Today's Evil Beet Gossip

Charlie Sheen’s Wife Has a Shady Past, But Don’t We All?

Brooke Mueller and Charlie Sheen

Another day in the Brooke Mueller and Charlie Sheen saga turns up yet another story and this one does not paint a pretty picture of Brooke at all. Turns out that back in the day (1996), Brooke was somewhat of a party animal and was arrested twice, once for a DUI and a second time for cocaine possession.

From E! Online:

E! News has learned she was arrested on two separate occasions: once for driving under the influence and causing damage to property, and later for possession of cocaine. (Both cases were ultimately dropped.)

The first charges came back in 1996, when a Palm Beach police officer spotted the then 19-year-old Mueller driving erratically. The car, which held three other passengers, rounded a corner and crashed into a road sign, knocking it down but managing to avoid any injuries.

Not to downplay the dangers of drunk driving and drug use, but who cares that when Charlie Sheen’s wife was 19 she did this stuff? Sure, it’s relevant if you consider everything a person’s done in their life when assessing their ability to parent or be a decent person, but if that’s how we’re making judgements, then no one’s going to cut it. No matter what Brooke put up her nose in the mid-90s, attacks on her character take away from the severity of Charlie’s crime. Holding someone at knifepoint can not be explained or excused because the victim is maybe a bad person or has done bad things in their life. If we found out Tiger Woods’ wife had some old DUI charges, would we excuse him having over a dozen mistresses? Probably not so much. Let’s not cloud the facts with irrelevant details, huh?

23 CommentsLeave a comment

  • Well the cocaine charge was from 2001 when she was about 23. It doesn’t excuse Sheen’s actions, but it does (coupled with the DUI from the ’90s) potentially support his accusation that she has a substance abuse issue. It’s obviously a contributing factor to the domestic discord in their home.

    Don’t misunderstand. Even if she’s an addict, that doesn’t give anyone a right to commit an act of violence against her. These newly unearthed facts just help shed light on the picture of the Sheen Mueller household.

    • The things you do in your teens and early 20’s usually are not a direct reflection on you in your 30’s, not to mention being a parent. I think to even suggest that she’s an addict at this point in her life is unfair.

      Mosst importantly, there had been nothing to suggest that’s done drugs in recent years (during her marriage to Charlie Sheen).

      • What about the afro headed kid I fathered in my 20s with some street whore I paid 100 bucks to for a quick piece of poontang? That’s still a direct reflection on me in my 30s!

      • Oh come on – it’s Christmas Day morning! Either you start glugging down champagne as soon as you get up, or you’re still hammered from the night before. 2x the legal drink drive limit is very low (unless you plan to drive a car, then it’s bad)

      • I still believe it’s unfair to say she because she was caught drunk years ago on Christmas morning, it can indicate a problem. Those DUIs could have been isolated situations. It’s bogus to insinuate that her past legal troubles in any way correlate to what recently happened to her.

  • I’m sorry – I’m still having trouble getting past yesterday’s Quagmire comment. I’ll never look at Charlie Sheen the same (not that I care for him at all – and in every photo of his wife she seems to be angry or yelling)…what a lovely couple.

  • this is off topic, but i’m really glad to see everyone has backed off of molls… i guess people just have trouble with change haha. and she’s proofreading her posts really well these days so there’s no longer anything to nitpick. sweeeet.

    • Not being a bitch, cause I never post on here about Molls’ writing, even when it does bother me, but I had to read this part over and over: No matter what Brooke put up her nose in the mid-90s, attacks on her character take away from the severity of Charlie’s crime.
      I think she may have meant to say attacks on her character DON’T take away from the severity of Charlie’s crime, but I had to read it a few times to figure out if it made sense.
      BUT I understand writing these things so quickly and frequently throughout the day lends itself to common mistakes.