FYI–There are campus cops at Alberta universities too, but as you might imagine because of Alberta’s legal age of 18, underage drinking isn’t typically among their concerns.
My thoughts…not that they mean much
- Obviously at a party, with others, with beer in hand = enough proof of drinking. Its a bit ridiculous to say otherwise, especially if the punishment is a fine. It does harm to judicial system not to allow and to have this fought
- At some stage I think there is going to be some amount of rebellion against the current “everything you do is fair game” meme. At some point I think people will go back to the idea that I grew up under of “ignorance is bliss” when it comes to people’s personal lives (meaning that people applying for jobs won’t have their facebook accounts searched) rather than the idea that stuff you did 15 or 20 years ago and posted on facebook is reason not to hire you.
I’d have demanded a jury trial. Let their third-rate Perry Mason just TRY to get me to confess on the stand.
Yes, I’m aware Perry Mason was a defense attorney. Don’t change the subject. This is an assault on liberty. No fourth-rate Atticus Finch is going to take away MY freedom of plausible deniability.
Yes, and you’d be convicted after about 10 minutes of deliberation and find out the judge might be inclined to throw the book at you for wasting everyone’s time when you were quite clearly guilty of the crime charged. No confession required, and you’d certainly need to take the stand and make up some sort ridiculous story about how it was a fake beerm which no one would believe.
Or perhaps you are being facetious and I am too dumb to realize it.
I have actually defended cases like this. Without a witness or two, no way a judge would convict or allow the charges to even go to a jury. Could have been taken in Alberta, could have been staged as a joke. Proof beyond reasonable doubt means more than a photo of what *could *be a crime.
Sure, it could have been taken as a joke. But isn’t that a question of fact for the jury? On what basis does the judge not allow the question to go to the jury?
But again, the defendent can’t just wave his hands and say “hey, it could be this, it could be that”. He’d need an actual story, if he says it was taken in Alberta, then he’d need a place in Alberta that looks like the inside of a U of W dormroom that he and all his room mates would’ve had a semi-plausable reason for visiting.
Plus there were witnesses in the pictures, his dormmates, who were also charged. Are they all going to agree to perjure themselves to get out of a 200 dollar fine. And I assume the penalty would be worse if he gets caught in front of a judge trying to lie his way out of the fine.
I don’t imagine dorm rooms look terribly different anywhere you go, and we certainly have a few universities and colleges in Alberta with dorms that would likely qualify. Still, you’re right: he’d have to make a case that that photo was taken in Alberta (or any Canadian province, since he’s at least 19, and legal ages in Canada are either 18 or 19, depending on the province); and unless he could prove he visited Canada at about the time the photo was taken, he be stuck.
On the basis that no reasonable juror could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had been committed. Just like you need a lab test to convict someone of possession of cocaine, you need an actual alcoholic beverage to convict someone that they were in possession of alcohol. These cases are sometimes thrown out because they the prosecution can’t prove the crime happened within the jurisdiction, can’t prove the age of the offender, or can’t prove the substance was alcohol. The accused doesn’t have to present any evidence on any of these issues. You could probably get a conviction if one of the buddies at the party said “we just picked up this case of beer, and I watched him pop one open and drink it in our dorm room on campus.”
If that happened, then a jury would have a factual basis to convict.
He doesn’t have to prove anything. If the prosecution can’t prove he was in their jurisdiction, case dismissed. If the prosecution can’t prove it was beer, case dismissed.
All they have to do is convince a jury it was beer, which would be relatively easy, since it was, in fact, beer. I would not find an attempt to deny it was beer to be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.
Social media sites are used by potential employers, law enforcement, credit bureaus and anyone else wanting to know more about people. What you say about yourself on a social media site may be used against you.
– Abraham Lincoln
And just to create a New Media version of the Catch-22, some employers will now assume that if you don’t have a social networking website profile that you’re an anti-social hermit who isn’t a team player, meaning you won’t get hired either.
How do you know it was beer? Isn’t the label hearsay?
I know it was beer because I’m not a retard. You know it was beer too. Who’s kidding who?
Vinyl Turnip is pretty much always being facetious. 
(Except when he’s not).
Diogenes, that’s not exactly due process of the legal system. Sure, cops, lawyers and judges know lots of things, but the whole system is dependent on people proving things.
Dammit! They’re on to me!
Can you prove it?
Thus proving, once again, that you are indeed, a retard.
Yes, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Denying it was beer would not pass the laugh test, and thus, not constitute a reasonable doubt.
Is there a person in this thread who honestly, sincerely doubts that it was beer?