Loud teen party becomes a high-profile legal battle

Houston Chronicle ^ | June 17, 2005 | Erik Hanson

[Wil H]

Oh so you have conclusive proof everyone of these kids were drinking do you? Well I suggest you give it to the police because they sure as hell don't have.

But never mind, convict them all, we don't want a little thing like evidence, proof, or due process to get in the way of your pre-concieved bias.

[Lou L]

Upon what would you base administering a breathalyzer test, a field sobriety test? I feel that action would be thrown out of court.

Evidence.

Positive Breathalyzer + alcoholic drinks present + minors = drinking underage.

If this went to trial and you saw that evidence, what else would you need to know?

[Last Visible Dog]

You know that if this were a story about black kids carrying on in Gary or Indianapolis, these same swanky parents would be supporting the cops 110%.

It amazes me to hear people on FreeRepublic cheering the death of liberty and the rise of the police state. The police ADMIT they don't know which kids actually violated the law so they simply charged everybody like all good police states do - guilty until proved innocent.

I bet you won't cheer the loss of liberty and the rise of the police state when the police come for you - but by then it may be too late.

[Last Visible Dog]

Positive Breathalyzer + alcoholic drinks present + minors = drinking underage. If this went to trial and you saw that evidence, what else would you need to know?

So if one person is guilty - all 37 must be guilty too - great police state logic - guilty until proved innocent. All hail the death of liberty and the rise of the police state.

So next time you are at you favorite Red Neck bar and some Billy-Joe-Bob starts a fight - be prepared to go to jail - using your logic:

Bar + fight = everybody guilty

Or when you are driving home and Speed Racer beside you is clocked at 100MPH+ and you are ticketed (even though you weren't speeding) remember:

Car + Speeding = everybody nearby must be speeding.

Who needs evidence when the police can just use assumptions. Makes police work much easier and gives them more donut time.

[Last Visible Dog]

And in spite of the "I wasn't drinking" defense, they are just as much in possession as anyone else in the room.

All hail the police state and the death of liberty.

Remember - if you are in a subway car and some Cat is in possession of heroin - you too are in possession of heroin - if one person in the room is guilty - everybody is guilty - no need for evidence or tough police work - just go on assumptions.

[Lou L]

So if one person is guilty - all 37 must be guilty too - great police state logic

No, that's not what I said in my original post. Without breathalyzer tests or photos of minors with liquor, they don't have a case. With a positive breathalyzer test and evidence of liquor present, I think they do.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning a "police state;" what I abhor is adults covering up for "kids" when they break the law.

[monday]

"Sure, a sociopath is the alternative term for "lawyer."


I dislike Lawyers, and some Lawyers certainly may have sociopathic tendencies, but since sociopaths by their nature function poorly in society, to call all lawyers sociopaths is absurd. A better synonym then 'lawyer' would be 'criminal'.

Typical characteristics of Sociopaths;

1.failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2.deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3.impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4.irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5.reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6.consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7.lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

[Last Visible Dog]

No, that's not what I said in my original post. Without breathalyzer tests or photos of minors with liquor, they don't have a case. With a positive breathalyzer test and evidence of liquor present, I think they do.

Sorry - my speed-reading failed me - I read only part of your message. Drat, another rant ruined!

In the words of Emily Latella: "never mind"

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[agrace]

A parent, Rene Woodring, said she is fighting the charges because her daughter was not drinking.

Funny, my parents would have said "what were you doing at a party like that in the first place, that's what you get, pay the ticket."

[monday]

" My gawd you people are disgusting and just as BAD as any liberal when it comes to this subject!! It's about RESPONSIBILITY! But then, from what I've seen here, a whole bunch of you are just as pro-gov't-baby-sitting as any lib!"

lol... feel better now? I am not sure why you decided to go off on me, but from your post it would seem that you are the one applauding the government baby sitter police.

I am not particularly worried about a bunch of kids getting ticketed for underage drinking. I am more concerned about the "crucify the rich kids because they are rich and we hate them" attitude of many of the posters on this thread. That is what disgusts me!

[Labyrinthos]

You know that if this were a story about black kids carrying on in Gary or Indianapolis, these same swanky parents would be supporting the cops 110%.

Really? I don't care whether the kids are black, white, green, yellow,checkerboard, or pokadot. I have a big problem with cops busting into a house without a warrant and indiscriminately arresting adults for something that should not even be a crime in the first place.

[JeffAtlanta]

The judge acknowledged my non-drinker status (as attested to by several people who knew me), but assessed the same Minor in Possession fine as them. I took it like a man.

No, you were run over by a power crazed judge and rather than being upset about your rights being violated, you thanked them. Basically, you suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

[JeffAtlanta]

Funny, my parents would have said "what were you doing at a party like that in the first place, that's what you get, pay the ticket."

Don't you think that as American citizens, people should only be punished for crimes that they ACTUALLY commit? Also, don't you think that the Bill of Rights should be followed - even when dealing with underage drinking?

[JeffAtlanta]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning a "police state;" what I abhor is adults covering up for "kids" when they break the law

What do you think about government officials covering up for police when they break the law?

[cherry]

but the biggest and bestest freedom of course, is to be rich in America and have drinking parties at your house and then get mad when the police show up....

that's what this is all about....parents afraid of a lawsuit.....

in our school district, even if you are at a party where there is alcohol or drugs, and even if you aren't doing any of that yourself, you still loose your right to participate in sports.....

we've lost prime athletes at the worse times over this, but in the long run, its worth it....

[em2vn]

You misunderstand the question. What would be your basis for seeking a breathalyzer test? The fact that a kid was there wouldn't be a basis for seeking the test.

[Old Professer]

The dumbass cops should have simply charged them all with disorderly conduct, a crime for which there is no defense.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Bingo. Same applies to certain FReepers.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth! If I had been a parent of one of these kids they would have pled guilty from the get go. Whether they were drinking or not. Knowing my children I am positive they at least had the intention of getting away with something. The parents were not at home, that explains everything I need to know. If you want to call that guilt by association, so be it. That is exactly what it is.

 

I'm no goody two shoes, I did the same when I was their age, and my kids did it too. It is in the nature of every teen to test authority. If and when you get caught, it is time start taking responsibility for your actions. You cannot stay a kid forever and the behavior of these parents is appalling. They are teaching their children how to become "victims", isn't that just brilliant? If little "Muffy" wouldn't do that, what in the hell was she doing there in the first place.

 

The fact remains, every single teen at that party knew what they were doing had the possibility of repercussions, if not by the cops then most assuredly by a parent or two. Now the parents of these spoiled little brats want to teach them it is ok as long as you can get away with it, or you have the ability to pay a shyster to get you out of it. This is certainly not how I raised my son and daughter. If you gamble with the law you need to buck up and pay the penalty when reality bites you in the arse.

 

Is it any wonder our youth are heading into the toilet. Their parents are already teaching them morality is for those who can't afford to buy their way out of it.

[JeffAtlanta]

Took the words right out of my mouth! If I had been a parent of one of these kids they would have pled guilty from the get go.

Why would you have your children plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit? If someone snuck in some GHB, which there is a very severe penalty for, would you have them plead guilty to that as well?

Maybe that is the way you would raise your children, but that goes against what most reasonable parents would do. When dealing with the justice system, NEVER plead guilty to a crime that you didn't do. This is especially true for a young people.