Hey Joe,

I'm really excited everyone is taking an interest in things, just kinda sad it took this to do it.

I want to offer some suggestions for the meeting coming up. If you ask some questions up front, I think it may offer some insight to the whole process and how this happened. There are some unanswered questions that might help explain to everyone why this happened the way it did.

1) How were Alexander RAs trained to handle alcohol violations? More specifically, was this RA ever instructed to do something like she did?

2) Was this a first offense or second for these students? This is very important. If it is a second offense, then the RA was most likely following orders to keep an eye on these students.

3) Have the student admitted to drinking in the dorms yet? Have they admitted to the pictures being real? If they did, the basis for most of everyone's argument just got shut down.

Here's where I'm at. I don't like the fact that the students were caught any more than someone else. However, without knowing how the RA was instructed to handle these situations, it's not fair to cause her harm or harrassment. Hell, it's not right to do it period. What goes around comes around--trust me, I know. The students each signed a document that I'm sure they didn't read when they moved in. Unfortunately for them, in NC you don't have to have read something for it to be a binding contract. So, Housing policy dictates that you cannot have alcohol paraphenalia (sp?) in your dorm room if you are underage. Period. If they admitted that they were in a dorm, and the pictures are real, ti doesn't matter what is in the containers. They broke the policy. If the RA was instructed to watch out for these types of things, she was only earning her paycheck.

Now, about how you all plan to handle this up the ladder. Go to the forum, but be respectful to the Administrators who are there, or they won't listen to you. The Board of Trustees will most likely receive an appeal from these students--assuming Dr. Stafford and Chancellor Oblinger do not overturn the decisions. However, in no way will a Trustee ever be allowed to speak with you on the matter legally, because they follow open/closed meeting laws very closely with appeals. They cannot give hint as to what they will vote, or what they think on the matter. Nore will a student besides the SBP be allowed into the meeting when it happens. Your best bet is to realize that these students did break policy, and Housing probably won't make an acception to the rule for them just because students dont' like getting caught for drinking in the dorms. Your best bet is to try to change the policy for the future. But let's be clear---policy will most likely be swayed by those who write the checks--your parents. Most students do not pay for their own housing on campus, and then you start to get into state laws after that. The University will have to follow state laws, and some laws dictate how Housing will change its policy.



Either way, I hope the meeting goes well and some questions are answered. Good luck for whatever it is that you all expect to happen.

11/2/2005 11:11:53 AM

I keep seeing people in this thread arguing that if you post a picture of yourself drinking you deserve to get busted. That was one case.

A lot of these students wern't drinking in the picture. A lot of them didn't post them by themselves. And by a lot, it could be most, i've heard a lot of this first hand, but i'm not going to pry into every detail and number, the point that matters is that we have students in the situation where someone took a picture of them in the hall, they were not drinking nor did they post any picture. They walked into a picture and smiled at the wrong time. Argue that they deserve that. Getting this voilation (or punishment as some are selling it) for posing next to someone holding a beer can. It's not even in question rather some of the people were drinking. Some big crime they've commited, I think they should be thrown out of the dorm.

The original technician article mentioned that 15 students were getting voilations for it. Later, the article this week mentioned that there were 9. Perhaps the less clear cut cases were taken out. This is my speculation.

We have at least some people with 2 offenses in question. that is fact. we have others with 1, i don't believe they have admitted to anything, they had a hall meeting with everyone present and it sounded that a lot of the argument that was used in that case was the validity of the evidence, I strongly speculate that no one has admitted to anything. We might even have a third offense case. Even if i knew something for sure, i wouldn't tell you guys, and then there's even more doubt with chaging numbers from the paper and all kinds of crazy stuff.

They wern't even conservative in this attack. It wasn't that they picked only people who were clearly underage, clearly drinking in their own dorm, and clearly posted it themselves. That is extremely damaging to their case. If it was as simple as a lot of y'all are arguing it, there might not have been as big of an uproar over this issue.


There are clear limits that needed to be set (and they may have already been set), the original actions of the RA were not acceptable no matter how you look at it. As a general issue debate, i'm glad they're doing this thing on Thursday. I'll make sure to be there.

11/2/2005 11:53:14 AM

Quote :

"it's a photo, it'd be an allegation, you would have to substantiate it with more sollid proof. you'd had no proof that it wasn't you who took the picture, told him to do it, told him he could borrow it, couldn't prove if he was leaving with his own laptop and yours was in it's carrying case in the closet. i think you get my point."

I think this is generally my opinion on this whole subject.

It seems to me that the photos shouldn't be able to be used as evidence, rather, they should be usable to warrant a search of the accused students' rooms. I mean, the university can search your room any time they want anyway, and it seems to me that these photos were pretty stupid if they actually showed the students in a dorm room drinking.

^ And, from what you're saying, some of the students weren't even pictured with alcohol in their possession. I'm not clear on the dorm rules, so I can't speculate too deeply, but I'd say that if the rules say you can't be in a room where someone is drinking, but it's proven that someone was drinking while you were in the room, you are indeed breaking that rule. That doesn't say the rule is fair, but you are breaking the rule.

If you're drinking in the dorms, you're breaking the rules, and you know that. I did it. Hell, I did alot more than that in the dorms Looking back on it, it was stupid, and I could have gotten caught. Luckily, I didn't.

However, if someone used a photo of me drinking in the dorms as an excuse to search my dorm room, shit, that seems fair to me. Using the photo to punish me? Hell, no. You need proof.

The fact that people are trying to equate something like photos of you drinking with photos of you stealing something or killing someone are missing a general point, namely, that there has to be real life evidence. The photos of you killing someone would only be admissible if the person was dead. The photo of you stealing a laptop would have to involve that laptop actually being stolen. That seems obvious, but to some of you, it must not be. In the same way, photos of you drinking should only be admissible evidence against you if someone actually has evidence that the alcohol was consumed.

If there's no way to take a breathalyzer or find the actual alcohol or prove that the container you were drinking out of contained alcohol, it's completely illogical that the photo could be used against you. Period.

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ,]

11/2/2005 12:13:14 PM

just a clarification: it's not that they were drinking, but that there were alcohol containers in the room with them.....although, I haven't seen the Ad Memo, so I can't say what they were specifically written up for

11/2/2005 12:47:39 PM

the problem is the precedent this creates.

now anyone can edit a picture and get an enemy in trouble

11/2/2005 2:45:37 PM

except in that case you can just produce the original

11/2/2005 3:02:53 PM

look at what i just found on google!

11/2/2005 3:04:34 PM

Quote :

"except in that case you can just produce the original"

not if you take the picture of them.... which wouldn't be too hard to do

11/2/2005 3:27:29 PM

ahhaha wolf2ranger

11/2/2005 6:10:41 PM

Thinking back to that videotape of soldiers in Iraq abusing the prisoners and whatnot, I wonder, don't we have a different precedent (within actual U.S. law) on using pictures and video in prosecution of victimless crimes and actual crimes to people?

How many rap music videos have you seen where someone was lighting up a joint or something? My impression was that we lived in a society where you can fregin broadcast something that appears to show underage people drinking or people partaking in illegal drugs, b/c it's on video, it doesn't actually have to be the drug. You can portray anything you want, I can post a picture of me beating my bruised and screaming girlfriend on my website, and it's no different than a movie showing such a scene. Unless she actually comes forward and says she was being beaten, isn't it sane to consider such items as just pictures until someone actually comes out actually having a problem, at which point the pictures can be used as valid evidence providing that they're not the only thing.

Do the police themselves go around and bust people for pictures of themselves doing illegal things just because they found them on the internet? They use the internet for leads, sure, but outside child porn and a few other extreme cases, there's no way they're going to use something just from the internet.

I know many people are standing on the platform that this is separated from the law (being just a action of housing), but a lot of arguments here aren't, didn't a representative of housing make an analogy to the case of someone using a picture on the internet of someone breaking into someone else’s car?

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2005 7:06:14 PM

^ yeah, that's what I'm saying. without actual evidence of some sort, a photo is just a lead.

11/2/2005 9:32:38 PM

^ yeah, I'm with ya, but now sit and brace for the onslaught of "this isn't the law, the university does things it's own way".

Something about this just makes me quiver from free speach rights somehow. Pictures are just information, more conclusive than words alone, but non-conclusive information, unless i'm infringing on someone's rights (those cases are plentifull), i should be able to post whatever picture i want, just like i should be able to write anything i want within reasonable limits (infringing on someone's rights).

If someone can get me for an infringement by a picture, why not from something i wrote in my journal. I don't think i'm a bad person, but there are plently of illegal things written about in my journal. It's EXTREMELY questionable to use that information to gain probable cause for something, and absolutley out of the picture to use it as testimonal from me when there is no other peices of evidence around.

erowid.com hosts personal testimonies from people who have gone to extremes with every major kind of illegal drug. If one of those individuals went to NC State and told a story set in the dorm room, there is no reason you can't accept the following pursue of write-ups by RAs if you accept the picture deal.
The housing represenitives argue that they were casually placed on the internet, and if you were clicking through it ordinarily, there would be no question as to rather they were altered or not, you have no reason to believe they were. If you accept that argument, it's the exact same for journals, we accept something as true b/c it's quite inconceviable that someone is sitting around and making this stuff up, espically when it comes in volume.

[Edited on November 2, 2005 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2005 10:29:03 PM

yeah...I wish TPC would post his story....short version: when he was a freshmen, he and his suitemates made a short picture story on someone's webspace of them killing their suitemate...the police thought it was real, and paul cousins did too until they brought the suitemate with them to prove he was alive

11/2/2005 10:32:29 PM

^ holy crap, that is insane. I can't believe that someone didn't check to make sure the "dead" guy was still alive before wasting all the time and paperwork.

11/2/2005 10:41:18 PM

^^ man that would have been a good time to get away with murder and frame some bastards too

11/2/2005 11:39:44 PM

Here is who we have for the meeting tonight:

University Housing - Susan Grant
Student Conduct - Paul Cousins
Campus Police - Jon Barnwell


The agenda I will post here:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jmsevits/alexander.htm

Bring friends and show support for those accused. Everyone should have a chance to speak and ask questions. I hope I'll see many of you there! 9PM, Senate Hall in Witherspoon TONIGHT

11/3/2005 6:36:07 PM

the teaser for the fox 10 oclock news said

"a judge sides with some underage drinkers"

or something...

11/3/2005 9:09:03 PM

that was in refernce to this

Quote :

"Judge Rules In Favor Of Duke Students In Underage Drinking Case POSTED: 3:55 pm EST November 3, 2005 UPDATED: 8:25 pm EST November 3, 2005 DURHAM, N.C. -- A Durham judge ruled Thursday afternoon that Alcohol Law Enforcement agents violated the rights of eight Duke students who had been cited for underage drinking. In late August, Durham police and ALE officers cited approximately 200 Duke students for underage drinking during the first week of classes after officers raided three parties at houses off-campus in the Trinity Park area. Earlier in October, many of the students cited agreed to pay a $200 fine, perform community service and write a paper about how alcohol affects the body. Eight of the students said their rights were violated and took their case to court. Defense attorneys claim the agents did not have a search warrant and did not read the students their Miranda rights. Agents had testified that they could not wait for a warrant because they were worried intoxicated students would leave and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. They also said Miranda rights were not needed in the case. District Court Judge Craig Brown ruled in the defense's favor and said ALE agents should not have been in the house without a warrant and they should have read the students their rights before questioning them. Mike Nifong, Durham’s district attorney, said he would review the ruling, but he doubted his office would appeal the case. Charges will likely be dropped against the students."

which is great to know that they need to mirandize you

11/3/2005 10:40:36 PM

I think its bullshit someone should write an article and put it on UniversityHumor.com!!!!!!! send it to staff@universityhumor.com gotta get the word out

11/3/2005 10:42:05 PM

wtf, buy an ad noob

11/3/2005 10:44:06 PM

what were the results from this meeting?

11/3/2005 11:17:12 PM

Some of you photochoppers should start a thread just for posting ps'ed pics of the offending RA. She deserves ruthless public humilitation from this point forward.

11/3/2005 11:20:14 PM

^^
meeting's still going on I think, I left approx 15 minutes ago

11/3/2005 11:21:47 PM

^ It cant still be going on, what the hell could they be doing in there?!

11/3/2005 11:33:53 PM

Quote :

"LETS CRUCIFY HER BURN HER AT THE STAKE"

UJustWait84 vs. Paul Cousins! The legal fight of the century!!1 Everything you post will and can be used aginst you in a court of law. Police state has come to NCSU!

This is the end of free speach as we know it.

[Edited on November 3, 2005 at 11:45 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2005 11:45:02 PM

^free speach? ended? oh no

so what happened in the meeting?

11/3/2005 11:54:29 PM

in the meeting we were fed a public statement that police as well as the heads of student conduct are currently reading what we write (we already knew this). That quote above was given in the meeting by the student conduct representitive along with the statement that the person who wrote it will be pursued, he wrote a "threat" on the internet.

it was also revieled by the all knowing power of student conduct that the only one who has expressed the correct way of thinking in this thread is rogueleader;

Quote :

"Anyone who was dumb enough to post pics of themselves drinking in a dorm underage deserves what they get. They'll get their chance to explain it to Paul Cousins and they'd better have a damn good explination other than "that photo is a fake." I'd try a good honest, "I screwed up, I'm sorry. I'll take the classes and the punishment. Don't toss my retarded ass to the curb." Along with a healthy dose of "Yes, Sir. and No, Sir.""

That quote was given as a closing statement to the question answering done by Paul Cousins.

11/4/2005 12:00:30 AM

are you kidding me?

11/4/2005 12:01:09 AM

hahahaha


whooo, lets go national with this. This thread will nevAr die!

11/4/2005 12:02:00 AM

Uh oh, UJustWait84's days are numbered

11/4/2005 12:07:30 AM

"in the meeting we were fed a public statement that police as well as the heads of student conduct are currently reading what we write"

Hahhah carte blanche for reading TWW at work and calling it research or something.

11/4/2005 12:16:11 AM

I say someone photoshop a picture of an administrator into a picture of an administrator snorting a line off a desk. Then spread it all over the internet (and around campus if you dare).

If that does not make the point I dont know what will.

11/4/2005 12:19:32 AM

what the fuck

paul cousins is a fucking douche bag

is that going to get me a CAT

o noes, he said something on the intarnets that he doesnt like

paul, two words: blow me

11/4/2005 12:19:57 AM

Seriously, what the fuck are these people thinking? This is ridiculous.

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 1:06 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2005 12:40:16 AM

Quote :

"I say someone photoshop a picture of an administrator into a picture of an administrator snorting a line off a desk. Then spread it all over the internet (and around campus if you dare). If that does not make the point I dont know what will. "

That was addressed. The statement was that student conduct has connections to experts in different places, so if there was question about the validity of the picture, you could bring it up, and then they would decide if it really was "51%" conclusive.

Also, the evidence used in these cases is "privledged information" and you're not allowed a copy of the picture you're being gotten for.


It's already not made the point, there is nothing we can do in this university to change the way they say it is, it has been like that forever. The message is that you should hide all information you have, just like they do. Because companies will be interested in seeing what you've put on the Facebook publically available. That was said tonight.
What's left is make people aware of the issue. We have already had news coverage of 2 local stations, and i expect more with the current state of things. People who work with the media often express the idea that knowledge and being informed is a check and balance of this nation. If it sounds rediculous, don't shut up about it. I'm wondering why i'm the only one posting the information from the thing tonight when the most relivant speaker representing the university held THIS THREAD in his hands and made multiple references to it. The fact that we can say stupid things here is one of the things that makes us who we are.

11/4/2005 12:48:25 AM

First ammendment.

11/4/2005 12:53:17 AM

yea wtf, why aint nobody tellin us what all went on tonite

11/4/2005 1:05:05 AM

man they charge our ass for everything else thank god they can only read tww

11/4/2005 1:11:38 AM

Jesus, this whole thing is rediculous.

11/4/2005 1:13:17 AM

i think the funniest thing is that another member on the committee of people that actually do shit for ncsu came out and straight up said the main person had this thread in her hand the entire time

11/4/2005 1:19:21 AM

^ what is that supposed to say?

11/4/2005 1:20:26 AM

idk dude its pretty self explanatory

11/4/2005 1:21:07 AM

mm glad to know cousins knows where the voice of the students stands


too bad the university doesn't give a damn

11/4/2005 1:25:15 AM

Quote :

"it was also revieled by the all knowing power of student conduct that the only one who has expressed the correct way of thinking in this thread is rogueleader; Quote : "Anyone who was dumb enough to post pics of themselves drinking in a dorm underage deserves what they get. They'll get their chance to explain it to Paul Cousins and they'd better have a damn good explination other than "that photo is a fake." I'd try a good honest, "I screwed up, I'm sorry. I'll take the classes and the punishment. Don't toss my retarded ass to the curb." Along with a healthy dose of "Yes, Sir. and No, Sir."" That quote was given as a closing statement to the question answering done by Paul Cousins."

wow, did he quote that word for word? If so I'm kinda sad I missed it...would be funny to see Paul Cousins use the phrase "toss my retarded ass to the curb"

11/4/2005 1:35:09 AM

man i'm glad i dont do anything illegal that could be taken in a picture

11/4/2005 1:42:37 AM

haha, that's cute that they're trying to intimidate people out of posting what they feel.

11/4/2005 1:42:50 AM

hmm wrote a letter to the news & observer, no idea if they'll cover it...

they did however cover this: http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2824646p-9273976c.html

11/4/2005 1:53:13 AM

i'd like to offer a proposal to all those administrators and faculty that read this thread:

i am available for hire to be your "the wolfweb" consultant

-good at gathering information
-fastest thread searcher and post stalker you seen
-can type good
-you know i'm credible cause i got over a 1000 posts unlike lurkers and alias's

11/4/2005 2:22:55 AM

well, you type well

11/4/2005 2:24:03 AM

^
haha

11/4/2005 2:29:24 AM