The winners and the losers

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2013 12:02 a.m.

    According to the new state law 76-6-112 you are incorrectly bashing, if the women was in the public right of way she was not violating the law by videoing. See (d) below.

    If her claim was correct, that she was in the public right of way, the judge was following the law and the plant was either not aware of the law or was wrongly trying to threaten her. What wasn't clear in the court documents was some inconsistencies in her testimony and others. And so if she was not criminally trespassing while recording, she was not in violation of the law.

    A person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person:
    (a) .... leaving a recording device on the agricultural operation;
    (b) obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses;
    (c) ..... employment.....

    (d) without consent from the owner of the operation or the owner's agent, knowingly or intentionally records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation while the person is committing criminal trespass, as described in Section 76-6-206, on the agricultural operation.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 4, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    The spin that they were keeping "trophies or trinkets" means they were unlawfully confiscating personal property of another with an intent to deprive. The non spin term would be theft. The act of not keeping the chain of evidence of drugs, means unlawful felony possession of the drugs. These are criminal offenses if not committed by a band of hang together police that support each other. Time to have an aggressive media about this organization.