Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Steve, Australia on May 12, 2007:

I'm not sure that it's right for the police to release 'photos like these of a "suspect".

If there was good reason to release a mug-shot prior to conviction, I could support that, but even when an accused is seen to shoot someone live on national television, in front of witnesses, they are still "innocent" until proven otherwise.

Therefore, I believe releasing these types of pictures oversteps the bounds of privacy.

For all we know, Cole could be a survivor of male breast-cancer, and they weren't balloons but rather medical dressings, and the wig was because he was suffering baldness due to the chemotherapy.

OK, We all know that this probably wasn't what happened in this instance, but until he's had his day in court and is proven guilty....

Posted by Jack, Wichita Falls, Texas on May 12, 2007:

Endangering children and driving drunk should be a punishable offense. Having such pictures published on the internet should be a violation of his rights of privacy unless ordered by a judge who has such authority.

If he could prove who first published such photos, he would have a very good civil case.

Posted by Shawn, Fort Collins CO on May 12, 2007:

Sure, the police might have dropped the ball in regards to privacy rights, but one would assume mug shots are public record with as many times as we've seen celebs on the news...they are public anyway, right?

With that, if it had been a person of at least some fame, and the pics had come from the paparazzi, would we even be discussing the double jeopardy question?

Yes, he should pay…he broke the law and got caught, therefore he should pay.

Posted by Connie, California on May 12, 2007:

How is releasing his photo any different then any other booking photo of any other criminal? Although, I'll admit he isn't against the height chart that you would normally see in a booking photo. Mason is a small town, policy varies from department to department, perhaps they don't take the photos against a height chart. Mel Gibson's mug shot wasn't against one. Criminals' photographs are released every day to news agencies and the general public. They are part of the public record. It's his own fault that his particular mug-shot happened to be in drag. Any embarrassment he suffered was brought on himself.

Posted by Lisa in MI on May 12, 2007:

This man was able to actually get behind the wheel and move his vehicle with a very high blood alcohol content. Since he intended to appear in public wearing that outfit anyway, I don't think that having the photos all over the internet is really any sort of deterrent to him behaving in this manner in the future. He really is a menace to himself and others, simply for the drunk driving charge.

Is he indecent? Not in my opinion. He's showing less than many women do at the beach. He does, however, not make a very attractive woman. Fortunately, that is not a crime.

---

Just more proof that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. -rc

Posted by Sean, Chicago on May 12, 2007:

When this happened it made the radio in Chicago and there were lots of callers. The main thrust was the courts should punish the drunk driving and the ridicule is punishment for violating the public trust, he was a fireman and most people hold police and fireman to a higher standard.

---

So, if he was a milkman it wouldn't have been OK to release the photos? -rc

Posted by J. Wellington Wells, Vermont on May 12, 2007:

I've long thought that "Aggravated Stupidity" should be a chargeable offense. This sounds like a textbook example of "drunk and stupid". Like an earlier poster, when I go out I have one drink of alcohol, then I switch to plain Coca Cola with a twist of lemon. That seems like a reasonable way to have an evening's fun watching pretty girls take their clothes off while not endangering myself or anyone else, and I get to remember that I did have fun the next morning.

All this fool gets to remember is that he made an utter ass of himself in front of God and everybody.

Posted by Garison, in Fla on May 12, 2007:

Re the "indecency" charge: they may have charged him with public indecency because they lacked a suitable public lewdness law.

That said, a leagal definition of indecency is hard to pin down, and often encompasses location and context as well as choice of attire. For example, a woman on the street in matronly bra and panties is "indecent", while the same woman at the pool in a Brazilian bikini is not.

Also, it's often the perception of indecency, rather than the actual fact, that brings the charges. Some while ago, a radio station in Massachusetts received an injunction against a publicity stunt wherein a chosen listener (female, of course) would parade through a shopping mall whereing nothing but a miniskirt and top made from the station's bumper stickers. That the woman would have been better covered than many who visit the mall was deemed irrelevant.

As to the piling on of charges: it's my belief that the police often do this as what I term "guarantee" charges. You could also call the "pasta charges": throw enough of them at the defendant, and one of them is bound to stick. In the above case, the open container charge is a slam-dunk, in case the public indecency and disorderly conduct charges are thrown out. By piling on the charges, the police are guaranteed to get a conviction.

Posted by Mike, Alberta, Canada on May 12, 2007:

I feel that the pictures all over the web and the charges combined might be a very effective tool to discourage others from ending up in the same mess. Fines, walking papers and jail time, whoopie doo. On the off chance that he has kids from a drunken encounter with a female, can you imagine the humiliation that this guy's kids are experiencing at school? (If he was married, he probably isn't anymore.) Humiliation is a great deterrent. The fact that he is a fireman sends out the message that nobody is exempt. Sure, he's a big loser, and likely won't learn anything from it - But others can.

Posted by Dennis, Boston, Massachusetts on May 12, 2007:

It has always bothered me that a majority of the population does not understand addiction. Since it is outside their limited experience they simply choose to think it doesn't exist. To state, "I go out I have one drink of alcohol, then I switch to plain Coca Cola with a twist of lemon" misses the point entirely. This has nothing to do with self-control. To ascribe his actions to simple stupidity misses the point entirely. Addiction and its concomitant maladaptive behaviors is far too complex to describe fully in the amount of space allotted here. Great volumes of research material is available to view on the web. It is a valuable resource. Use it to educate yourself.

Regarding the public humiliation of having one's name and image splashed across the internet: Change is only possible when there is sufficient pain, a belief that change is possible and there is a comprehensive plan for affecting change. Incarceration will not help this man. Treatment will. IMHO, the criminal justice system should request one year probation, loss of license (for however long law will allow), that he remain drug and alcohol free, that he attend self-help meetings (AA or NA) and seek individual or group counseling. The problem is not what he did but why he did it.

The people who seem to be complaining the loudest in this forum would also be the people who think it is better to incarcerate than educate. Punishment never works - by their own admission in their anecdotal evidence. We, in this country, seem to have this bass-ackwards. We would rather punish crime than educate for prevention or treatment. Managed care won't pay for it. The CJ system doesn't get points for preventing crime. It is a systemic problem and I see no light at the end of the tunnel. I am all the more frustrated because addiction counseling is my chosen field. Trying to change the world one person at a time is difficult. Trying to do it in a culture which seems to be fighting my efforts is nearly impossible.