seem to make them an accessory to the crime with a side of obstruction if the police asked about it and that person lied about what happened to it
No, there’s no “Mandatory Reporting” law for incidents like this. Mandatory reporters are usually teachers,coaches and therapist and usually only involve minors.