<p>
I don’t think the question is whether cocaine users are inherently evil people. Regardless of how you look at it, they are knowingly violating the law and need to accept the consequences of their actions.</p>
<p>"Unless they have had experience with the law or heard about such things, they are not likely to know what to do. Heck, I wouldn’t know what to do. I such a police whoosh that I would cooperate the best I could, and probably get thrown in jail for that respect I have for the law. "</p>
<p>kids dont watch cop shows anymore?</p>
<p>Did the cops not read them their Miranda rights? Had the kids not already heard of Miranda rights? At DARTMOUTH? </p>
<p>okee doke. Some here say, if youre gonna do coke, you need to accept the consequences. Well I dont know about that, but I would say, if youre gonna do coke, you should know more about the law than someone can learn in a 60 minute segment of a TV show.</p>
<p>If you DON’T want to know elementary legal stuff, well then, don’t do coke.</p>
<p>I think the interesting thing for me is that Aubart obviously has probably witnessed this kind of stuff for months, if not years.(underage drinking, marijuana , cocaine use,etc). That he did not report it until his future with law school, JAG , or whatever was secure is curious .</p>
<p>just to relay some information from Hanover:</p>
<p>1) SAE is not a notorious drug house, but probably, these few students were using. After seeing copies of the complaints and affidavits now circulating on campus, the case seems really weak. Documents don’t indicate that the police found any cocaine, just the eyewitness account of one guy with an obvious ax to grind and one girl who may be a spurned ex. Very doubtful the evidence rises to the level needed to get a felony conviction.</p>
<p>3) witness tampering? the idea that Aubart, older and with combat training, would feel physically intimidated by a student who is rather ordinary seems preposterous. The table destroyed as an act of intimidation? it was beer pong table, which usually consists of a sheet of scrap plywood balanced on two trash cans. Not an heirloom.</p>
<p>broetchen, perhaps it has escaped your notice that neither JHS nor I, both of whom you quoted, are students at Dartmouth? The assertion was that <em>among D students</em> Aubart was generally disliked long before this incident, while other vets and ROTC students were not disliked.</p>
<p>BTW, did anyone else notice that Aubart stated in his affidavit that he actually took down the composites he thought they were using from the wall and set them up on the table before the police arrived? He SET THE SCENE for the police??? I can just imagine a lawyer making hay with that in court.</p>
<p>Too bad those horrible entitled D students–you know, the ones with the dining hall jobs, like Shea? Kids with dining hall jobs are well known for their sense of entitlement–weren’t entitled enough to immediately run to Daddy for a lawyer. Shea seems to have come up with an “I don’t remember” defense all on his own. (Or maybe he’s just taking a page out of Ronald Reagan’s playbook… 
)</p>
<p>"The exact same thing can be said about alcohol. "</p>
<p>No, it cannot. Alcohol is not as addictive as cocaine, which is in turn not as addictive as nicotine. Alcohol addiction is strongly associated with heavy use. People simply do not get addicted to having one beer three times a week. Low-level use of alcohol does not lead to a craving to use more in any but the most genetically susceptible individuals. With nicotine, cocaine, heroin, and meth, that is less true. (Marijuana is far less addicting than any of these.)</p>
<p>Furthermore, the low-level use of alcohol is associated with positive health consequences. Cocaine has the potential to cause a heart attack even in a first-time user. I don’t think there’s a safe, appropriate way to use that drug recreationally.</p>
<p>The same drug taken in different forms may have different addiction profiles, too; chewing coca leaves is a lot like drinking espresso from an addiction point of view, even though it delivers the same chemical as snorting cocaine. Smoking crack or free base is more addictive than snorting.</p>
<p>Alcohol addiction is far more common than cocaine addiction in our society, and thus causes a lot more death and suffering, because early exposure to heavy drinking is almost universal. It’s not because alcohol is equally addictive as cocaine, meth, or heroin.</p>
<p>On the other hand, pot’s danger is overwhelmingly tied to its illegality. If it were legal, I’d be less upset about my teen using it than alcohol.</p>
<p>“the idea that Aubart, older and with combat training, would feel physically intimidated by a student who is rather ordinary seems preposterous.”</p>
<p>I’m no expert in the NH criminal code, but this kind of law is usually based on the intent of the actor, rather than the effect of the act. If you punch Evander Holyfield, that’s battery, even though it probably feels to him like a fly landed on him.</p>
<p>
True, but not the whole story. What some of you keep missing is that the consequences they are facing are not of their actions alone, but of their actions in combination with another’s. Yes, if they had made different choices they wouldn’t be in this trouble. But it’s also true that if Phil Aubart had made different choices they wouldn’t be in this trouble. So the fact that Lohse et al largely brought this woe upon themselves does not absolve Aubart of responsibility for his role in ensuring that they were successful in bringing it on themselves. He, too, had a choice to make. He could have said, “Guys, I told you once before not to do that **** in the common areas. I want it put away and all traces of it gone from the pool room in sixty seconds, or I’m calling security.” That would have been a grownup, brave, reasonable, and neighborly thing to do. Instead, he handled the situation in a way that I can’t apply any of those adjectives to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I’m vaguely aware of previous attempts to change the Greeks for the better. I think the prevailing consensus is the head-on approach was completely misguided - not to mention that whatever was being offered as a substitute for the Greeks would not come close to filling the void they’d leave.</p>
<p>If this is Kim’s plan - and you’re not the first person I’ve heard this from - then I hope it goes well, and that there is follow through to ensure:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>We continue to have social spaces where we can meet people in an informal, student-organized setting (all the alternatives offered to date have been very institutional, which drives people away);</p></li>
<li><p>There continues to be a place on campus which students and alumni can call home, and bond over.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, sorry for the wrong link. The relevant story is here: [TheDartmouth.com</a> | Fourth arrested after drug incident at SAE](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2010/05/25/news/arrest]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2010/05/25/news/arrest)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you’re referring to – the cops asked him about his relationship with a girl, and he said she “wants to hook up” with him. It might sound crude, but unfortunately that’s the college lingo these days. “Hooking up” is really not as crude as it sounds – it’s just a widely accepted euphemism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. I don’t remember anyone from Dartmouth saying things like this. A lot of the insinuations from students about Aubart’s motives seem to point at his wanting a leg up for a legal or political career - I don’t remember anyone linking Aubart’s military service to his actions here.</p>
<p>
Here’s the whole relevant passage of the affidavit:
If I heard that my son had talked this way about a girl he had been sexually involved with, I would be more ashamed of him than I have ever been in my life, or ever hope to be. I agree with JHS that it would bother me far more than to find out that he had been drinking or snorting coke.</p>
<p>Brooklynborndad, you haven’t been watching those cop shows carefully enough. </p>
<p>This is NOT legal advice. but…</p>
<p>The cops don’t have to give Miranda warnings to everybody they question. I doubt if ANYONE who was questioned in this case was given a Miranda warning. If they were, the polic affidavits would have explicitly said so. </p>
<p>Generally speaking, while some states give people greater rights than Miranda itself does , it only applies to people in custody. Which is one of the many reasons cops prefer to question people at their own homes rather than a police station. Note that the cop’s affidvait says that Brian Shea lead him to the SAE library and the discussion took place there. Shea’s not in custody. Reyes was questioned in her own dorm room. In her case, given the fact that nobody can say she was using, she may not have been a suspect either. If not, no Miranda warnings were necessary.</p>
<p>Some more nuance (fun to play criminal lawyer):</p>
<p>The affidavit makes clear that Shea and Lohse were both interviewed the night in question, but does not include any information from those interviews. I am going to speculate that they WERE arguably in custody then (Lohse was interviewed at the DSS offices), and also not Mirandized, and that the police had to take a great deal of care to re-acquire whatever information they got then (like, for instance, Koo’s name) in a non-coercive setting.</p>
<p>you are correct, I forget that Miranda warnings are only required when an arrest is made, and I also did not read the stuff here in enough detail to note that the questioning occurred prior to any arrest.</p>
<p>So its a good thing I don’t use cocaine I guess. I continue to expect that those who make the choice to use cocaine, first study enough law to protect themselves in a situation, that, if not routine, is certainly not so rare that it makes sense to be unprepared for it. </p>
<p>Look at the preparation we expect of young people before they drive a car. Is it too much to ask that they spend as much time in preparation before using illegal, addictive, drugs? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe she actually told him she wanted to “hook up.” You never know.</p>
<p>“Other members allegedly attempted to break into Aubarts room to urinate on his belongings, according to the report.”</p>
<p>By the way, this sounds like classic bullying. Does it matter that Aubart could take any one of the other individuals in a fight? They ALL despised him, we are told, and they did everything they could to let him know it. </p>
<p>Can we bring back the privileged and arrogant meme again?</p>
<p>“I continue to expect that those who make the choice to use cocaine, first study enough law to protect themselves in a situation, that, if not routine, is certainly not so rare that it makes sense to be unprepared for it.”</p>
<p>I’d expand that advice to people planning to commit any sort of crime, but as any criminal defense lawyer will tell you…virtually everyone talks to the police and makes statements that are used against them. The main exceptions are lawyers and members of the Mob. Everybody else talks, including career criminals and highly educated non-lawyers. I’ve often thought that this would be a fruitful area for legal research. Why don’t people know to shut up?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course it’s quite possible she did tell him that. I’m not denying that what he said might have been factually accurate, I’m just wondering why the cop needed to hear it. All that would have been necessary is “we’ve known each other for a while, but we’re not romantically involved,” or something to that effect. The cop doesn’t need to know who is and isn’t attracted to whom.</p>
<p>Really, if I were her and I’d read that affidavit, I’d have wanted to urinate on his belongings.</p>
<p>The young lady in question appears to have been a speaker on an LGBT Pride panel about being queer at Dartmouth. I guess she might fall under the B part of LGBT. Or the alleged attraction may have been in someone’s imagination.</p>
<p>He seemed like a fish out of water with these guys. How he hooked up with these guys to begin with is still a question?</p>
<p>"I’d expand that advice to people planning to commit any sort of crime, "</p>
<p>Well yes, of course. But I am not a criminal defense lawyer, merely a citizen and a parent, so I am not going to give advice to people planning on doing something that we all share a consensus should be illegal. </p>
<p>I am trying to define a position relative to our nation’s many admirable cocaine users, many of whom will go on to responsible careers in the professions and business. Somewhere in between “you deserve to go to jail, you frigging cokehead” and “Ooh, poor baby, the mean frat house manager called campus security on you, instead of giving you ANOTHER second chance, like a loyal brother should” </p>
<p>I think some reasonable expectations are in order. I think at least several weeks of study of relevant areas of the law are the beginnings of a reasonable expectation. Maybe some training in emergency medicine as well.</p>
<p>“Really, if I were her and I’d read that affidavit, I’d have wanted to urinate on his belongings”</p>
<p>I know I’m culturally different, coming from Brooklyn and all, but when I was growing up there was a range of ways of dealing with objectionable behavior, from a good reasonable talking to, to slugging someone in the mouth. Alternate disposal of one’s bodily wastes was not among them. Is this another mainstream cultural thing I don’t get? ;)</p>