Lil Rod alleges he was constantly required to record Diddy, and as a result, he "secured hundreds of hours of footage and audio recordings of Mr. Combs, his staff, and his guests, engaging in serious illegal activity." Source
Well. Now we know what he's been up to since he dropped off the face of the earth, lol.
Also, anytime anyone uses the words "witch hunt" when attempting to defend their innocence after the feds literally ripped cameras and shit off walls, they are 100% guilty. This is gonna be a crazy ass trial.
Not defending Diddy. I don't know or care enough to know about it. But using the over militarization of police raids as evidence to support criminal wrongdoing to support the raid in the first place is just astronomically wrong.
Every raid the police destroy the house. They see it as a game and a way to teach them a lesson. They know exactly how to cause the most disruptive damage and do exactly that. Cutting wires and smashing cameras, breaking door frames, punching holes in walls near utilities to cause them to be turned off. It's all calculated as maximum hurt.
Unfortunately it is known publicly that 5% to 10% of these raids are wrong. Just straight up whoops. Wrong house, wrong person, old lease, bad policing and investigating. No criminal activity, no intent, nothing. Just perfectly innocent people getting their lives ruined.
Then there are many other people who it happens to and they never become a part of that wrongful statistic because of police malace. If you attempt to get your damages paid for because of a bad raid, it is much easier for the police to double down, criminally arrest you for something, and make you prove you aren't whatever they allege. Now you have a record, huge legal bills, and lifelong implications. And the police now how a justified raid and you get nothing.
The number in one town I lived in was 1 out 6 were bad raids. 10 to 12 a week on average happening. That's 100 people a year, in this one 800k city, getting their lives destroyed for a big whoops. There is roughly 1 case per year or every 2 years where they are actually found to be wrong. The rest the lawyers and everyone else agree, drop it.
I'm completely out of the loop on this one but the article is confusing me. It says he possibly sexually assaulted a music producer he was working with, but that the producer feared he was being "groomed". Typically that's used in reference to a minor, but nowhere does it say the music producer was a minor at the time. Is this just normal sexual assault (not that that wouldn't also be bad), or was the music producer actually a minor?
I think grooming generally implies a powerful person doing something to a less powerful person. Most commonly used for pedophiles, but not exclusively.