Bruce Nickerson & Bill OReilly
Uploader Comments (angkorgo)
All Comments (6)
-
sex in public is sex in public, doesnt matter if its gay or straight its ILLEGAL full stop. dumbass.....how did I end up here?
-
O'Reilly got slammed on this one. He and his staff did little to no legal or factual research on this. I also represent men charged with this type of conduct. If the police want to stop unsuspecting people from stumbling across things they don't want to see or just stop the things from happening in the first place, there are better ways to do it than these type of sting operations. They really don't help the overall image of the police and I don't think they are cost and/or mission effective.
-
I argued one of these cases. It had nothing to do with gay discrimination. I was contacted by individuals from the gay community who felt the conduct in these cases were reprehensible.
The attorney doesn't know what he's talking about, is poor in trial, and thinks he walks on water because he argued in front of the Supreme Court.
He's also has an interesting past. Feel free to look him up on the State Bar website in CA.
-
is Bill trying to fig out what he can get away with
the lawyer never, not once, stated any points other than those represented by the laws of california. as reprehensible as i may find these behaviors, bill oreally should be complaining about the laws that allow for such activity, instead of those that involve themselves in such activity. especially if the entrapment techniques are indeed deemed to be illegal under california law.
smeejay 4 years ago
You put your finger right on the button; indeed, if one does not like the laws (or considers the California Supreme Court's interpretation reprehensible or problematic), then one should focus on what problems one has with that interpretation.
Note that O'Reilly hypothetical did outline activity which would likely be illegal -- but this was completely different from the majority of cases which Bruce Nickerson is defending and arguing!
angkorgo 4 years ago