Current Events > A 13 year old boy with visual impairment is being charged with a felony

(+) Yeah! (+)

for recording a conversation with his principal.

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/lifestyle/13-year-old-boy-recorded-talk-principal-now-hes-charged-eavesdropping-felony-163354136.html

What are your thoughts on this?

It's a class 4 felony and he could get jail time or a huge fine that his parent's would have to pay.
---

kid is human garbage for doing that, deffo deserves jail time and a record.
---

SpoiltTrouser posted...

human garbage

Come on.
---

Illinois needs all-parties involved to consent to a recording. The boy knew what he was doing because they argued for 10 minutes before he told the principal that he was recording.
Sucks to suck, but his disability should not overrule other peoples consent.
---

He may have a disability but you can't tell me he wasn't aware of the law or that his parent's never told him about the law.
---

Is it common knowledge which states need consent of all parties for recording? I don't even know what it is in California.
---

"visual impairment"

In other words, he just can't see well. He still has full mental capacity and should know what he was doing. There's no room for a "well he's disabled, he didn't fully understand what he was doing" argument.

Now, on the other hand, an argument on the grounds of "that shouldn't be illegal in the first place" might hold a bit more water.
---

LookANinja posted...

Is it common knowledge which states need consent of all parties for recording? I don't even know what it is in California.

I'd be surprised if this kid even knew it might be illegal with the way people record every argument they come across these days

lol @ thinking a 13 year old kid would have any idea about that kind of law. Kind of ridiculous.

Also if my kids were enrolled there I would be calling for principles resignation after filing felony charges on a little kid.

Would also immediately be taking my kid out of the school
---

Seriously?

That's a stupid law. Especially for a goddamn KID.
---

I would hope jury nullification would solve idiocy like this but at this point I dunno if fighting it to the bitter end would be wise.
---

Only 11 shit states have 2 party consent. I don't expect a kid to know that.

I can't believe there's shit states like this. Recording things can be a huge fucking livesaver because people lie all the fucking time.
---

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and Illinois being a two consent state for recording conversations is well documented, but that being said pressing felony charges on a minor for that is pretty dumb. That being said, his impairment has nothing to do with the conversation and he wouldn't be "wrongfully convicted," if he is convicted as he so put it.
---

Wouldn't his record be sealed at age 18? Either way, principal is a dick.

DoctorVader posted...

Only 11 shit states have 2 party consent. I don't expect a kid to know that.

I can't believe there's shit states like this. Recording things can be a huge fucking livesaver because people lie all the fucking time.

There are countless morons that think there's a great dangerous in being unknowingly recorded vs something coming down to he said she said. Happy to hear it's only 11 states tbqh. I feel like either side could justify these laws through there own paranoid and corporatist lenses but I'd like to know the politics behind it.
---

Why is everyone debating the law? We all know what this is really about.

A TEACHER didn't like they weren't getting their way, so they're using the letter of the law to punish a student. We all know if the teacher had been the one recording without the student's consent, fuck all would have been done about it.
---

DK9292 posted...

Seriously?

That's a stupid law. Especially for a goddamn KID.

Look do you want more Dawkins running around.
---

lock him up
---

I imagine a judge will probably be lenient on a 13-year-old (presumably) first time offender. It's not like he's going to prison, and it's certainly not going to "ruin his life."
---

eston posted...

I imagine a judge will probably be lenient on a 13-year-old (presumably) first time offender. It's not like he's going to prison, and it's certainly not going to "ruin his life."

No he fucking won't. A student's words vs a teacher's and you think they'll side with the student? Bullshit.

Hell, shit like this is exactly WHY that principal didn't want his shit recorded. So he could lie to people like the judge and the student could do nothing about it.
---

Stop right there criminal scum
---

@Mr_Karate_II

it's your good pal human-bean here, just noticed you've started posting again.

welcome back.
---

I'm curious to know why the boy recorded the conversation.
---

DK9292 posted...

eston posted...

I imagine a judge will probably be lenient on a 13-year-old (presumably) first time offender. It's not like he's going to prison, and it's certainly not going to "ruin his life."

No he fucking won't. A student's words vs a teacher's and you think they'll side with the student? Bullshit.

Hell, shit like this is exactly WHY that principal didn't want his shit recorded. So he could lie to people like the judge and the student could do nothing about it.

Did the kid tell the principal to put up his dukes
---

Mr_Karate_II posted...

I'm curious to know why the boy recorded the conversation.

Use common fucking sense. It's so that if SHIT LIKE THIS happened, he'd have prove showing EXACTLY what the principal said! But now, it's his word vs the principals, so the principal has the advantage.
---

DK9292 posted...

Why is everyone debating the law? We all know what this is really about.

A TEACHER didn't like they weren't getting their way, so they're using the letter of the law to punish a student. We all know if the teacher had been the one recording without the student's consent, fuck all would have been done about it.

Pretty much.
---

in Community College, a few times I used a tape recorder in a class to record lectures. because at the time I had trouble hearing even in the front row, due to a bunch of wax in there. but I asked the teacher if it was ok and she said yes. I might still have the tape somewhere. I found it once years after the class and it still worked. it was for Japanese Language back when I was trying to learn that

Bullet_Wing posted...

Mr_Karate_II posted...

I'm curious to know why the boy recorded the conversation.

So he could call The Sheriff and play him the recording

Where does it say that?
---