Harris County grand jury indicts pair behind Planned Parenthood videos

As Per LL's timely entry:

"(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record."

So, it is far different to attempt to use a false ID to dupe the government versus duping a private business, albeit one that only survives on government money. Originally Posted by DSK

I think you and LL are misinterpreting this part. "It is a defense" means something that can be presented at trial to generate reasonable doubt. What I believe it is saying here is that if the "false information" is presented to the government, but the government is not even using that "false information" for whatever their purpose is, then there is "reasonable doubt" about the intent to deceive.

If it were legal to fake government IDs with the intent to harm others as long as the government never saw the IDs, then there would be virtually no point in making it illegal to do so in an attempt to harm another.

Also, you might want to look at the meaning and context of harm in the criminal sense. All black letter law that you read is refined by years of court interpretations - known as "common law". In Texas, it goes all the way back to English common law decisions when Texas was a free and independent State.

From TX Penal code:

"Harm" means anything reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury, including harm to another person in whose welfare the person affected is interested.

The fact that they tried to get them to break the law shows a pretty strong intent to "harm" considering it is "reasonable" to know that, by doing so, they would be subject to much public shaming and attacks on their funding from the government. This would be a loss of funding and be putting them at a disadvantage. Couple that with the fact that they, after failing to get PP to break the law, intentionally edited the videos in a way that made them look, at the very least, completely unethical, and maybe even criminal, it would be hard to argue that it wasn't done intentionally.

From TX Penal code:

"Harm" means anything reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury, including harm to another person in whose welfare the person affected is interested. Originally Posted by eatfibo

Yea, like selling beer to a minor! The bar can loose its license, the bartender can be arrested, and the drunk under-aged drinker can go kill someone driving home when they are not mature enough to make a rational decision. So sweet-cheeks who wiggles her ass at the bouncer to get in, and the bartender to have a drink while flashing her tits and fake driver's license is potentially "harming" someone ... including the bar owner and all the employees while it's shut down!

Whether one harm is greater than another is a political/social decision.

I'm not "misinterpreting" it at all.

I'll address discretionary prosecution and enforcement like this: years ago I happened to hear a judge (he was the presiding criminal judge in the county (not Harris BTW)) fuming in his office on a Monday morning about some "sweep's" in the "better part of the city" .... scooping up 100's of young people for engaging in the "unmentionable" on here ... AFTER the "bad parts of town" had already been hit .... the judge made the statement in a loud voice that no judge at the courthouse was going to get any campaign contributions with that "shit going on"!!!!! Don't "they" know that?"""" (a fair paraphrase of his angry comments .... before he slammed down the phone and complained his phone was ringing off the desk!....no computers in those days for email .... or his email account would have been exploding)

Decisions to prosecute or not are political ones when people are elected, and when people's opportunity for advancement by appointment are at risk. That is exactly the basis for the argument by the Black community regarding the Criminal Justice system in this country. They base their complaint on the system being politically/socially motivated...and thereby biased against Blacks.

Yea, like selling beer to a minor! The bar can loose its license, the bartender can be arrested, and the drunk under-aged drinker can go kill someone driving home when they are not mature enough to make a rational decision. So sweet-cheeks who wiggles her ass at the bouncer to get in, and the bartender to have a drink while flashing her tits and fake driver's license is potentially "harming" someone ... including the bar owner and all the employees while it's shut down! Originally Posted by LexusLover

All you did was demonstrate that something else can be considered harm. The fact that this is also harm doesn't change the fact that loss of funding is also harm.

Whether one harm is greater than another is a political/social decision.

Agreed. I couldn't care less which is a greater harm, only that it fits the definition of the word.

I'm not "misinterpreting" it at all.

I understand you think this, now defend the position.

I'll address discretionary prosecution and enforcement like this: years ago I happened to hear a judge (he was the presiding criminal judge in the county (not Harris BTW)) fuming in his office on a Monday morning about some "sweep's" in the "better part of the city" .... scooping up 100's of young people for engaging in the "unmentionable" on here ... AFTER the "bad parts of town" had already been hit .... the judge made the statement in a loud voice that no judge at the courthouse was going to get any campaign contributions with that "shit going on"!!!!! Don't "they" know that?"""" (a fair paraphrase of his angry comments .... before he slammed down the phone and complained his phone was ringing off the desk!....no computers in those days for email .... or his email account would have been exploding)

Sorry, I don't take anecdotes from individuals I don't know as good proof. Besides, even if it was "discretionary" in that case, does not mean it is here.

Decisions to prosecute or not are political ones when people are elected, and when people's opportunity for advancement by appointment are at risk. That is exactly the basis for the argument by the Black community regarding the Criminal Justice system in this country. They base their complaint on the system being politically/socially motivated...and thereby biased against Blacks.

But this argument seems very weak in the current situation. It is a conservative state and she is a conservative DA. The idea that politics played into her decision to prosecute these two seems tenuous, at best. It's more likely that the evidence was so compelling that she pressed charges despite political pressure.

But this is all speculation. You are simply stating, without any proof, that it is politically motivated. The reality is that it seems like they have a pretty good case. Again, IANAL, but I have yet to see someone here make a compelling case that they didn't violate the law. You made a point that looked good superficial, but a little critical reading leads me to believe it isn't going to be a defense for them because they didn't use the license for a "government's purpose."

All you did was demonstrate that something else can be considered harm. The fact that this is also harm doesn't change the fact that loss of funding is also harm. Originally Posted by eatfibo

I suppose that one would consider four teenagers killed in car less important than loosing grants from the government ... but .... some will hopefully dispute that position. That's a "social" decision, I suppose.... or doesn't it depend on who are the teenagers and who are their families?

Defend what position?

You just agreed with me. Selling beer to a minor is "harmful"!

The refusal or reluctance to prosecute for using a false ID to buy alcoholic beverages is a political/social/discretionary decision by the prosecutors...

.. here is what you get when someone allows politics to invade decision making:

The "poster brat" of political prosecutions ...

Defend what position? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I can't believe I need to explain this, but you said you didn't "misinterpret" the law. I want to see you argue that you didn't, taking into account my rebuttal.

The refusal or reluctance to prosecute for using a false ID to buy alcoholic beverages is a political/social/discretionary decision by the prosecutors...

Oh, I see where this is going. I didn't realize you were including me in a point I had nothing to do with. But selling a beer to a minor, while harmful, might not be done with the intent to harm. Also, what does it have to do with this at all? Selling a beer to a minor is not even remotely the same as forging a document. A teenager forging their license to buy beer are almost certainly not doing so with the intent to harm anyone, but to have fun. This is a completely failed attempt to equate the two.

I guess this means that you admit that your claim that these prosecutions being political in nature are completely unsupported by any relevant facts.