Icebergnado?

I don't think Aunt Flo is a significant danger for nuclear power plants.

It's called a life cycle or specifically a diplontic life cycle. A new human is created the moment a zygote is formed. Just because a creature is in a different stage of its life cycle and doesn't look anything like the members of your species that you deal with on a daily basis does not mean it is not a member of your species. Abortion is nothing more than setting arbitrary points at which to declare a human as "sub-human" and not warranting the rights afforded to humans.

The principal telling the boy to delete it occurred before the officer showed up.

Yes, most two-party consent (and even one-party consent) states will have an exemption regarding criminal behavior but most of them don't suddenly make the recording legal if it happens to have evidence of a crime on it. If you look at Pennsylvania's they require that you had a reasonable suspicion that the person being recorded has committed, is committing, or will commit a violent crime and that it is reasonable to believe that the recording will capture evidence of the crime in question.

So if you're walking around recording and it incidentally shows evidence of a crime, it would fail the first part. If you have reasonable suspicion but it's not reasonable to assume the recording would show evidence then it would fail the second part.

Semi-good point. There's two conditions that need to be satisfied. The first condition is that there is reasonable suspicion that the bullies are committing, are about to commit, or have committed a violent crime. This one is undoubtedly met. The second condition is that there is reason to believe that the recording will show evidence of the crime from the first condition. This second condition is the one that causes trouble because recording a crime is not by itself sufficient to make the recording exempt. So you would need to show evidence that there was reason to believe that a crime would be captured by the recording. If, for example, the boy was bullied by members of his class but it was only done in hallways or after school with no history of it being done in the classroom then it would be difficult, I would think, to say that recording in the classroom was reasonable.

To answer your question. The transcript written by the mother. The conversation between the mother and principal. The admission by the boy.

I was mostly correcting that it was the principal and not the police officer that told the boy to delete it so I'm not sure what your question has to do with my comment. I'm no fan of corrupt policy but the person I responded to was making highly inaccurate accusations.

I'm not moving any goalposts. Sequence of events matter. Necessity is there to justify knowingly breaking the law which means necessity needs to be present at the moment you break the law. The law was broken the moment the recording was started. You could possibly use the contents of an illegal recording, in combination with other evidence, to show necessity but the contents of the illegal recording itself should not be sufficient to prove necessity because the only events you have that could support necessity were provided after the law was broken which means you dive into circular logic to support breaking the law. So records showing that either the boy or mother had contacted the school about the problem (email alone may not be sufficient without correspondance) would be a step to show that lawful means had been exhausted prior to a recording being made. However if you get into a match of he said she said and there's no evidence one way or another the boy and mother would probably be up shit creek if trying to claim necessity. This isn't a desirable option anyway since necessity is a defense like self-defense. You have to go to trial and prove it.

It would probably be far easier to get the recording labeled as legal under one of the exemptions to the recording law. You just would need to show that the contents demonstrate a threat of physical force and that it was reasonable that the recording would capture evidence of that threat. Of course, that could be tricky too because if that recording was the first time it had been occurring inside a classroom it may not have been reasonable to assume that the threats would have occurred there.

It can be done through the state code as well.

In Indiana, for example, all individuals that are of at least 18 years are age that live in the state are considered part of the militia. That group is then divided into the sedentary militia and the national guard.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/...

The exception for recording illegal activities are narrow though. Typically it requires a reasonable assumption that a crime of violance was being committed, was about to be committed, or had been committed and it is reasonable that the recording in question would gain evidence of that crime of violence.

The police didn't force the destruction of evidence. It was the principal that told the student to delete the recording.

Unless the events of the recording showed an ongoing crime or admission of a past crime, that wouldn't affect the legitimacy of the recording itself. The recording legitimacy is based on what events had failed to occur that would justify it being done in the first place.

The principal told the boy to delete the recording, not the officer.

According to your article, the charges are bullshit because the students didn't have an expectation of privacy which is contrary to the actual statement made by the judge on the disorderly conduct trial.

That's exactly opposite of what was claimed. The students in the school have a reasonable expectation of privacy against being recorded. In fact that's in the article. Whether that is accurate is up for argument.