Dr Disrespect is banned from Twitch for streaming from the men's toilet at E3

[maartendc]

I dont get the big deal honestly...

 

OMG THERES PEOPLE STANDING AT A URINALLLL. I CAN SEE THEIR.. BACK?! Big fucking deal. Guess what, people urinate, poop, etc. we all do it.

 

Unless he was filming peoples' genitals and streaming that, this seems like a very typical "puritan" response.

[Guest]

It's not about some puritan mindset, it's about privacy. If you use a public bathroom you should have your privacy protected. A lot of times a public bathrrom is the only place  available where you can pee and shit if you are away from home.

Having to worry about being unvoluntarily filmed while peeing or shitting sounds like a 3rd world country to me with problems of privacy and personal freedom. I don't get how people can defend that

[HarryNyquist]

16 minutes ago, Medicate said:

It's not about some puritan mindset, it's about privacy. If you use a public bathroom you should have your privacy protected.

Indeed, it's covered under US law that a public restroom carries a 'reasonable expectation of privacy', as the restroom has been constructed by the public establishment to be a private area.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Peeing = a live stream

[Tristerin]

There is an expectation of Privacy by Law in America in the bathroom.

 

If he was never asked to stop recording by anyone (I don't have time to watch the video) and was doing this act very obviously - than Im not sure how local laws will play out.

 

If someone asked him to stop recording, and he didn't, than he has violated that persons privacy, and could be sued but under what law Im not sure - because he showed the world their private moments in a legally private place and was asked to cease his activities.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, Tristerin said:

There is an expectation of Privacy by Law in America in the bathroom.

 

If he was never asked to stop recording by anyone (I don't have time to watch the video) and was doing this act very obviously - than Im not sure how local laws will play out.

 

If someone asked him to stop recording, and he didn't, than he has violated that persons privacy, and could be sued but under what law Im not sure - because he showed the world their private moments in a legally private place and was asked to cease his activities.

I don’t think it matters whether anyone asked him to stop. Lots of people would be too shocked or embarrassed to say anything. They don’t need to. The expectation of privacy is implied and one doesn’t need to ask him to stop to get said privacy. 

[Teddy07]

On 6/14/2019 at 12:12 AM, grayperview said:

on serious note, stupid mistake to make

1

A mistake is something you do once. He went with a cameraman 4 times into the bathroom and nobody of his crew thought it was a bad idea.

 

I would like that this guy gets banned for a long time because he did harm twitchs brand. After all which company wants to advertise on a website where a guy streams from a bathroom.

 

 

[Chett_Manly]

I am in amazement no one on his team didn't realize how idiotic that was and put their foot down.The IRL part of Twitch was a mistake. Just when you thought IRL had sunk to its lowest point with chicks painting their boobs to get donations from 12 year old boys, bam TOILET STREAM. Just end it, go back to making everyone stream actual gameplay.

[Master Disaster]

16 hours ago, Tristerin said:

There is an expectation of Privacy by Law in America in the bathroom.

 

If he was never asked to stop recording by anyone (I don't have time to watch the video) and was doing this act very obviously - than Im not sure how local laws will play out.

 

If someone asked him to stop recording, and he didn't, than he has violated that persons privacy, and could be sued but under what law Im not sure - because he showed the world their private moments in a legally private place and was asked to cease his activities.

That's akin to saying stealing is ok as long as no one asks you not to do it.

[kirashi]

On 6/12/2019 at 4:13 AM, Master Disaster said:

I might be mistaken but I'm fairly certain having a camera filming in a public bathroom is actually against the law.

I'm fairly certain you're right - any one of those men in the bathroom or the owners of the event grounds could have him arrested or sued, or both.

[mr moose]

55 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

That's akin to saying stealing is ok as long as no one asks you not to do it.

Your honor,  the man didn't ask me not to shoot him and take his wallet.  I deemed from the lack of complaint that permission was implied.

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, kirashi said:

I'm fairly certain you're right - any one of those men in the bathroom or the owners of the event grounds could have him arrested or sued, or both.

The organisers revoked his floor pass, essentially he was banned from the event.

[Tristerin]

6 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

That's akin to saying stealing is ok as long as no one asks you not to do it.

OK and Illegal are two different things.  It is illegal to record someone in a restroom - likely charges are worse once asked not to - I.E. Trespassing charges as well can be levied by the property owner.  Im not a police officer but work directly with local task forces, and you likely aren't an officer either (or your response would have been more educated along the lines of how the law works)

 

Now, topic is wrong unless Dr. Disrespect himself was holding the camera.  If he wasn't than its only the cameraman that is liable.

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, Tristerin said:

Now, topic is wrong unless Dr. Disrespect himself was holding the camera.  If he wasn't than its only the cameraman that is liable.

I don't think this is quite correct. In most criminal law, if you're an accessory to a crime, you're usually still guilty - though perhaps of a lesser offense.

 

In this case, while the camera man was the one technically doing the "filming", he was doing so at the behest of Dr Disrespect, who lead him into the bathroom to begin with.

 

I would suspect they would both be guilty, if this went to court.

[Guest]

delete

 

[Master Disaster]

17 hours ago, Tristerin said:

OK and Illegal are two different things.  It is illegal to record someone in a restroom - likely charges are worse once asked not to - I.E. Trespassing charges as well can be levied by the property owner.  Im not a police officer but work directly with local task forces, and you likely aren't an officer either (or your response would have been more educated along the lines of how the law works)

 

Now, topic is wrong unless Dr. Disrespect himself was holding the camera.  If he wasn't than its only the cameraman that is liable.

Recording in a public toilet is illegal and ftr you're the one claiming it's only an invasion of privacy if he ignores a request to stop doing it

 

I'm pretty sure Twitch disagrees with your conclusion that only the cameraman is liable as he is still banned from the service.

[Tristerin]

21 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't think this is quite correct. In most criminal law, if you're an accessory to a crime, you're usually still guilty - though perhaps of a lesser offense.

 

In this case, while the camera man was the one technically doing the "filming", he was doing so at the behest of Dr Disrespect, who lead him into the bathroom to begin with.

 

I would suspect they would both be guilty, if this went to court.

Guilty as an accessory.  If he did not ask the cameraman to follow him, he also does not have to tell him not to go into the bathroom.  Its the courts ability or inability to prove a crime was committed by the good Dr.  Im not sure there is proof on that video.

 

At someones behest is the same as saying if I jump off that bridge will you?  Not the same thing at all.  And if the good Dr ordered his employee to do this, that may be different - but neither of us are criminal justice lawyers - the only thing I do is work with police daily as the local precincts combative instructor.

[Tristerin]

17 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Recording in a public toilet is illegal and ftr you're the one claiming it's only an invasion of privacy if he ignores a request to stop doing it

 

I'm pretty sure Twitch disagrees with your conclusion that only the cameraman is liable as he is still banned from the service.

Twitch isn't the law.  At all but sure the social courts find him guilty.

 

Bet he isn't convicted.  He isn't recording.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Guilty as an accessory.  If he did not ask the cameraman to follow him, he also does not have to tell him not to go into the bathroom.  Its the courts ability or inability to prove a crime was committed by the good Dr.  Im not sure there is proof on that video.

 

At someones behest is the same as saying if I jump off that bridge will you?  Not the same thing at all.  And if the good Dr ordered his employee to do this, that may be different - but neither of us are criminal justice lawyers - the only thing I do is work with police daily as the local precincts combative instructor.

The difference is that even after entering the bathroom, he still participated directly in the filming/streaming. It wasn’t just the cameraman following him like he had no idea the cameraman was there. 

 

Yes neither of us are lawyers. But I can make an educated guess here. 

[Tristerin]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The difference is that even after entering the bathroom, he still participated directly in the filming/streaming. It wasn’t just the cameraman following him like he had no idea the cameraman was there. 

 

Yes neither of us are lawyers. But I can make an educated guess here. 

I would call that uneducated.  I work with law enforcement 5 days a week.  So I will say that my understanding of approaching a situation to dictate when a crime occurs (or when less than lethal force is allowed by Law) since I am a combatives instructor in one of my business' (intellectual knowledge is the best thing to sell btw) is educated.

 

The Good Dr enters a bathroom

Behind him enters a man with a Camera recording

Law broken by man recording (Police only allowed to ask him to leave the area and give up the phone because the evidence on it while arrest or detainment occurs)(if he does not comply, use of force can escalate)

Man recording continues to follow, and respond to man that entered before him

The only potential crime levied at this point is Disturbing the Peace via Dr Disrespect. (cant just tackle him for this as a cop either)

 

EDIT - and to clarify there are no cops present, Im just telling you when the crime has occurred.  I work with our Constables On Patrol and it is my greatest desire to give them the ability to use less than lethal tactics instead of a gun, and also work with them on escalation (they give me the escalation points, I give them the combatives response)

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Tristerin said:

I would call that uneducated.  I work with law enforcement 5 days a week.  So I will say that my understanding of approaching a situation to dictate when a crime occurs (or when less than lethal force is allowed by Law) since I am a combatives instructor in one of my business' (intellectual knowledge is the best thing to sell btw) is educated.

 

The Good Dr enters a bathroom

Behind him enters a man with a Camera recording

Law broken by man recording (Police only allowed to ask him to leave the area and give up the phone because the evidence on it while arrest or detainment occurs)(if he does not comply, use of force can escalate)

Man recording continues to follow, and respond to man that entered before him

The only potential crime levied at this point is Disturbing the Peace via Dr Disrespect. (cant just tackle him for this as a cop either)

 

EDIT - and to clarify there are no cops present, Im just telling you when the crime has occurred.  I work with our Constables On Patrol and it is my greatest desire to give them the ability to use less than lethal tactics instead of a gun, and also work with them on escalation (they give me the escalation points, I give them the combatives response)

You're completely ignoring the fact that Dr disrespect continued to use the camera (he is paying for) and film himself (even though someone else was operating the camera under his instruction and most likely being paid for it) in a place he is not allowed to.  I think your grasp on this is very tenuous at best.  

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, Tristerin said:

I would call that uneducated.  I work with law enforcement 5 days a week.  So I will say that my understanding of approaching a situation to dictate when a crime occurs (or when less than lethal force is allowed by Law) since I am a combatives instructor in one of my business' (intellectual knowledge is the best thing to sell btw) is educated.

 

The Good Dr enters a bathroom

Behind him enters a man with a Camera recording

Law broken by man recording (Police only allowed to ask him to leave the area and give up the phone because the evidence on it while arrest or detainment occurs)(if he does not comply, use of force can escalate)

Man recording continues to follow, and respond to man that entered before him

The only potential crime levied at this point is Disturbing the Peace via Dr Disrespect. (cant just tackle him for this as a cop either)

 

EDIT - and to clarify there are no cops present, Im just telling you when the crime has occurred.  I work with our Constables On Patrol and it is my greatest desire to give them the ability to use less than lethal tactics instead of a gun, and also work with them on escalation (they give me the escalation points, I give them the combatives response)

 

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

You're completely ignoring the fact that Dr disrespect continued to use the camera (he is paying for) and film himself (even though someone else was operating the camera under his instruction and most likely being paid for it) in a place he is not allowed to.  I think your grasp on this is very tenuous at best.  

I agree with @mr moose's assessment. @Tristerin I respect greatly that you work directly with law enforcement in training them on threat escalation, etc - but I feel like you're letting that interfere with otherwise extremely sound judgement on your part.

 

This is more of a lawyer/attorney/judge area of expertise, and while a police officer would definitely have some knowledge of the subject, they are not the experts either.

 

The reason why Dr Disrespect (herein called DrDis, because I can't be assed to type out his full username every time) would be an accessory in my opinion is just as Moose said. The camera operator is following DrDis around, as per his job. DrDis knew he was streaming. He knew he was going into a bathroom. And therefore it's logical to assume he knew the cameraman would follow him.

 

He doesn't have to explicitly tell the cameraman, because it's implied as part of the dude's job. He kept up the "act" of being "live and streaming" throughout the entire process even as he entered the bathroom.

 

It would be like if I drove some bank robbers (in full bank robber getup, with guns and gear) to a bank, watched them rob the bank, then they got into my car and I drove home. I didn't ask them to rob the bank specifically, but unless there were some very extenuating circumstances, I'd likely be guilty by association. I could reasonably tell they were bank robbers, and I could reasonably infer after the fact that they robbed the bank.

 

Could DrDis get off on a technicality? Sure? Maybe. Worse things have happened in the court room. But in my humble opinion, he's guilty by association, since the cameraman would have zero reason to be filming period (let alone in a bathroom) with him being a streamer streaming that day.

 

The entire crew (which would include DrDis plus the cameraman, plus any other ancillary crew members directly involved in the streaming process, like audio guys, etc) that entered the bathroom would be guilty, in my opinion.

 

The cameraman might face the brunt of the legal action, but DrDis, in my opinion, is still guilty to some degree.

[Velcade]

15 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

police officer would definitely have some knowledge of the subject, they are not the experts either.

This is absolutely correct.  Police are not there to interpret the law, just enforce it. 

[dalekphalm]

Just now, Velcade said:

This is absolutely correct.  Police are not there to interpret the law, just enforce it. 

Exactly my point. Agreed. While they can and often are very knowledgeable of the law, nuanced situations like this are not up to them to determine guilt. That would be the AG or the Crown, etc (in the US I'd assume this would be the AG, but I don't claim to be an expert on US law and how the entire system works).

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

I agree with @mr moose's assessment. @Tristerin I respect greatly that you work directly with law enforcement in training them on threat escalation, etc - but I feel like you're letting that interfere with otherwise extremely sound judgement on your part.

 

This is more of a lawyer/attorney/judge area of expertise, and while a police officer would definitely have some knowledge of the subject, they are not the experts either.

 

The reason why Dr Disrespect (herein called DrDis, because I can't be assed to type out his full username every time) would be an accessory in my opinion is just as Moose said. The camera operator is following DrDis around, as per his job. DrDis knew he was streaming. He knew he was going into a bathroom. And therefore it's logical to assume he knew the cameraman would follow him.

 

He doesn't have to explicitly tell the cameraman, because it's implied as part of the dude's job. He kept up the "act" of being "live and streaming" throughout the entire process even as he entered the bathroom.

 

It would be like if I drove some bank robbers (in full bank robber getup, with guns and gear) to a bank, watched them rob the bank, then they got into my car and I drove home. I didn't ask them to rob the bank specifically, but unless there were some very extenuating circumstances, I'd likely be guilty by association. I could reasonably tell they were bank robbers, and I could reasonably infer after the fact that they robbed the bank.

 

Could DrDis get off on a technicality? Sure? Maybe. Worse things have happened in the court room. But in my humble opinion, he's guilty by association, since the cameraman would have zero reason to be filming period (let alone in a bathroom) with him being a streamer streaming that day.

 

The entire crew (which would include DrDis plus the cameraman, plus any other ancillary crew members directly involved in the streaming process, like audio guys, etc) that entered the bathroom would be guilty, in my opinion.

 

The cameraman might face the brunt of the legal action, but DrDis, in my opinion, is still guilty to some degree.

 

More to the point, DrD was streaming to his own twitch account, so when he continued to talk to the camera in the bathroom, he engaged in said illegal activity without pause and to his own financial gain.  In my mind there is no question, he committed a crime and to be honest, I think the camera man is the accessory.