I was watching a video of a priest who was pulled over in Ohio for drunk driving and proceeded to swear, rant and rave ("I'll give YOU the sermon on the mount"). It was akin to Mel Gibson's Jew hating, sugar tits rant. Although it had me giggling I was also shocked. Some of this was due to the nature of the rant but I was also uneasy with why the police are able to release these videos to the public. I guess we could argue that somehow releasing a video of some hammered moron embarrassing himself is good for society. There are enough crafty practitioners of the law who can argue convincingly that almost any scintillating detail of celebrity gossip or personal failing can somehow be taken as a cautionary lesson for the greater good of society.
Here are my questions: if contracts are declared void because the signer was intoxicated and if intoxicated people are also considered to be impaired from being able to consent to sex, then why is it okay to release videos of intoxicated people who are handcuffed in your jail cell and no longer in the public domain? Can/should a police officer arrest someone for being a danger to himself or others due to intoxication and then benefit from releasing a video of the person while in custody while he is still intoxicated?
Are there any legal eagles who want to break this down for me?
Here are my questions: if contracts are declared void because the signer was intoxicated and if intoxicated people are also considered to be impaired from being able to consent to sex, then why is it okay to release videos of intoxicated people who are handcuffed in your jail cell and no longer in the public domain? Can/should a police officer arrest someone for being a danger to himself or others due to intoxication and then benefit from releasing a video of the person while in custody while he is still intoxicated?
Are there any legal eagles who want to break this down for me?
Comments