Teen arrested for posting about his drunk driving on facebook

reply to post by roadgravel


He won't confess. He will plea out to something like hit and run or destruction of property. In all actuality they can't prove he was the one actually behind the wheel. He could say "Phil was driving" then Phil says it was someone else unless they have him on camera somewhere. It's up to the prosecutor to prove the charges not the defendant to admit to it. If he was smart he could beat it in all seriousness. Hope he doesnt see this.

Ehh I shouldn't say he won't confess I should say he probably won't have to because he will plea because he is stupid. If it was me I think I could beat it.

Serves the dumbass right.

I hate stupid teenagers.

reply to post by goou111


Serves this kid right! What i can't understand is how some privileged humans work in the mind when you go through school being taught right from wrong, how we get taught and showed results of bad doings but people still drink & drive taking the risk of not killing anyone.

I am all for privacy and the right to privacy but if you willingly breach your
own privacy then your fair game, they did not hack his account and find
a PM or something, this does not cross the line, there are times when
they do but this one is simply taking advantage of one of the worlds
dumbest criminals.......

it really remind me of those two fools who tried to yank an ATM out
of a convenience store by tying a chain to their trucks bumper, which
just so happened to also have their license plate on it, well of course
the bumper was ripped right off and then they attached the chain to
their trailer hitch and took off with the ATM, leaving their bumper in
the parking lot lmao needless to say it was not a tough one to crack.

Pointless draconian act. Unless they arrested the dude the next day where is the proof? People talk bull crap on FB all the time. No court in the land could possible convict or return a guilty verdict based on this evidence!

I recommend police scum chase down the pedophiles, politicians and bankers! You know real criminals not halfwits!

reply to post by andy06shake

Not sure about this one.
Is a public confession, not admissible as evidence.
Perhaps the burden of proof now lies with the self accused.
Although I don't know how the prosecution could counter,
the 'just kidding' defense.

the stupidity of the human condition never ceases to amaze.

i absolutely hate drunk drives with a passion and it's completely stupid to boast on a public website that you did but you gotta admit this is kinda scary.

i never really had an position one way or the other about all the supposed "security" because i've always felt.. i don't do anything illegal so if it catches "the bad guy" good for them but in an imperfect world where innocent people fill our jails and prisons mistakes are made and pressure for our first responders and the judicial system to get results no one is really safe and maybe it's paranoia talking but all you have to do is watch the news and "true stories", movies and tv shows about the topic and you'll know it's more fact than fiction.

reply to post by goou111


He will win in court because the police have no proof. They have no breath test or any other evidence. Even though the kid posted it that isn't proof.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


To you and other above saying no proof. The cops went to the guys house and noticed the damage to his car and they reported damage to the other cars in question. HIS CAR REALLY HIT THE CARS!! They can prove it did with paint and color matches along with the damage reports. The hit and run is in the bag or failure to cooperate with an investigation/harboring/aiding a felon (hit and run is a felony if his friend did the crime he will cough up a name or go to jail for harboring/aiding a felon) UNLESS the guy says he was lying and he was not driving and it was his friend or something and unless they have him on camera they may not be able to prove it. But like some of us said in ealier posts they may say since the fact that the evidence of the accident is true then there is beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver and he was drunk. Don't have to prove anything... Beyond reasonable doubt.

We will see how this plays out. I think I could beat it but this guy is probably too stupid unless he has a good lawyer. Few tangents this could take.

Please read the whole story and the post regarding it.

another meat head that made it in to the gene pool ...even his friends alerted police .

nuff said

Kid's dumber than a box of rocks.

From the original source article:

Cox-Brown was charged with two counts of failing to perform the duties of a driver. Deputy Chief Brad Johnston said the teen was not charged with drunken driving because the Facebook post is not sufficient evidence that he was intoxicated.

They know they don't have enough to nail him with a DUI, but they certainly do have sufficient evidence to get him for the two counts of failing to perform the duties of a driver - 1. he didn't report the accident

From the Oregon DMV:

www.oregon.gov...
Accidents in areas open to the public for the use of motor vehicles must be reported.

... despite how proportionately 'trivial' that charge is in comparison to an actual DUI charge.

www.oregon.gov...

DMV will revoke your driving privileges for five years if you are convicted of three or more of the following offenses within a five year period:
Any degree of murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, assault, recklessly endangering another person, menacing or criminal mischief resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle.
Driving while under the influence of intoxicants.
Driving while your driving privileges are suspended or revoked.
Reckless driving.
Failure to perform the duties of a driver after a collision

due to the extenuating circumstances in this situation, he'll likely get a pretty good fine & a firm 'slap on the wrist', at worst/best.

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

To you and other above saying no proof. The cops went to the guys house and noticed the damage to his car and they reported damage to the other cars in question. HIS CAR REALLY HIT THE CARS!! They can prove it did with paint and color matches along with the damage reports. The hit and run is in the bag or failure to cooperate with an investigation/harboring/aiding a felon (hit and run is a felony if his friend did the crime he will cough up a name or go to jail for harboring/aiding a felon) UNLESS the guy says he was lying and he was not driving and it was his friend or something and unless they have him on camera they may not be able to prove it. But like some of us said in ealier posts they may say since the fact that the evidence of the accident is true then there is beyond reasonable doubt that he was the driver and he was drunk. Don't have to prove anything... Beyond reasonable doubt.



We will see how this plays out. I think I could beat it but this guy is probably too stupid unless he has a good lawyer. Few tangents this could take.

Please read the whole story and the post regarding it.

edit on 6-1-2013 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)

Ok, so he gets charged with hit and run, but they have no proof that he was drinking. A friend of mine went through a VERY similar incident and got off on DUI charges.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


There is no such thing equal justice in the united states. Murder =\= murder. One will get 3 years the other life. It's a problem that will never be fixed

As Red would say to Eric on That 70's Show about this kid's behaviour:
You're a Dumbass!

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
Doesn't the 5th Amendment come into play here? He's essentially providing evidence and testifying against himself, can that be used in court?

NO.
the 5th protects your right to NOT self-incriminate ... in other words, your right to say NOTHING ... not admit your error in a public forum

10 to 1 says he'll plead "temporary insanity" ... ie, intoxicated and walk.

reply to post by goou111


Obviously...he was foolish in driving drunk and then writing about it on facebook.

I think that the attitude of a lot of young people currently is...(I can do anything I want and get away with it).

This young man is learning a powerful lesson in life...and I hope he pays attention...improves his behavior and chooses in the future not to drink and drive; and finds a way to turn this negative chapter in his life; into a positive.

just my opinion : but a post facto confession on farcebook is grounds for a DUI charge , to be charged with DUI you have to provide a breath , blood / urine sample that exceeds permitted limits - or fail a sobriety test preformed by a trained LEO .

" i was drunk " does not meet the evidenceary standard for DUI prosecution

however he did have an RTC with 2 vehicles - and confess to it - this confession backed by the forensic evidence showing that his car was involved in both collisions is grounds for prosecution

reply to post by goou111


As they say. You can't fix stupid.

I'm glad they arrested his sorry behind. Next time instead of cars it could of been people. Maybe the guy will get some help.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by goou111

 

As they say. You can't fix stupid.

I'm glad they arrested his sorry behind. Next time instead of cars it could of been people. Maybe the guy will get some help.

me to... Guys like this are the reason my 20 year old sons insurance is 180$ a month..

theres a reason we have a legal drinking age.. I think he should lose his license untill hes old enough to drink

Doesn't the person have to be caught in the act of drunk driving and such before he is even considered to be arrested?