Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Scott in Japan on May 8, 2007:

I do agree with Greg that he still needs to face criminal charges. Any humiliation he might feel comes from his own actions, and we don't know what he considers humiliating (after all, he was heading to a bar in this getup). Also, using humiliation as a crime sets the precedent for uneven sentencing, as well as being possible 'cruel & unusual punishment'.

But Greg's mandatory urinalysis wouldn't be legal, since alcohol is a legal commodity. As long as he isn't D&D or publicly intoxicated, the law cannot mandate whether he can drink.

---

I don't know about Japan, but in the U.S., as long as he's on probation, they definitely can require that he not drink -- and that he prove it. They'll even make him pay for the tests. -rc

Posted by Dave S. in San Antonio on May 8, 2007:

First, he may not be humiliated. He may be proud of those pictures. I doubt it, but we do not know.

Second, the police officer or employee who put those pictures on the internet, or gave them to whoever did it, should be prosecuted. Every department has rules against that, and every state has laws against releasing evidence. Mug shots can often be released, but this is hardly a "mug" shot.

Third, even if he was on his way to a contest, what was he doing driving around a park? But, drunks usually do not think logically.

Posted by rafael at cordoba (spain) on May 8, 2007:

The guy has had enough, even if he enjoys the publicity (his boss surely will not). In Spain we have no such crap "offenses" punishable by law as having an open container, public indecency and disorderly conduct, not to mention ZT, (if you are disorderly AND beat a cop, that's another thing). BUT i'd make the silly fireman pay for his driving inside a park near kids. "Kid" is the ruling word here. Penalty? Buy them all some (non expensive) toy and offer a sincere apology.

Posted by Kimberly - New Hampshire on May 8, 2007:

Even if he is humiliated, it's not a punishment that was "given" to him. Rather, it is humiliation that he brought on himself as a result of poor choices and bad behavior. It's the consequence of actions that he *chose* to make.

To be honest, anyone who gets behind the wheel drunk is, to my way of thinking, guilty of attempted murder. Too many sober people have died as a result of the irresponsible choices of drunks behind the wheel, and everyone *must* know what they are risking when they get wasted and then go out for a drive. It's a conscious choice that people make, and as far as I'm concerned what happens to the people responsible for making that choice is not an issue deserving any more consideration than they showed for everyone else around them by getting behind the wheel in the first place.

---

OK, I knew if I put this out for comments I'd get some good reasons! Not done to him, his choice, check! More, I'm sure, will follow. -rc

Posted by Mark, Northport, MI on May 8, 2007:

He should be charged with drunk driving, since he was operating a vehicle in an area open to the public. There are at least two problems with the add-on charges:

1) some may be dealt away, to get a guilty plea on others;

2) even if he's convicted on all of them, the sentence will probably run concurrently, so it doesn't add to the actual time served.

As to the indecent exposure charge, I have to ask: what are the elements of the statute under Ohio law? It appears he didn't expose any body parts that would be mentioned in such a statute.

I don't think those are booking photos, either--they look more like photos taken to document his appearance, as evidence. (Booking photos would show his face, right and left sides.)

With regard to the "humiliation" issue: this has to be considered--at least in part--in terms of his expectation of privacy. (Consider how different it would be if he'd been photographed while dressed this way alone in his house, for example). It looks like the photos were released in an attempt to humiliate him, but that's a different story entirely.

---

Ah, another great point: expectation of privacy. Since he was doing this in public in broad (heh heh) daylight, indeed he had none. -rc

Posted by Andy, Denver, CO on May 8, 2007:

I would ignore the "humiliation" in considering punishment -- Cole was in public, dressed as he chose, intending to perform in that costume. Giving him a wider audience should not be considered punishment. He should be charged and tried as the law specifies for driving drunk around kids, as well as for the lesser violations.

Posted by Marissa, Morehead, KY on May 8, 2007:

As a mother I must say that the photos are not nearly enough of a punishment for driving drunk in a park, not to mention as many people said that he may not even be embarrassed of these photos (he was on the way to a public contest dressed like this). Luckily no one was hurt, but if they make things too easy on him then he will do it again and someone may get hurt next time. I know of many people that were "busted" for DUI that still drive drunk, some without a license. If he is all over the web then maybe he would be made a great example to other idiots that chose to put themselves and everyone else in danger.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on May 8, 2007:

As your articles on ZT show, there are lots of people who have no concept of humiliation. Witness our schools; for that matter, look at our own U.S. Congress. Besides, as you said, all he needs to do is move and next month, it's a fresh start.

As for being drunk in public, I don't think that alcohol makes you do things that you wouldn't otherwise do. It simply suppresses your inhibition to expose what you really wanted to do all along. Alcohol may impair one's reaction time but, worse, it releases the inner demon that desperately wants to express itself. Hence, someone who runs into a crowd and blames it on the booze because he didn't "see" them. Baloney, nobody "blacks out" and still maintains full motor capacity any more than a conk on the head causes amnesia. That's 1950's-style psychology.

There's debate whether punishment has any deterrent, but giving no punishment amounts to tacit approval while 'throwing the book' at an offender is simply revenge. Give him the standard punishment for drunk driving.

Even if he hadn't been drinking, the public exposure would still have rendered him humiliation and is a separate "punishment" independent of alcohol, if he's susceptible to it.

Posted by Tim, Denver, CO on May 8, 2007:

Have you seen pictures on the 'net of a big hairy guy dressed as a fairy princess? That's how I won my company's Halloween contest in 1999, and I am quite proud when people come across them.

On the other hand, I would completely humiliated if was charged with driving drunk, and everyone found out about it.

Humiliation is relative. Who can say if this guy is bothered by it or not? For all we know, he gets off on it. Do we want to give him a free pass on serious offenses, just because he *might* be really embarrassed already?

I am more concerned about how the photos got leaked. These aren't mugshots, they appear to be taken as evidence, and should not automatically be made public.

It is easy enough to laugh when a deserving bad guy gets burned. I hear that some people actually make a living at it :). But do we really want to leave this to a policeman's whim, without due process?

Posted by Chris, Texas on May 8, 2007:

I suppose the judge could always sentence him to "humiliation served", but the case really should go through the system to decide whether his punishment has been sufficient or not -- and so that he has a record should he decide a repeat performance is in order.