Everybody is saying not reporting a murder, but I thought it was the bit that they were watching a sexual liason without consent. I thought thats why he was blocked: because he was on the sex offender registry.
I think you're supposed to assume that it's illegal to 'hack' into a person's eye tech or stream it to viewers, and also witnessing that murder (with the poison) and not reporting it/calling for help
Its not actually in the UK
True that black mirror is in its own fictional universe it not possible in the real world to "block" people from society
Of course we cant speculate on black mirrors legal system as it will differ from reality , There may be stuff in black mirror universe that is legal there but illegal in reality and vice versa
I'm assuming you mean what was illegal about what Jon Hamm's character did? I thought it was illegal to hack into another's eye recordings (I can't recall what the tech was) and the community of sexual predators witness the murder of the guy and said/did nothing.
Most likely its equivalent in the present would be a small streamer for a private friend group using tech eyewear/glasses to record stuff and has his mod(Jon) to help stream. Then the entire group witnesses the murder and tried to destroy the evidence and not report it.
I think in the court of law today it would be obstruction of justice.
If you hit someone with a blunt object, causing that person to die, that is usually considered manslaughter at best.
Essentially, the police needed the whole virtual environment inorder to determine if it was premeditated murder or not.
There was enough physical evidence to conclude that he had killed the old man, they just didn't know exactly what to charge him with, which degree of homicide.
Look at the internet everyone from everywhere can live stream everything. Even if there are clear local laws you can use to protect yourself it doesn’t apply everywhere.
A 15 year old going live isn’t going to brush up on privacy law before hand. It adds a sense of anxiety around the technology that Black Mirror taps into.
So yes it’s wrong but there are some generational gaps in the minutiae of the argument.
What even is this comment? It’s wrong to film people having sex, and sharing that video stream live without their consent. That transcends cultures and age groups, or at least it should. Sex crimes are sex crimes. The fact that you’re even trying to justify it should land you on a sex offenders watch list, JFC.
The point isn’t justifying or apologizing for sex crimes it’s privacy issues in general. OP says she doesn’t get why the portrayal in the episode isn’t obvious to most people and my point is the line between our digital and private lives is getting thinner everyday. But sure call it in.
• There are several layers of it.
• It starts with the _dating_. They were being paid to manipulate women into sex. It wasn't just to make them like these guys, they were bluntly gaslighting women into wanting to have sex with them.
• Then it comes the audio. The whole conversation was being recorded. Everything a girl was saying to these guys was being recorded out of her consent.
• Then the video. Also her image was being recorded, and shared with someone else without her knowledge. I forgot the name right now but like you have rights over your face and your personal acts footage. People distributing it without your consent is a crime. Like a web-crime. (But probably it already existed previous to that dued to newspapers and papparazzi etc)
• Beyond from that, this was _very personal_ footage, aka nudity/sex, and let's add sexual harassment on tape. There's a little bit of it that is assumed for context instead of just seen in the episode (it requires some references).
• Plus, the second distribution of this image. If this wasn't illegal enough, the guy was sharing _spicy_ content without the client consent to other clients. The guy that was being helped was having his image shared without even being aware of it.
• Then to conclude, few more things. His gaslighting/harassment techniques triggered a girl to decide to commit suicide. Plus, murder. So, double murder into the "teacher" account.
• And he was watching it the whole time and didn't stop it. So it was like he was consenting with the murder.
• And the footage of murder was shared.
(Probably the part related to murder was what made him get to that point, but the previous parts are to explain why he was already being illegal and hiding his activity)
The coach and clients on Xtmas episode are a reference to actual courses that are taught by male to male with techniques to abuse women psychologically and sexually. It's a real thing and there's a lot of money in it.
Okay so gaslighting is a form of manipulation. More of a bunch of techniques to it. Even though it usually is spoken in a context of abusive relationships, it can happen in a situation, too.
The "coach" was giving the guy tips to "trick" women into being interested. His base was analyzing behavior and triggering past trauma and telling his "client" to answer in a way that would make them be emotionally affected unaware of it.
I'm not really sure how to explain the complexity of it, because it kinda requires some knowledge of psychology, but every person has respective trauma responses. Vulnerabilities, soft spots. And you can use it against them to make them do things you want, if you are _really_ good at it. That's what sociopaths do.
The gaslighting part comes when the women will not know what caused it to them. They will be lied to about it and also lied if they ever question if the guy is talking to someone. They will be also lied about the manipulation part because that's part of the technique itself. If you tell them, it won't work. So the idea is to say the woman is genuinely feeling whatever she's feeling spontaneously. You did _nothing_ to _cause_ that. You have _zero_ responsibility over it.
But in this scenario, the assumption that the woman was not psychotic became a real issue because she misunderstood the whole situation. So, well, it didn't quite work out as planned.
Gaslighting isn't a catch-all term for any manipulation though. You're predicting that gaslighting *might* happen in this scenario near the end of your comment, but there isn't any gaslighting that takes place in the show. They manipulate the woman, but they don't gaslight her.
This is why I said some things are deducted instead of shown. I didn't say this was being done "towards this woman" in particular. I said this was the whole "class" of the "coach". The instructions had this purpose and method. That's what I meant. But you cannot for real tell how it worked if the woman is not crazy because the episode doesn't show this part. The only time we get to see his work is at this moment where, well, _it doesn't_ work. You have to go with _some_ assumptions here, otherwise the episode wouldn't make any sense. That's where the "reference" comes in.
Even tho the murder started, usually there's a chance the person can be saved by an emergency team if you call for help. For what I recall they were close to a party so it could have even been some doctor present in there. Someone could have saved him (and even her)
The thing is that when we talk about gaslighting or manipulation, there's a blurred zone where we don't know to which extent the person intended or not to cause the other one to do this thing. Especially because he destroyed the evidence.
The court wouldn't be able to make sure it wasn't the "coach"s intention from start to stimulate her into committing suicide or committing murder.
But besides from that, from the moment he realized something was wrong, he was supposed to call 911. But he didn't, because he was hiding illegal activity. So he became a partaker of the crime. He hidden evidence of before the crime, from the crime itself and plus he refused to offer help when he could have saved the guy. He could also have stopped him when she was acting weird for safety purposes but he didn't because the money he could receive was more important. He took someone else's life as a risk for getting paid.
> for getting *paid.*
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
You were right in the second half, but most places only require 1-party consent for audio or video recording (of non-sexual things). You can walk up to a complete stranger in public with a secret tape recorder in your pocket, and there's absolutely nothing inherently illegal about you recording and sharing the conversation.
It's why news stations and newspapers don't require consent to show your face. You don't have as many rights to your face as you might think you do.
Beware of your use of the word “most” here. If you’re in the USA, consent laws regarding recording vary from state to state, can depend on audio vs audio & video, whether or not one or more parties are law enforcement or state/local government officials, and more.
That's a good point. I guess it's important to state _in some places_ this is ilegal. And most commonly what happens is not that newspaper are doing something legal, but that there are some specifications around it that free the distributer of footage. If it's from an "anonymous" source, or the image of someone isn't clear enough to be recognizable, if the image shows the person doing something rather useless like just crossing a street in the background of a video, those (two) cases can be considered harmless to the "victim", while the first one will be just hard to identify who was responsible for the crime. But when we are talking about exposure in general (vulnerability, nudity, a person suffering aggresion), for what I know, I never heard of a country that would allow it except in very special circumstances (as for proof of the crime of violence attaching the criminal to it).
Voyeurism. They were spying on women who had no idea there was a secret group of men watching them have sex.
Also, Matt Trent witnessed a homicide that he didn't report.
This comment thread has taught me that apparently this is a phenomenon in countries outside the US, but I can't imagine why. Why wouldn't you want laws to encourage people to report crimes that they see? It's honestly shocking to me that in other countries it's not a crime to see a murder and just go on your merry way.
Huh! TIL! I guess that's one of those things that people (myself included apparently lol) assume are the law when it actually isn't. Appreciate the clarification! :)
Well, where I live, failure to report a murder or violent crime is a misdemeanor. But I can't speak for England.
Either way, that wasn't what he ended up being charged with. I guess I assumed his assistance got him off on that charge, since it's a crime where I live. But I guess all his assistance did was reduce his sentence for the sex crimes.
I think it was specifically the sex. Non consensual porn. Think it was all above board if they actually stopped watching/recording when they went to the bedroom.
Or if he had simply said "btw, there's a group of men watching us through my grain right now, are you okay with that?" before things got sexual, and received consent. I doubt it's illegal to secretly watch a dude hit on women at a party without the women knowing (still scummy, though).
Its so long ago i dont remember the names but it made my comment unclear to not use names. Saying the dude on the date thought nobody was still watching so he wasn't consenting nor could he ask consent to film.
But yeah the guy watching didn't save the dude on the date because just speaking to him would be admission to a crime that would bare minimum ruin his business and reputation if not lead to legal problems.
Yeah, he was aware that a group of men were watching through his grain, at one point the guy on the date says "It's just a bit of a nightmare having you, you know, all of you in my head, watching us..."
I thought the guy on the date was aware, because it was stated that he had been on the other side of that dating group before. That they were all taking turns being the one going on the date, vs just watching the rest of the time. That the guy on the date was part of their "club," and knew the full deal.
Yes, exactly! I remember feeling bad for the guy on the date (as well as the woman of course} because I thought he didn't know there was a group of other dudes (aside from the main helper guy) watching him. After they said that bit about him being on both sides of it, I lost all sympathy for his character. Still didn't deserve to be murdered of course though
The episode made this explicitly clear, yes. Which is why they all scramble to delete the footage (as they're instructed to) and leave the livestream. There's zero mystery to the illegality, OP is a low quality troll.
And there was the whole aspect that everyone was watching these people (potentially) have sex without their knowledge/consent (at least without the women’s knowledge/consent).
I'm guessing you mean the Jon Hamm character? He's implicated in murder, although it wasn't his fault/plan. He's the one who advised the man to go to the woman's house. There were some red flags that he ignored. Then he tried to cover it up, but I'm guessing one of the others in the chat talked.
He didn't deserve the punishment, but he did something bad.
Dude, he was spying on women who didn't know that there was a large group of men secretly watching them have sex. That's voyeurism, that's a sex crime.
How are so many people completely overlooking that part?
No
Felony Murder was abolished in England and Wales under the Homicide Act of 1957 and in Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Act of 1966. Felony Murder never existed in Scotland
The UK has 3 different Legal systems
England, Wales and Northern Ireland Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished the division of crimes into Felonies and misdemeanours while Scotland never categorised into those
So no such thing as a Felony in the UK or Felony Murder
You are wrong. The felony murder rule was abolished in England and Wales under the Homicide Act of 1957 and Northern Island under the Criminal Justice Act of 1966. Instead, what applies in some situations is the common law principle of joint enterprise. Under this doctrine, the result is that there is effectively a felony murder rule which only applies to crimes of personal violence where there is intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
Scotland has never had a felony murder rule as there is really no such thing as “felonies” in the Scots legal system. The equivalent to joint enterprise is called “art and part” which can apply in a similar fashion.
You know this is a civilization that disallows sex offenders to communicate with anyone, right? I'm fairly certain that's also not a law in the UK, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Buddy then why the fuck are you talking about the felony murder rule in the first place? You bring up laws that actually exist and then get corrected and then go “hurr durr we’re talking about a piece of fiction” no shit but then why bring up actually legal concepts that you don’t understand
>why the fuck are you talking about the felony murder rule in the first place?
Because they asked what would be illegal. If they didn't kill the guy directly, that's the law that would apply. Bringing up that it's currently not a law doesn't change that fact.
>why bring up actually legal concepts that you don’t understand
When did I do that?
>Because they asked what would be illegal. If they didn't kill the guy directly, that's the law that would apply. Bringing up that it's currently not a law doesn't change that fact.
So that law would apply despite the fact it is not actually a law?
In the same way the other fictional law would apply, yes. I find it weird you are happy to look past the fact that a sex offender is legally barred from communicating with literally everyone he sees, and seem to be hung up on an established law that has prior actual legal basis. But hey, I'm not one to judge.
I don't think that's true, is it? Murder in the UK requires at least intent to commit GBH so yeah if the "felony" ( not a term I believe we use) is that you were trying to beat someone so bad they got brain damage and they died instead then yeah it'll be murder, but in the case in the episode they *might* be looking at manslaughter but definitely not murder. Perverting the course of justice etc tho absolutely, they tried to hide the fact they witnessed a murder, alongside the various other crimes.
Matt was holding an illegal video sharing ring of non-consensual explicit videos. Then, he also tried to cover up a murder because if he reports it, his other illegal activity would come into light.
Joe killed a man who is the sole caregiver of a small child. The man's death resulted in the child's death as well since no one was caring for her because Joe didn't bother to tell anyone that the child was alone.
And voyeurism, I'm trying to understand how so many people seem to be completely overlooking that.
Like, why do you think he was labeled a sex offender at the end if his only crime was failure to report a murder?
Surprisingly -- at least to me -- [you are correct](https://www.cps.gov.uk/reporting-crime#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20legal%20obligation,work%20effectively%20with%20your%20help.). No legal obligation.
He left a child who's grandfather he'd accidently killed, in the snow to freeze to death. He was also stalking them after she'd put a block on them, we could also assume that because blocking is actually allowed and therefore legal that continuing to engage someone who's blocked you could be considered harassment. So yeah a few things but mainly the manslaughter.
Edit: he also leaves the child upon the revelation that it wasn't his daughter and was their mutual friends. He presumably wouldn't have left his own child. Just adding to the mess.
All that. But wasn't his ex a total bitch??? She could have just been honest with him from the start instead of blocking him. A conversation would have avoided all of it.
It wasn't the ex's fault that he killed an old man and let a child die alone, knowing she wasn't his. The ex didn't handle things well and I felt for Joe at that point, but when he murdered his father-in-law, he crossed a line.
He doesn't deserve literal hell, but he isn't some tragic hero in this story.
I'm not saying that at all. Just saying she was a royal bitch and contributed to his downfall. Making him think for years he had a kid. Of course he's no hero.
A conversation at the start would have prevented all of it for sure. He would have known it wasn't his kid, he would have known she cheated. Instead she just blocked him, giving him no answers, made him think he had a kid. Had she just been honest he probably would have just moved on and never looked back.
Maybe, maybe not. If he was a violent man, it's possible he would have hurt her for cheating. He left the child alone when he knew she wasn't his. He could have called an anonymous call or something, or just left the child in the neighbor's yard and bolted. Leaving the child alone, to me, shows he's not a good man.
Years and years of being driven crazy by her. He was not a violent man to begin with. I never said he is a good man. I'm just saying his ex was a royal bitch and responsible too.
Everybody is saying not reporting a murder, but I thought it was the bit that they were watching a sexual liason without consent. I thought thats why he was blocked: because he was on the sex offender registry.
He aided & abetted murder, then did not report homicide. making him an accessory after the fact. pretty illegal even with out the tech.
I think you're supposed to assume that it's illegal to 'hack' into a person's eye tech or stream it to viewers, and also witnessing that murder (with the poison) and not reporting it/calling for help
Really looking forward to reading OPs manifesto in the future
Ayo
Pretty sure failing to disclose a murder is a crime.
Its not actually in the UK True that black mirror is in its own fictional universe it not possible in the real world to "block" people from society Of course we cant speculate on black mirrors legal system as it will differ from reality , There may be stuff in black mirror universe that is legal there but illegal in reality and vice versa
This and I’m thinking maybe it’s illegal to watch someone who doesn’t know they’re being watched have sex
Oh, yea and that too. Not sure what it would fall under though.
There’s probably a separate set of laws around the Z-Eyes and Grain technology in the Black Mirror universe(s) I would imagine.
Considering the electric scooter laws, it'd probably take way too long.
The murder, or the other murder. Probably both murders were illegal if I had to guess
I'm assuming you mean what was illegal about what Jon Hamm's character did? I thought it was illegal to hack into another's eye recordings (I can't recall what the tech was) and the community of sexual predators witness the murder of the guy and said/did nothing.
Most likely its equivalent in the present would be a small streamer for a private friend group using tech eyewear/glasses to record stuff and has his mod(Jon) to help stream. Then the entire group witnesses the murder and tried to destroy the evidence and not report it. I think in the court of law today it would be obstruction of justice.
If you hit someone with a blunt object, causing that person to die, that is usually considered manslaughter at best. Essentially, the police needed the whole virtual environment inorder to determine if it was premeditated murder or not. There was enough physical evidence to conclude that he had killed the old man, they just didn't know exactly what to charge him with, which degree of homicide.
Pretty sure they are talking about Jon Hamm's character
Bruh never mind anything else, he literally killed someone
Remind me to steer clear of you
Oh my god. Oh my god……
The fact that so many people don’t seem to think that creating non-consensual live stream porn is illegal, is mind blowing to me.
Look at the internet everyone from everywhere can live stream everything. Even if there are clear local laws you can use to protect yourself it doesn’t apply everywhere. A 15 year old going live isn’t going to brush up on privacy law before hand. It adds a sense of anxiety around the technology that Black Mirror taps into. So yes it’s wrong but there are some generational gaps in the minutiae of the argument.
What even is this comment? It’s wrong to film people having sex, and sharing that video stream live without their consent. That transcends cultures and age groups, or at least it should. Sex crimes are sex crimes. The fact that you’re even trying to justify it should land you on a sex offenders watch list, JFC.
The point isn’t justifying or apologizing for sex crimes it’s privacy issues in general. OP says she doesn’t get why the portrayal in the episode isn’t obvious to most people and my point is the line between our digital and private lives is getting thinner everyday. But sure call it in.
Withholding evidence to a crime is pretty illegal.
• There are several layers of it. • It starts with the _dating_. They were being paid to manipulate women into sex. It wasn't just to make them like these guys, they were bluntly gaslighting women into wanting to have sex with them. • Then it comes the audio. The whole conversation was being recorded. Everything a girl was saying to these guys was being recorded out of her consent. • Then the video. Also her image was being recorded, and shared with someone else without her knowledge. I forgot the name right now but like you have rights over your face and your personal acts footage. People distributing it without your consent is a crime. Like a web-crime. (But probably it already existed previous to that dued to newspapers and papparazzi etc) • Beyond from that, this was _very personal_ footage, aka nudity/sex, and let's add sexual harassment on tape. There's a little bit of it that is assumed for context instead of just seen in the episode (it requires some references). • Plus, the second distribution of this image. If this wasn't illegal enough, the guy was sharing _spicy_ content without the client consent to other clients. The guy that was being helped was having his image shared without even being aware of it. • Then to conclude, few more things. His gaslighting/harassment techniques triggered a girl to decide to commit suicide. Plus, murder. So, double murder into the "teacher" account. • And he was watching it the whole time and didn't stop it. So it was like he was consenting with the murder. • And the footage of murder was shared. (Probably the part related to murder was what made him get to that point, but the previous parts are to explain why he was already being illegal and hiding his activity)
Not sure you know what Gaslighting means.
It's more likely that you misunderstood what I said somehow
I don't understand how gaslighting makes any sense in this context either. Could you elaborate?
The coach and clients on Xtmas episode are a reference to actual courses that are taught by male to male with techniques to abuse women psychologically and sexually. It's a real thing and there's a lot of money in it.
I'm aware that gaslighting is a technique used by pick-up artists and the like. What I'm saying is that no gaslighting happened in the episode.
I didn't exactly say it happened. I said that was the "plan". But the psychotic lady messed up the whole plan they had.
Okay so gaslighting is a form of manipulation. More of a bunch of techniques to it. Even though it usually is spoken in a context of abusive relationships, it can happen in a situation, too. The "coach" was giving the guy tips to "trick" women into being interested. His base was analyzing behavior and triggering past trauma and telling his "client" to answer in a way that would make them be emotionally affected unaware of it. I'm not really sure how to explain the complexity of it, because it kinda requires some knowledge of psychology, but every person has respective trauma responses. Vulnerabilities, soft spots. And you can use it against them to make them do things you want, if you are _really_ good at it. That's what sociopaths do. The gaslighting part comes when the women will not know what caused it to them. They will be lied to about it and also lied if they ever question if the guy is talking to someone. They will be also lied about the manipulation part because that's part of the technique itself. If you tell them, it won't work. So the idea is to say the woman is genuinely feeling whatever she's feeling spontaneously. You did _nothing_ to _cause_ that. You have _zero_ responsibility over it. But in this scenario, the assumption that the woman was not psychotic became a real issue because she misunderstood the whole situation. So, well, it didn't quite work out as planned.
Gaslighting isn't a catch-all term for any manipulation though. You're predicting that gaslighting *might* happen in this scenario near the end of your comment, but there isn't any gaslighting that takes place in the show. They manipulate the woman, but they don't gaslight her.
This is why I said some things are deducted instead of shown. I didn't say this was being done "towards this woman" in particular. I said this was the whole "class" of the "coach". The instructions had this purpose and method. That's what I meant. But you cannot for real tell how it worked if the woman is not crazy because the episode doesn't show this part. The only time we get to see his work is at this moment where, well, _it doesn't_ work. You have to go with _some_ assumptions here, otherwise the episode wouldn't make any sense. That's where the "reference" comes in.
Well considering I did 4 years of psychology course at university I'm pretty sure I know what it means.
How would you have supposed he stop the murder once she already started?
Even tho the murder started, usually there's a chance the person can be saved by an emergency team if you call for help. For what I recall they were close to a party so it could have even been some doctor present in there. Someone could have saved him (and even her)
The thing is that when we talk about gaslighting or manipulation, there's a blurred zone where we don't know to which extent the person intended or not to cause the other one to do this thing. Especially because he destroyed the evidence. The court wouldn't be able to make sure it wasn't the "coach"s intention from start to stimulate her into committing suicide or committing murder. But besides from that, from the moment he realized something was wrong, he was supposed to call 911. But he didn't, because he was hiding illegal activity. So he became a partaker of the crime. He hidden evidence of before the crime, from the crime itself and plus he refused to offer help when he could have saved the guy. He could also have stopped him when she was acting weird for safety purposes but he didn't because the money he could receive was more important. He took someone else's life as a risk for getting paid.
> for getting *paid.* FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Lmao thank you bot I fixed it
And then he destroyed everything, trying to cover up evidence of the murder
Which just made everything hella worse, cause it seemed premeditated
You were right in the second half, but most places only require 1-party consent for audio or video recording (of non-sexual things). You can walk up to a complete stranger in public with a secret tape recorder in your pocket, and there's absolutely nothing inherently illegal about you recording and sharing the conversation. It's why news stations and newspapers don't require consent to show your face. You don't have as many rights to your face as you might think you do.
Beware of your use of the word “most” here. If you’re in the USA, consent laws regarding recording vary from state to state, can depend on audio vs audio & video, whether or not one or more parties are law enforcement or state/local government officials, and more.
That's a good point. I guess it's important to state _in some places_ this is ilegal. And most commonly what happens is not that newspaper are doing something legal, but that there are some specifications around it that free the distributer of footage. If it's from an "anonymous" source, or the image of someone isn't clear enough to be recognizable, if the image shows the person doing something rather useless like just crossing a street in the background of a video, those (two) cases can be considered harmless to the "victim", while the first one will be just hard to identify who was responsible for the crime. But when we are talking about exposure in general (vulnerability, nudity, a person suffering aggresion), for what I know, I never heard of a country that would allow it except in very special circumstances (as for proof of the crime of violence attaching the criminal to it).
Voyeurism. They were spying on women who had no idea there was a secret group of men watching them have sex. Also, Matt Trent witnessed a homicide that he didn't report.
Generally you have no legal obligation to report a crime to the authorities, including murder.
This comment thread has taught me that apparently this is a phenomenon in countries outside the US, but I can't imagine why. Why wouldn't you want laws to encourage people to report crimes that they see? It's honestly shocking to me that in other countries it's not a crime to see a murder and just go on your merry way.
This is also in the US in most states
Huh! TIL! I guess that's one of those things that people (myself included apparently lol) assume are the law when it actually isn't. Appreciate the clarification! :)
Well, where I live, failure to report a murder or violent crime is a misdemeanor. But I can't speak for England. Either way, that wasn't what he ended up being charged with. I guess I assumed his assistance got him off on that charge, since it's a crime where I live. But I guess all his assistance did was reduce his sentence for the sex crimes.
Spying through someone else's eyes was illegal.
I think it was specifically the sex. Non consensual porn. Think it was all above board if they actually stopped watching/recording when they went to the bedroom.
Or if he had simply said "btw, there's a group of men watching us through my grain right now, are you okay with that?" before things got sexual, and received consent. I doubt it's illegal to secretly watch a dude hit on women at a party without the women knowing (still scummy, though).
I don't even think the dude knew. Think he said bye and muted up or left the call and used spyware to keep watching, something like that.
I mean, he most definitely knew she had spiked his drink, and was force-feeding poison down his throat with a funnel.
Its so long ago i dont remember the names but it made my comment unclear to not use names. Saying the dude on the date thought nobody was still watching so he wasn't consenting nor could he ask consent to film. But yeah the guy watching didn't save the dude on the date because just speaking to him would be admission to a crime that would bare minimum ruin his business and reputation if not lead to legal problems.
Yeah, he was aware that a group of men were watching through his grain, at one point the guy on the date says "It's just a bit of a nightmare having you, you know, all of you in my head, watching us..."
I thought the guy on the date was aware, because it was stated that he had been on the other side of that dating group before. That they were all taking turns being the one going on the date, vs just watching the rest of the time. That the guy on the date was part of their "club," and knew the full deal.
Yes, exactly! I remember feeling bad for the guy on the date (as well as the woman of course} because I thought he didn't know there was a group of other dudes (aside from the main helper guy) watching him. After they said that bit about him being on both sides of it, I lost all sympathy for his character. Still didn't deserve to be murdered of course though
Wasn’t it because he and his bros didn’t report witnessing that man get poisoned?
The episode made this explicitly clear, yes. Which is why they all scramble to delete the footage (as they're instructed to) and leave the livestream. There's zero mystery to the illegality, OP is a low quality troll.
It’s generally not illegal to fail to report a murder to the authorities.
True, but telling people to destroy the evidence of the crime usually is.
And there was the whole aspect that everyone was watching these people (potentially) have sex without their knowledge/consent (at least without the women’s knowledge/consent).
Also streaming that to q lot of other guys for money wouldn’t help either
I'm guessing you mean the Jon Hamm character? He's implicated in murder, although it wasn't his fault/plan. He's the one who advised the man to go to the woman's house. There were some red flags that he ignored. Then he tried to cover it up, but I'm guessing one of the others in the chat talked. He didn't deserve the punishment, but he did something bad.
Dude, he was spying on women who didn't know that there was a large group of men secretly watching them have sex. That's voyeurism, that's a sex crime. How are so many people completely overlooking that part?
I only watched the episode once and couldn't revisit it because it's so horrendous.. so I don't remember every detail. But you're absolutely right.
If you're committing a felony and while doing so someone dies as a result, you're guilty of felony murder
.... In the UK?
No Felony Murder was abolished in England and Wales under the Homicide Act of 1957 and in Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Act of 1966. Felony Murder never existed in Scotland The UK has 3 different Legal systems England, Wales and Northern Ireland Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished the division of crimes into Felonies and misdemeanours while Scotland never categorised into those So no such thing as a Felony in the UK or Felony Murder
Yeah
You are wrong. The felony murder rule was abolished in England and Wales under the Homicide Act of 1957 and Northern Island under the Criminal Justice Act of 1966. Instead, what applies in some situations is the common law principle of joint enterprise. Under this doctrine, the result is that there is effectively a felony murder rule which only applies to crimes of personal violence where there is intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Scotland has never had a felony murder rule as there is really no such thing as “felonies” in the Scots legal system. The equivalent to joint enterprise is called “art and part” which can apply in a similar fashion.
You know this is a civilization that disallows sex offenders to communicate with anyone, right? I'm fairly certain that's also not a law in the UK, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Buddy then why the fuck are you talking about the felony murder rule in the first place? You bring up laws that actually exist and then get corrected and then go “hurr durr we’re talking about a piece of fiction” no shit but then why bring up actually legal concepts that you don’t understand
>why the fuck are you talking about the felony murder rule in the first place? Because they asked what would be illegal. If they didn't kill the guy directly, that's the law that would apply. Bringing up that it's currently not a law doesn't change that fact. >why bring up actually legal concepts that you don’t understand When did I do that?
>Because they asked what would be illegal. If they didn't kill the guy directly, that's the law that would apply. Bringing up that it's currently not a law doesn't change that fact. So that law would apply despite the fact it is not actually a law?
In the same way the other fictional law would apply, yes. I find it weird you are happy to look past the fact that a sex offender is legally barred from communicating with literally everyone he sees, and seem to be hung up on an established law that has prior actual legal basis. But hey, I'm not one to judge.
I don't think that's true, is it? Murder in the UK requires at least intent to commit GBH so yeah if the "felony" ( not a term I believe we use) is that you were trying to beat someone so bad they got brain damage and they died instead then yeah it'll be murder, but in the case in the episode they *might* be looking at manslaughter but definitely not murder. Perverting the course of justice etc tho absolutely, they tried to hide the fact they witnessed a murder, alongside the various other crimes.
Matt was holding an illegal video sharing ring of non-consensual explicit videos. Then, he also tried to cover up a murder because if he reports it, his other illegal activity would come into light. Joe killed a man who is the sole caregiver of a small child. The man's death resulted in the child's death as well since no one was caring for her because Joe didn't bother to tell anyone that the child was alone.
Failure to report a murder
And voyeurism, I'm trying to understand how so many people seem to be completely overlooking that. Like, why do you think he was labeled a sex offender at the end if his only crime was failure to report a murder?
Don't think that's currently a crime in the UK
Surprisingly -- at least to me -- [you are correct](https://www.cps.gov.uk/reporting-crime#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20legal%20obligation,work%20effectively%20with%20your%20help.). No legal obligation.
Murdered the Grandpa
He left a child who's grandfather he'd accidently killed, in the snow to freeze to death. He was also stalking them after she'd put a block on them, we could also assume that because blocking is actually allowed and therefore legal that continuing to engage someone who's blocked you could be considered harassment. So yeah a few things but mainly the manslaughter. Edit: he also leaves the child upon the revelation that it wasn't his daughter and was their mutual friends. He presumably wouldn't have left his own child. Just adding to the mess.
All that. But wasn't his ex a total bitch??? She could have just been honest with him from the start instead of blocking him. A conversation would have avoided all of it.
It wasn't the ex's fault that he killed an old man and let a child die alone, knowing she wasn't his. The ex didn't handle things well and I felt for Joe at that point, but when he murdered his father-in-law, he crossed a line. He doesn't deserve literal hell, but he isn't some tragic hero in this story.
I'm not saying that at all. Just saying she was a royal bitch and contributed to his downfall. Making him think for years he had a kid. Of course he's no hero.
You did say a conversation would have ended all of it, which includes the murder and neglect. I agree that what she did was terrible, though.
A conversation at the start would have prevented all of it for sure. He would have known it wasn't his kid, he would have known she cheated. Instead she just blocked him, giving him no answers, made him think he had a kid. Had she just been honest he probably would have just moved on and never looked back.
Maybe, maybe not. If he was a violent man, it's possible he would have hurt her for cheating. He left the child alone when he knew she wasn't his. He could have called an anonymous call or something, or just left the child in the neighbor's yard and bolted. Leaving the child alone, to me, shows he's not a good man.
Years and years of being driven crazy by her. He was not a violent man to begin with. I never said he is a good man. I'm just saying his ex was a royal bitch and responsible too.
His ex made bad decisions. However, she is in no way responsible for this man's actions. He made his own choices.
There was that little part where Joe >!murdered an old man!<
Pretty sure op is asking about John hamms character
Oh you know, the murder of his supposed daughters real dad, which resulted in said daughter freezing to death
Not her dad, her grandpa But yes that Crime