Winsome, Lose Some: Felon’s Mugshot Goes Viral As Heartthrob

viralmugshotinternal1616This story is truly an insight into our often superficial society. Jeremy Meeks, 30, is considered by police to be “one of the most violent criminals in the Stockton area.” However, his mug shot has gone viral with tens of thousands of “likes” as people gush over his movie-style good looks. Many women cannot see beyond the high cheek bones and blue eyes to see those six felony charges, including gang crimes.

The Stockton Police have been inundated with admirers and the mug shot appears to have become the ultimate poster bad boy. I recall the same happening with the Menendez brothers.

Meeks’ image has been shared by thousands who are marveling at his dreamy good looks. One wrote “Momma, I’m in love with a criminal.” If so, it will be unrequited love if he is convicted. He was one of four men taken into custody during Operation Ceasefire in Stockton with four firearms. He is being held on $900,000 bail.

Source: Fox

55 thoughts on “Winsome, Lose Some: Felon’s Mugshot Goes Viral As Heartthrob”

  1. rafflaw – you do any criminal work? Every have a client that lied to make things better themselves?

  2. Raff, I believe he said it was a spontaneous attack in retaliation for the anti-Muslim film.

    1. Annie – that is going to cause some problems with Hillary, since she has been backing away from the anti-Muslim film meme.

  3. Wow. As someone said earlier, this hearththrob will be one popular fella in jail.
    Swarthmore and Annie,
    They must really be afraid of Hillary if they are still signing Benghazi! What did the captured terrorist say again on why they attacked???

  4. Karen S: Various laws have been enacted to exclude some types of evidence as being irrelevant. But the need to attack the credibility of a complaining witness is necessary to defend against most criminal charges. For a defense attorney to decide not to do that because he believes the defendant to be guilty is absolutely a betrayal of his professional obligations and makes him part of the prosecution team. Our system is premised on the idea that the most just result is reached by the prosecution presenting its best case, and the defense doing the same, and the jury making a determination after seeing both sides. When the prosecuting attorneys or law enforcement officers don’t fulfill their responsibilities because they believe a defendant is guilty of a horrible crime, we recognize their misconduct. How much worse is it if the defense attorney joins in.

  5. blhlls – it is my understanding that we already request not to allow things such as past sexual history, or other attacks on the victim. Even then, it can go hard on the victim.

    Accused get legal representation to negotiate the best outcome for them. Ensure they don’t get a raw deal or falsely convicted. That is justice. But is it justice to attack a child rape victim on the stand, try to break down her credibility, because if she won’t testify or crumbles the case might fall apart? Knowing that your client is guilty as hell? And is it beyond reproach to laugh about getting a pedophile off later?

    I have never liked that about our current legal system.

  6. Roy: Grim footage. The narrator explained that the officers stood on the driver’s side of the road. Bullets passed through him and hit her, in addition to those aimed at her alone. So she took more fire. Bad people come to sad ends, even if they are attractive.

  7. The defense attorney questioned the credibility of the alleged victim–most criminal cases involve doing exactly that. If we don’t want defense attorneys doing so in rape cases, we need to come up with some other system for those cases. Having defense attorneys pay lip service to providing a defense, but then not actually test the credibility of the complaining witness is not a valid option in many cases given the issues in the case.

  8. The story of Bonnie and Clyde…….Bonnie had more bullet holes in her than Clyde when it was over. Original footage….Roll it.

  9. Jeremy Meeks is representative of the more crude psychopath. The really good ones work on Wall Street and in high places in government:

    Therefore, both psychopaths and sociopaths are capable of committing heinous crimes; however, the psychopath would commit crimes against family members or “friends” (as well as strangers) and feel little to no remorse.

    The last main difference between psychopathy and sociopathy is in the presentation. The psychopath is callous, yet charming. He or she will con and manipulate others with charisma and intimidation and can effectively mimic feelings to present as “normal” to society. The psychopath is organized in their criminal thinking and behavior, and can maintain good emotional and physical control, displaying little to no emotional or autonomic arousal, even under situations that most would find threatening or horrifying. The psychopath is keenly aware that what he or she is doing is wrong, but does not care.

    (When You Are Governed By Psychopaths – 2). Both types of sociopath and psychopath are too common.

  10. Females have had a VERY positive effect on the previously all male medical profession. Women have not provided that same balance in the legal profession. Hillary put on the pantsuits and acted like men. Too many did the same.

  11. SWM, At least go and read the Daily Beast piece. My take is not that far from yours really. I have spoken here how when I was helping prosecute rapist back @ the time of Hillary’s case the pendulum was swung against victims. The vast majority of attorneys were males and they were vicious toward victims. Women were just coming out of law school and many were becoming prosecutors for that reason. I have mentioned several times Claire McCaskill worked for the Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office when I was an investigator there. She was one of those women. And, although I would never vote for her I tell people her campaign for sexual assault victims in the military is real. Hillary appears to be an attorney who bucked up like the male attorneys of that time. I saw those women also.

  12. @Karen S

    It all sounds so familiar, a high-ranking government official denying that mistakes were made in a terrorist attack. And an administration refusing to allow a full investigation into the terrorist attack.

    Yes, we have seen it all before, with 9/11 and the Bush administration refusing to fund the 9/11 Commission. Not to mention Ann Coulter, who called the 9/11 widows “witches” and “harpies,” declaring, “I’ve never seen people enjoy their husbands’ deaths so much.”

    There are few differences between the two major political parties.

  13. Annie, Someone brought Hillary Clinton into the discussion and you know what comes next……BENGHAZI!!!!!!

  14. Annie – how does anything on here turn into anything else. Goodness, you have been commenting on here long enough to know the answer to that. 😉

    1. saucy – you better move fast and nail down several of those site names. I am sure you are not the only one who is thinking this.

Comments are closed.