baller01 wrote:Plain and simple, it isn't substantial evidence. In this day and age, pictures mean absoutely nothing. How does a picture PROVE that a person was drinking or even there. Sure, 99.9% of the time a picture is going to be ledgit, but unless a cop came and gave you a breathalizer, or you were in a vechile with alcohol, something like that, I don't know how else you can prove for 100% they were there.
For all you people that don't agree with this, put yourself in a situation like this. Say your job requires you to stay out of bars. Some guy that is jealous of your business position finds a picture of some people in a bar and superimposes you into that position and you get fired. Now what do you think of the situation? A picture shows nothing. People say a picture is worth a thousand words, however, those words are not always the truth.
luvmy3gbb1wr wrote:baller01 wrote:Plain and simple, it isn't substantial evidence. In this day and age, pictures mean absoutely nothing. How does a picture PROVE that a person was drinking or even there. Sure, 99.9% of the time a picture is going to be ledgit, but unless a cop came and gave you a breathalizer, or you were in a vechile with alcohol, something like that, I don't know how else you can prove for 100% they were there.
For all you people that don't agree with this, put yourself in a situation like this. Say your job requires you to stay out of bars. Some guy that is jealous of your business position finds a picture of some people in a bar and superimposes you into that position and you get fired. Now what do you think of the situation? A picture shows nothing. People say a picture is worth a thousand words, however, those words are not always the truth.
Yeah, but i'm not an underage teenager.......quit trying to justify
baller01 wrote:Plain and simple, it isn't substantial evidence. In this day and age, pictures mean absoutely nothing. How does a picture PROVE that a person was drinking or even there. Sure, 99.9% of the time a picture is going to be ledgit, but unless a cop came and gave you a breathalizer, or you were in a vechile with alcohol, something like that, I don't know how else you can prove for 100% they were there.
For all you people that don't agree with this, put yourself in a situation like this. Say your job requires you to stay out of bars. Some guy that is jealous of your business position finds a picture of some people in a bar and superimposes you into that position and you get fired. Now what do you think of the situation? A picture shows nothing. People say a picture is worth a thousand words, however, those words are not always the truth.
dtvman wrote:baller01 wrote:Plain and simple, it isn't substantial evidence. In this day and age, pictures mean absoutely nothing. How does a picture PROVE that a person was drinking or even there. Sure, 99.9% of the time a picture is going to be ledgit, but unless a cop came and gave you a breathalizer, or you were in a vechile with alcohol, something like that, I don't know how else you can prove for 100% they were there.
For all you people that don't agree with this, put yourself in a situation like this. Say your job requires you to stay out of bars. Some guy that is jealous of your business position finds a picture of some people in a bar and superimposes you into that position and you get fired. Now what do you think of the situation? A picture shows nothing. People say a picture is worth a thousand words, however, those words are not always the truth.
These two statements contradict each other. Using your number I would say 99.9% of the time pictures mean everything. That's pretty substantial evidence. I still think an administrator would try to get more proof, but I think a picture is still pretty reliable evidence.
baseball wrote:dtvman wrote:baller01 wrote:Plain and simple, it isn't substantial evidence. In this day and age, pictures mean absoutely nothing. How does a picture PROVE that a person was drinking or even there. Sure, 99.9% of the time a picture is going to be ledgit, but unless a cop came and gave you a breathalizer, or you were in a vechile with alcohol, something like that, I don't know how else you can prove for 100% they were there.
For all you people that don't agree with this, put yourself in a situation like this. Say your job requires you to stay out of bars. Some guy that is jealous of your business position finds a picture of some people in a bar and superimposes you into that position and you get fired. Now what do you think of the situation? A picture shows nothing. People say a picture is worth a thousand words, however, those words are not always the truth.
These two statements contradict each other. Using your number I would say 99.9% of the time pictures mean everything. That's pretty substantial evidence. I still think an administrator would try to get more proof, but I think a picture is still pretty reliable evidence.
how do they contridict each other?? in the first statement he said that pictures mean nothing and the second statement he gave an example of that. the picture that was taken at the bar that the employee was superimposed in is an example a picture meaning nothing. if you only saw the picture it would look like this guy is partying it up at the bar when in reality he is at home sitting on the couch watching tv or something. just because 99.9% of pictures are legit doesnt meant 99.9% of the truth is in them pictures.
Hinsa wrote:I'm right there with you, dtvman. The statements DO contradict each other.
And I don't think any administrator is going to suspend someone solely off the basis of a picture. There would be an investigation and a logical decision made based on the weight of the evidence. Questions like "Where were you that night?" and "Who can verify your whereabouts?" will support/refute the photo. And trained investigators will know when someone is lieing when questioned - they watch body language clues and they can tell instantly if someone is telling the truth.
As for altering pictures, how many people have the skills to REALLY superimpose someone into a picture without being able to tell the difference? There are things like shadows, lighting angles, color variations, etc. that give away that a picture has been altered when you really examine the picture.
And if 99.9% of pictures are legit, that means that only 0.1% are fake. 99.9% accuracy would stand up in most courtrooms when supported by other evidence.
A question - have you EVER, EVER, heard of someone being suspended solely based on a photo that has been altered? I think we are arguing about a situation that has never even occurred.
baseball wrote:what i dont like is you guys who come on here saying stuff like " plain and simple dont do it"....does that mean you guys are all perfect. im not saying kids should go out and drink, i never did once in high school, but ill admit ive made mistakes. can you guys honestly tell me youve never bent the rules on anything? jaywalking, going 27 mph in a 25, not using a blinker, yielding insteading of stopping? those are all laws are you saying you havent done one thing wrong? wow i wish i was you guys.....
sportsmart wrote:baseball wrote:what i dont like is you guys who come on here saying stuff like " plain and simple dont do it"....does that mean you guys are all perfect. im not saying kids should go out and drink, i never did once in high school, but ill admit ive made mistakes. can you guys honestly tell me youve never bent the rules on anything? jaywalking, going 27 mph in a 25, not using a blinker, yielding insteading of stopping? those are all laws are you saying you havent done one thing wrong? wow i wish i was you guys.....
Not saying we are perfect. These are stupid comparisons. Everyone knows people sometimes drive faster and sometimes we don't use a blinker. Underage drinking doesn't even compare. Just compare underage drinking to jaywalking nice try though!
baseball wrote:sportsmart wrote:baseball wrote:what i dont like is you guys who come on here saying stuff like " plain and simple dont do it"....does that mean you guys are all perfect. im not saying kids should go out and drink, i never did once in high school, but ill admit ive made mistakes. can you guys honestly tell me youve never bent the rules on anything? jaywalking, going 27 mph in a 25, not using a blinker, yielding insteading of stopping? those are all laws are you saying you havent done one thing wrong? wow i wish i was you guys.....
Not saying we are perfect. These are stupid comparisons. Everyone knows people sometimes drive faster and sometimes we don't use a blinker. Underage drinking doesn't even compare. Just compare underage drinking to jaywalking nice try though!
They are all laws...why cant they be compared?? maybe i should use school related rules, cheating on a test, skipping class. plain and simple, dont cheat. go to class, simple as that.
balla45 wrote:I have wondered about this for awhile now so maybe one of you can tell me. Isn't everything illegal you do when you are a minor (under 18) considered confidentail information? If it is, is it not then illegal for the police to notify the school of any illegal activities you participate in, when the school is not directly involved?
I know, for example, of a person who got a MIC during the summer. The police then notified the school of this happening. Does that not violate some sort of confidentiality law?
baseball wrote:balla45 wrote:I have wondered about this for awhile now so maybe one of you can tell me. Isn't everything illegal you do when you are a minor (under 18) considered confidentail information? If it is, is it not then illegal for the police to notify the school of any illegal activities you participate in, when the school is not directly involved?
I know, for example, of a person who got a MIC during the summer. The police then notified the school of this happening. Does that not violate some sort of confidentiality law?
kinda like if they get a parking ticket, their name cant be put in the paper. or am i understanding the statement wrong,..
ndfan wrote:You guys don't think if that was illegal that cops aren't allowed to give this information that the kids Lawyers would know that and use that to there advantage? Just my thought.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests