Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet Government The Courts News Technology

Social Networking Sites Becoming Useful For Lawyers 353

Posted by Soulskill
from the to-be-expected dept.
chareverie writes "With how the internet has become, social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have become a tool for crime solvers, employers, and now, lawyers. Two weeks after Joshua Lipton was charged in a drunk driving case, the college junior attended a Halloween party dressed as a prisoner, with the words 'jail bird' on his costume. Not surprisingly, his prosecutor was able to obtain photos of him at the party that were posted on Facebook, and claimed he was an 'unrepentant partier who lived it up while his victim recovered in the hospital.' The photos were presented in a slideshow, with one of them showing Lipton holding a can of Red Bull in one hand, and an arm draped around a girl bearing sorority letters. The judge agreed with the prosecutor, and changed Lipton's sentence to two years in prison. The article also cites other instances of people getting harsher sentences from pictures of them posted online."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Social Networking Sites Becoming Useful For Lawyers

Comments Filter:
  • Wrong title (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JeffSh (71237) <jeffslashdot&m0m0,org> on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:21AM (#24253067)

    title should be "useful for prosecutors". while prosecutors are "lawyers", this article and topic is far more specific.

    • Re:Wrong title (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bazar (778572) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:31AM (#24253123)

      The methods this prosecutor used is a method any lawyer can use.

      Its not too hard to picture a case where the defense uses a facebook profile that portrays their client in a good light, or the prosecution in a bad light.

      So the title is suitable

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by JeffSh (71237)

        It's not that I don't agree with what you say, but taking your same line of reasoning I can say..

        "The methods this prosecutor used is a method any...." doctor, superintendent, boss, government worker, mom, dad, grandpa, etc person of authority "use".

        This article is about this particular situation, not about lawyers in general.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by 91degrees (207121)
        Its not too hard to picture a case where the defense uses a facebook profile that portrays their client in a good light, or the prosecution in a bad light.

        The defendant will already have access to the photos that show him in a good light. The prosecution will be the People of The United States of America. You can certainly show them in a bad light but it isn't going to help your case.
    • by tomhudson (43916)

      title should be "useful for prosecutors". while prosecutors are "lawyers", this article and topic is far more specific.

      TFA pointed out that the defense could also look around for evidence to discredit witnesses for the prosecution.

    • Re:Wrong title (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:46AM (#24253215) Homepage Journal

      Could have gone both ways, depending on the pictures.

      If they were of him serving meals at the local homeless shelter or rescuing trapped animals during a flood, it would have worked for the defense instead.

      So yes, the topic title is spot-on.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:24AM (#24253079)

    ... of douchebaggery.

  • by phillymjs (234426) <slashdotNO@SPAMstango.org> on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:29AM (#24253115) Homepage Journal

    Last week some 18 year-old punk was speeding and hit two women who were in town from St. Louis to see the Cardinals play the Phillies. One of them later died.

    The cops found his MySpace page, and it's apparently full of pics of him drinking and smoking pot, and the article even says he used a mugshot from a prior arrest as his default photo. The cops got wind of it and snagged his computer and other stuff from his house with a search warrant, and they'll probably use it to stave off any attempt at the "but he's a good boy who just made a mistake" defense.

    After reading the article [philly.com], I am completely disgusted... especially with his parents, under whose noses it seems much of his bad behavior has been going on. Call me old-fashioned, but I think parents should try to raise their kids to, you know, not be a colossal fuckup.

    The best part, IMHO, is that for all his "I'm just Mr. Buster Badass" posturing on his MySpace page, he is apparently throwing up in jail because he's so scared (insert derisive Nelson Muntz laugh here).

    ~Philly

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      (Temporarily lost my password, so posting Anonymously, but am 'Wonderkid'.) Anyway, Philly, you are 100% spot on. There is a general decline in ethics both sides of the Atlantic. To understand why, read Lord of The Flies by William Golding, if you have not already. As soon as the immature are running the asylum, all hell will break out! (The immature are now running the asylum.)

    • by LoudMusic (199347) *

      Call me old-fashioned, but I think parents should try to raise their kids to, you know, not be a colossal fuckup.
      ~Philly

      Ah, you old fuddy duddy. Get back in your rocker and watch CSPAN. This is our world now. ;)

      • by DarkOx (621550) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:16AM (#24253379) Journal

        Yes it is, and this wonderful utopian society we are constructing for ourselves is great. Nobody is afflicted with any of that nasty personal responsibility for anything they unless it manages to run afowl of those last few vestiges of silly old sensibilites we have not yet shacken off.

        The best part is why have Facebook and MySpace so even those of us without the brainpower to use even the simplest of markup can easily show off for the entire world what kinda of asshats we can be when we really try.

        We might not quite be able to get away with running some people down while drunk driving and then parting a few days later like nothing happen but I am confident we will get there, given trends. Somebody somewhere will find a way to make it forgiviable or at least excuseable. That seems to be where all our famous American enginuity is being placed these days. Why I can see future where we are free to rape each other and fling poo, just over the horizon... Dream with me people...

        • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @11:16AM (#24253755)
          Over the horizon? Hell I'm flingin' poo now! It's very therapeutic You should see my monitor when there's a comment I don't agree with!
        • "The best part is why have Facebook and MySpace so even those of us without the brainpower to use even the simplest of markup can easily show off for the entire world what kinda of asshats we can be when we really try."

          I still don't get why people even use facebook (or any social sites). Near as I can tell, it's a vestige of the adolescent misconception that you are the center of the universe and everything you do is interesting and important.

          Perhaps that's not fair. It persists well into adulthood as wel

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cduffy (652)

          I think you took the parent much too seriously. At least, I hope you took the parent much too seriously; my impression was that it was made in jest, and not respective of the parent's true positions.

          Now -- I'm putting my 20-something Libertarian hat on for the rest of this post, as I think that (of all those I wear) it's most relevant.

          Personal responsibility is a Good Thing; it's only when the mechanism of state is used to enforce one particular view of what "personal responsibility" entails that there come

    • by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:56AM (#24253259) Homepage Journal

      Taking his PC i think was a bit overboard unless they had hard evidence that some crime was committed with the PC. The judge should never have permitted that warrant to go thru.

      Collecting the public posts of images off myspace was more then justified however.

      • by Sigma 7 (266129) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @11:12AM (#24253729)

        Taking his PC i think was a bit overboard unless they had hard evidence that some crime was committed with the PC. The judge should never have permitted that warrant to go thru.

        The PC can contain evidence, such as unpublished photos. Saying you can't grab a PC for evidence is just like saying you can't search the personal diary for evidence (which obviously isn't the case.)

        In criminal court, search warrants can be issued as long as they can convince a judge that there's a good chance evidence can be improved or obtained. It's a tactic popular with child porn cases, but can be extended to other cases as well.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by value_added (719364)

        Nobody is afflicted with any of that nasty personal responsibility for anything they unless it manages to run afowl of those last few vestiges of silly old sensibilites ...

        I remember when I was a kid, I was given a small "chick" by a friend who was forced to give it away. My mum, being the sensible type (at least so I thought) let me keep it, like she let me keep most things I brought home as pets. The chick quickly grew to be a rooster and just as quickly I discovered roosters make lousy pets.

        We kept the

    • by echucker (570962)
      The MySpace page mentioned in the article-
      http://www.myspace.com/JoE_BoNeS [myspace.com]

      He's got his profile set to private instead of public now, and he's no longer using the mugshot for his profile pic.
  • Oh, Bravo! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eekygeeky (777557) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:37AM (#24253157)

    This is correct use of technology- hands down, a winning proposition.

    Now, it may not be so when prosecutors dredge up photos unrelated to, older, than, or from a different person with the same name, so this only argues for more transparent ways for hosts, services, and users to find unshakeable ways to authenticate what happens under their aegis. opt-in automatic encrypted transmission watermarks, anyone?

    responsibility, what a concept!

    (or learn 2 anon, use 7 proxies, etc)

    • by db32 (862117)
      I don't think you have to worry about same name issue. I mean...you ARE in court right? When they hold up a picture that looks nothing like you and say "See, this is you isn't it" they won't get very far.

      You are right about the verification part though I think. I imagine this will make it much more important to verify dates and whatnot in photos. However, as noted in these cases, it seems reasonable to allow people stupid enough to worry about this to post accurate descriptions of the photo on their w
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Now, it may not be so when prosecutors dredge up photos unrelated to, older, than, or from a different person with the same name, so this only argues for more transparent ways for hosts, services, and users to find unshakeable ways to authenticate what happens under their aegis. opt-in automatic encrypted transmission watermarks, anyone?

      Only problem is these photos were not used as evidence. The trial was already over. Only sentencing remained.

      Those photos never could have been admitted as evidence at his trial unless you got the photographer to take the stand and say that he witnessed Lipton partying, took the pictures, and that the subject was Lipton, etc. After all, you can't cross-examine a photograph.

  • Good? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by db32 (862117) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:37AM (#24253161) Journal
    I don't understand the problem here either. This is two "OMG Privacy" stories that have come up in the last few days. This isn't "OMG Privacy". This is quit being a fucking moron and advertising your private life to 3rd parties or the world. In each of the three cases I am fucking glad they found those pictures. Those pieces of shit deserve to be rotting in prison instead of out partying after that crap. In case you skip the article it talkes about 3 cases of DUI, in 2 of which people died and the third almost died. Then these pieces of human filth went out partying and posted pictures showing exactly how seriously they took the fact that they went out driving drunk and murdered someone. I am personally very happy these fuckwits posted these pictures and the prosecution found them. In at least two of the cases mentioned here the bastard was probably going to get probation.

    So...let me put it this way. If you are a worthless dumbass criminal making life worse for other people PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE post pictures of yourself doing illegal things online. Record yourself talking about the crime and make it an mp3. Take videos of you beating hobos or other nonsense and put them on youtube. I would much rather a society where the criminals effectively go to the authority and say "Hi, I'm a fucking moron criminal asshole, please arrest me!" than the world where the cops have to wiretap, and search, and investigate. So, please, in the interest of keeping our society free, go post your stupidity online, make it easy to find, that way the authority can leave the rest of us the fuck alone since we aren't doing anything wrong.
    • when "they" make abusive language a punishable offence and trawl up posts like this one.

      Funny thing about the internet, it's not just other people's bad judgement that lives on forever but yours too. I wonder what your kids will think when they read this - after you been lecturing them on their behaviour.

  • lousy defence lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by petes_PoV (912422) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @09:56AM (#24253265)
    > Lipton holding a can of Red Bull in one hand,

    So what we have is a guy who was known for drinking alcoholic beverages, now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead. Any lawyer worth his or her fee, would've pointed out this evidenced change in behaviour as a sign that the subject no longer drank, and therefore should have a reduced sentence.

    It's all down to the interpretation.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by eekygeeky (777557)

      it's a picture of a man, laughing it up about his time in court, which was supposedly the solemn justice meted out for his terrible crime, which left a fellow man in crippled and maimed for life.

      the alchohol is not the issue, and the judge's comments accurately reflect this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      So what we have is a guy who was known for drinking alcoholic beverages, now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead.

      It was only 2 weeks after he nearly killed someone because of his partying antics. His lawyer is lousy, all right, but only because he should have made sure lipton:

      1. Did not go out partying at all.
      2. Enrolled in Alcoholics Anonymous and started attending meetings.
      3. Enrolled in any other local alcohol treatment programs might be useful.
      4. Sure as shit stayed away from alcohol. We don't know he was drinking at that Halloween party, but I'm just saying, he was 20 years old. If he would have gotten a m

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Hubbell (850646)
        What right does the government have to demand a citizen undergo RELIGIOUS counseling (that is what AA, and in essence, all 12 step programs are, the first step is admitting you have a problem that only 'a higher power than yourself' can fix and you must place your trust in him, meaning god)? Pretty sure that's a clear violation of the First Amendment.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sentry21 (8183)

          It doesn't mean God, it means any power higher than yourself - that could be God, it could be your uncle, it could be fate, it could be Gaia, it could be karma, or whatever. That step refers to acknowledging that there is something above, more important, and more powerful than yourself - i.e. you are not the centre of the world, and you have to look outside yourself to fix yourself.

    • by Guppy06 (410832) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @01:10PM (#24254519)

      "now drinks non-alcoholic Red Bull instead."

      In a picture that he himself posted with "Remorseful?" as a caption. This was while awaiting sentencing, during which the court would like to know how much remorse he has. It's not so much that he was drinking Red Bull, but that he did so in a party, in a mock prison jumpsuit, with his free arm around sorority tail, consciously and deliberately yukking it up over the fact that he'd be facing his sentencing for his DUI conviction soon and that he wasn't half as remorseful as he was going to be telling the court.

      It's not "ZOMG, he's got a canned beverage!" it's "ZOMG, his lawyer told him that he'll probably get away with probation and a slap on the wrist if he just shows up wearing a tie and says 'your honor' a lot!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by nick_davison (217681)

      The photos were presented in a slideshow, with one of them showing Lipton holding a can of Red Bull in one hand, and an arm draped around a girl bearing sorority letters.

      Whilst Red Bull may not count as alcoholic, it is commonly accepted that sorority girls do.

      Much like those famous toads, lick one and you can usually get a pretty decent contact high just from the alcohol and roofies that secrete through their skin.

      I'd consider the undeserved stereotype argument but these are the same people who protested that SDSU's new sorority houses weren't being built close enough to the new frat houses and, in the state the girls intended to regularly get themselves in to, who knew wh

  • by sharp-bang (311928) <sharp,bang,slashdot&gmail,com> on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:00AM (#24253283) Homepage
    until such time as the preponderance of judges and attorneys can be embarrassed by archival pictures/movies on the Internet.
  • Uh? Hello? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:03AM (#24253317)

    Did I get that right? He went to court, got away with a rather mild verdict, then the prosecutor showed that he is "partying" and this is grounds for a more serious conviction?

    Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?

    This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eekygeeky (777557)

      making fun of the legal system and the fact that he maimed another human being by his terrible, irresponsible behavior before he was finished with trial seems like an excellent reason to punish him more harshly. what's the problem?

      and yes, he should be solemn, mournful, unhappy, grevious, penitent. he should not be "partying". he is a bad person, and shameful person, any expression of mirth or glee from him before his due punishment is inappropriate, hurtful, demonstrative of low character, and deserving of

      • Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @02:59PM (#24255483)

        We're judging people now because of character instead of actions? If so, some politicians should be shitting their pants right now.

        Who gets to define "moral" behaviour? You? Me? Some thinkofthechildren goon in Washington? Personally, I'd be shitting my pants now if it was the latter.

        What I want him to be, or what I want him to suffer like, is not important. That's what sets a legal system apart from mob rule. There is a very good reason that not the person who was wronged gets to decide on the punishment but why we have a legal code defining that.

        Does it change the state his victim is in when he mourns and cries? No. Does his victim gain anything out of him avoiding parties? No. So what is this about? Revenge? He must not enjoy his life because he made someone miserable?

        By that logic, some company execs should never party again. Ever.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          We're judging people now because of character instead of actions?

          Now? What do you mean by now? Do you have any clue whatsoever about how the American justice system actually works?

          Judges are given broad power over sentencing. They are permitted, nay expected, to use this power to give more punishment to the worst criminals. "Worst" being defined by things like not showing remorse, no ties to the community, prior criminal record etc. It all pretty much feeds into two questions: is this person likely to commit further crimes, and will his example serve to deter others? Thi

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by darkmeridian (119044)

          The American legal system has always emphasized intent over action, and character dovetails into intent. Pretend I hit a pedestrian with my car. If I intended to hit and kill him because I hated him, I would be charged with murder. If my vehicle malfunctioned due to no fault of my own, I will not be charged with a crime. If I intentionally swerved into the pedestrian to avoid three kids who ran into the street, I would not be convicted of murder. In all three cases, the pedestrian is dead but my punishment

    • Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Slashdot Parent (995749) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:38AM (#24253485)

      Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?

      The verdict never changed. It was the sentencing.

      Lipton nearly killed someone, and was given an appropriate sentence. A lot of times, if a convict shows serious remorse, enrolls in alcohol treatment programs, etc., a judge will reduce the sentence because the convicted has already had some personal justice. Nothing new here.

      In this case, Lipton showed no remorse, so the judge simply gave an appropriate sentence for his crime, rather than a reduced sentence.

      The only "news" here is the fact that the prosecutor used Lipton's facebook profile to document Lipton's lack of remorse. The same thing would have happened had he prosecutor brought in witnesses who attended the party, or if Lipton got a minor consumption ticket (he is only 20, so he shouldn't have been drinking at all), etc.

    • Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johnny cashed (590023) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:51AM (#24253579) Homepage
      No, I think you have it wrong. 4 DUI cases. 2 resulting in fatalities, 2 with serious injuries. In every case presented, the evidence was revealed after conviction, before sentencing. There was evidence that the convicted were engaging in partying behavior after their crashes. Under the circumstances presented, yes, I think the partying was grounds for a harsher verdict. If the photos were all from pre crime partying, and it isn't directly relevant to the actual crime, then no, it shouldn't be grounds for a harsher verdict. It appears that in all these cases, the victims weren't acting remorseful enough to satisfy the judge. He has great latitude in sentencing. What else do you use as a metric to met out sentences? Socioeconomic status? Skin color? General looks? The range of sentencing is there for a reason.

      If you do something stupid, kill someone in the process, and then can't keep your fucking head down for a period afterward, you deserve a harsher sentence. It isn't that hard to stay out of dumb situations. Don't let your "friends" photograph you with a obvious drink in you hand (ok, one guy had a Redbull, he allegedly joked about his case, poor behavior IMHO). This isn't just about them, this is also about society sending you a message. The judge is representative of the people.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417)

        So, in other words, if I start spewing on some online diary service how sorry I am and how bad I feel for it, I should get a minor slap on the wrist instead of some harsh verdict?

        Ok, I'll remember that in case I ever need it. I'll feel very sorry for anything I do from now on. Hey, I can do that, I'm good at fake excuses!

    • by phorm (591458) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @11:41AM (#24253919) Journal

      This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.

      Ummm, you realize that this isn't a new thing, right? The facebook part might be, but many lawyers have often pushed for lenience in cases where clients have shown true remorse for their actions, and vise-versa for the prosecutors against those who don't.

      Feeling sad for your actions and being willing to change is part of the reformation process, which is part of what the justice system is about. A kid that's partying it up 2 weeks after killing somebody isn't feeling remorse, and isn't so likely to reform after a slap-on-the-wrist or token sentencing.

    • Re:Uh? Hello? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tangent3 (449222) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @12:03PM (#24254063)

      Did I get that right? He went to court, got away with a rather mild verdict, then the prosecutor showed that he is "partying" and this is grounds for a more serious conviction?

      Hello? Did partying now become some sort of grounds for a harsher verdict? What should he have done? Mourn and weep for at least 2 years or whatever the court deems "appropriate"?

      This is sick, people. This means you're not only judged for what you do but also for what you feel.

      Nope, you did not get it right.
      He did not get "a more serious conviction". He did not initially "get away with a rather mild verdict".

      After you are convicted, there will be a sentencing trial where the judge decides your sentence. In the trial, the prosecutors will generally argue to give you a harsh sentence while your lawyer will argue why you deserve less than that, and depending on the facts available to the judge, he will make his decision.

      RTFA. In this case, the prosecutors were initially going to recommend only a probation for this criminal, but when discovering the photos, they recommended the harsher sentence and the judge concurred.

      I would have concurred too, and I think it's justice well served. If this bastard had gotten away with only a probation I would have been pretty pissed off with these prosecutors.

  • by Landshark17 (807664) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:16AM (#24253377)
    I work as an Orientation Leader at my college; familiarizing incoming freshman with the campus and what it's like to be a college student, etc. One of the things we warn them about is to not put anything on facebook that they wouldn't want their family to see. Of course, they don't listen and we've had RAs write kids up for things they've done just because the RA saw pictures of it posted on facebook.

    When kids get their room assignments, they instantly check their roommates out on facebook. Every now and then we hear stories that even before they've met the roommate, parents ask for a new one because the roommate's facebook page makes them worry the kid might be gay.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ciggieposeur (715798)

      parents ask for a new one because the roommate's facebook page makes them worry the kid might be gay.

      So Facebook is helping (potentially) gay students avoid having to room with bigots? Wonderful!

  • Red Bull (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rossdee (243626) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:19AM (#24253397)

    Last I checked, Red Bull was NOT an alcoholic beverage. Had he been photographed drinking alcohol I could understand the increased sentence.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheJodster (212554)

      Speaking as someone who got run over by a Ford Explorer driven by a drooling idiot, I bet you'd feel quite differently if this dumbass had put your stupid ass in the hospital.

      The most miserable part of going through months of surgeries and rehab to try to put your life back together is knowing that the jackass that hit you isn't even sorry about it. I got a year of misery and she got a new car.

      When he gets out of prison, he should have to take care of her lawn and clean her house once a week for the next 2

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xelios (822510)
      Getting busted for drinking and driving is different than just drinking. Even if it were alcohol he was drinking I don't think it should have had any bearing on the case, as long as it wasn't a picture of him behind the wheel of a car while drinking.

      What should (and did) have a bearing on the case is him wearing his arrest like some sort of merit badge instead of treating it as an emberassing fuckup that he isn't proud of. That and his seemingly blatant disregard for the people he injured in the process.
  • I guess some people still can't get in through their skulls that the internet isn't some sort of silly game. If you post something, anyone has access to it, including law enforcement. It's like that woman who tried to take out a hit on someone via Craigslist a while back. What the hell is going through these people's minds?
  • U need to use a fake identity & gender like Heroine. Anything U say will be used against U, especially if U store your entire life on the Goog network.

    • by eer (526805)
      Then fake up your pictures of yourself. Public speech - it's PUBLIC!!!! OMG!!!!
  • "If it shows up under your name you own it," he said, "and you better understand that people look for that stuff."

    Which is entirely the problem. I don't have a MySpace page, but my real name (and variations of initials thereof) shows up on MySpace. A negligent, or perhaps merely aggressive, prosecutor might use the unsavory content - posted by others, under a false name - against me should I ever be charged with a crime.

    The problem, as I see it, is the public at large is not necessarily aware that

  • by ExtremePhobia (1326407) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @10:43AM (#24253523)

    I actually read the article to see if it was as bad as it sounded... and yes it is.

    First of all, he was drinking Red Bull, which is non-alcoholic, and while he was at a party I'd be thinking he'd be excited to be alive. Just me though.

    The other cases in the article are just as bad. A lady at a party drinking wine after a car accident? Wine just screams alcoholic!

    The prosecution is saying she should be in AA? They know that she's an Alcoholic and didn't just make a bad choice? She's no longer aloud to drink anymore because of a bad choice? AA doesn't teach you to act correctly when you drink, it tried to get you to stop drinking completely

    And to say "she was doing nothing but having a good time" is insane. Obviously she's been going from party to party non-stop for the past X months. How do you know she WASN'T going to AA? Just because you have a picture of something less than appealing doesn't mean you have to whole story.

    I have to imagine they'd have more than that for a Judge to up the sentence to two years. Not to say I don't think they deserved it but expecting people to become inhuman because of an accident is just plain stupid. A guy drinking red bull is a good example of just how RANDOM these pictures can be and yet they are grounds for upping a sentence? give me a break.

    • by Guppy06 (410832) on Saturday July 19, 2008 @12:51PM (#24254395)

      "First of all, he was drinking Red Bull, which is non-alcoholic, and while he was at a party I'd be thinking he'd be excited to be alive. Just me though."

      First off, it was after he was already convicted, he was simply awaiting sentencing. So basically he was making light of his potential fate, one he probably doubted he'd get.

      Second, according to TFA, Douchebag captioned said photo "Remorseful?" So, again, making light of his conviction and his pending probation (or so he thought).

      "The other cases in the article are just as bad. A lady at a party drinking wine after a car accident? Wine just screams alcoholic!"

      A car accident in which she was the driver and she killed her passenger. Drinking and joking about it while awaiting sentencing for drunk driving, after having killed somebody, suggests someone that hasn't quite grasped the gravity of brutally killing someone sitting not two feet away from you.

      "The prosecution is saying she should be in AA? They know that she's an Alcoholic and didn't just make a bad choice? She's no longer aloud to drink anymore because of a bad choice?"

      One in which she killed somebody.

      "AA doesn't teach you to act correctly when you drink, it tried to get you to stop drinking completely"

      Not that bad of an idea considering the fact that she killed someone and still saw to make light of it.

      "Not to say I don't think they deserved it but expecting people to become inhuman because of an accident is just plain stupid."

      How about ceasing the activity that previously lead to someone's death? Is that too much to expect? At least during the sentencing phase?

      "A guy drinking red bull is a good example of just how RANDOM these pictures can be and yet they are grounds for upping a sentence?"

      In a picture that the guy himself captioned as "Remorseful?" He was busily, actively, and consciously flaunting the fact that he wasn't remorseful, one of the conditions he would have needed to satisfy if he were going to to get away with probation.

      Seriously, did you read the same linked article as I did?

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...