It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sober vengeance on drunken killings?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I heard this case on the news today, and wondered what you all think.

A lady is suing the business that served alcohol to an intoxicated man who crashed into her car, killing her husband, and disabling her for life. And apparently, she may win.

The drunk happened to be destitute, supposedly, with no insurance and not even a license.

As I understand it, except in the case of a business serving alcohol to a minor, there is usually no legal recourse against businesses that keep on serving drinks to make those extra few bucks. Those extra few bucks cost lives every day in the form of drunk drivers killing people, and I just wonder what those business owners say when confronted with the choice of a few dollars over someone's life.

Gee, where have we heard this before? Lives for dollars. You kill em, and I'll take the money. Nice. Now I know all you who are avid drinkers may flame me over this, but dammit, I wanna know why laws have not been put in place to where people once they have been served say, 3 drinks in one visit to a bar, are not required to be tested or something before being allowed to drink any more?

Ohhhhh, cause the bar owners would put up a fight? Uh huh. And how bout that poor lady (horribly maimed) and her husband (dead)?

Life, to the dollar, means NOTHING in this day and age. It's sickening. Enough is enough already.




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
This is the practice here in Canada. YES, an establishment can be charged for continuous serving of alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated that then commits a vehicular crime. Any actually. Hell, you can be charged as a homeowner that allows the same. Have "cabs"411 on speed dial and everyone wins. Make profits and no one dies.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Hmm, well maybe something like that could work. It just seems like there should be some kind of test after a certain point. Many establishments have that same policy here, not to serve to the obviously anhebriated. It's those not so obviously drunk, who are still drunk, and think they can drive, that worry me.

Maybe I can get some links on this tomorrow, and it will be curious to see the outcome of this case.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Well I am against suing the establishment.

However, once an individual is noticeably inebriated, they should
have to do something like ask them if they were planning on dri-
ving, and if so, to please call someone to pick them up.

Oh, and assuming the fee's would'nt be to exorbitant, but was far
enough to require this, if the individual wasted all there money
on alcohol, and could not get someone to pick them up, and
would have to call a cab, the establishment should provide for
the fees.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
This is actually a fairly common legal concept.



Dram Shop

Dram shop liability refers to the body of law governing the liability of taverns, liquor stores and other commercial establishments that serve alcoholic beverages. Generally, dram shop laws establish the liability of establishments arising out of the sale of alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons or minors who subsequently cause death or injury to third-parties—those not having a relationship to the bar, as a result of alcohol-related car crashes and other accidents.

The laws are intended to protect the general public from the hazards of irresponsibly serving alcohol to minors and intoxicated patrons



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Of course it's awful what happens to the victims of drunk drivers. Of course bars should be aware of how far gone their customers are. But big business is not some scary guy with a cape and mask laughing at the expense of the little man. One human being served another human being too much alcohol. Could they tell it was too much? Who knows. Chances are they were just performing their task at work to get through the day, to earn. Does everyone do their very best each and every second on the job? I hardly think so.

Of course this sort of job takes on higher responsibility... but there are so many factors involved, at the end of the day I think that this tragedy is just that, tragic. I don't think in instances like this people are valuing money over life, I think they're just performing their duties poorly without recognizing the consequences.

As for some sort of testing device, I think it would be great to revolutionize the industry and safety in such a way. However, I'm not sure we're ready for such as a society. Where do you draw the line between enforced safety and stepping on freedom?

[edit on 1-2-2007 by Lilin]



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Back in Colorado a bar owner can be sued if a person leaves the bar intoxicated and gets into an accedent in a car. Not only by the victem of the intoxicated person but also by the drunk themselves.

in my home town one of the bars had their own drunk tank. (of sorts) if someone got too hammered they pulled them up into a room above the bar where they had several cots arround. the person could stay the night at the bar and leave in the morning.

deffenatly having the numbers of taxi's in your cell phone is the prefered solution. There are also towing services that durring hollidays will tow your car home for free after a party.

Driving while intoxicated has no excuse by anyone. Bar owners should be liable for letting someone out of their establishment after they allow them to get wasted.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
Bar owners should be liable for letting someone out of their establishment after they allow them to get wasted.


Well, I'm kind of torn on this issue. After all...if you go to a bar or buy liqour from a store, with the sole intention of 'getting wasted', then it's your own damned fault, and no one else should be responsible.

However, I do believe if it is in a bar with on duty tenders, they should be wary enough to realize that some people shouldn't have anymore drinks...But that's not always easy to tell...

So I'm still undecided...Like that helps this thread any...



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I am seeing some serious accountability issues here. It's like the people who were sueing the fast food companies since they were over weight. We are going to punish an establishment for providing a service that is openly advertised? An establishment that the individual entered under their own will. If it can be, beyond a reasonable doubt, proven that this place served the man time and time again after noticing he was overly inebriated, and then proceed to let him drive, then yes they are accountable.

If I go out and get a DUI next weekend, is the bar that served me to blame? What about the liquor store where I purchased the booze? No, because it was my decision to consume the alcohol and it was my dumb ass that walked to the car and got in it. Unfortunately for this lady, the decisions of this man has come with the cost of her husband. He is accountable for his decisions, and he is accountable for the death.

Blaming the bars is passing the buck onto someone else. We should not be doing this man the favor of blaming someone else for his actions. In an ideal world the bars stop serving when we begin to feel it, and they always take our car keys, but in reality it's not always a possibility. Bars are out to make a profit, and they expect the individual to be able to make a decision for themselves. Anything short of staggering around the bar is ultimately going to lead to the man or woman still being served. As for the car keys, I would hope that each bar has a system set up to get the keys from individuals. But if the man or woman is dead set on driving home, they can easily lie about how they got to the bar and how they plan to get home. A bartender can only do so much. At some point, we have to make a decision for ourself.

This one man alone is responsible for the death of this lady's husband.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   
chissler

Excellent post. You pushed me off the fence, so to speak. He chose to drink, he chose to keep drinking, and he chose to kill when he stepped into this vehicle. case closed.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne
He chose to drink, he chose to keep drinking, and he chose to kill when he stepped into this vehicle. case closed.


Driving under the influence is beginning to carry a stigma with it that should be avoided at all costs. The ramifications of our actions need to be considered, even when we may be inebriated. This man deserves everything that is coming to him and then some. Every finger we point at the establishment is one finger that should of been directed towards him.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
You have voted chissler for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

That was everything I wanted to say but about 10 times better than I could have put it. (Sheesh Chissler.....making me use a vote on the first day of the month!!! jeez)



IMHO It is a bartenders job to serve drinks...not to police the people who can't make responsible decisions. If someone isn't responsible to realize that "hey, I'm going to a bar and I'm probably gonna get wasted...I should make arrangements to get home or not drink at all" then they really have no business in a bar anyways. It'd be nice if there was a system worked out with the cab company, or even a couple of cars that the bar owns where designated employees would drive these people home. ( I am aware this raises insurance issues, but it's just an idea...)

The sad reality is, until chuckleheads like this guy realize they have no place in an adult setting until he can make responsible adult decisions, or a bar comes up with a system...we're going to have problems.



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Around the holidays my home town was running a program called, Operation Reindeer. It consisted of several volunteers who offered their service at no charge. If you were out at a bar, party, any social gathering and consumed any amount of liquor, you could call these people for a free drive to get home. A lot of people are too stubborn to pay for a cab when they could make it themself. This alternative allows individuals to get home at no cost while not having to drive themself.

Around Christmas we normally hear of a few DUI's being handed out and some years we even have a few accidents. This year I can honestly say I did not even hear of one single DUI.

We all need to be accountable for our own actions, but sometimes being offered some alternatives is sure to help. Placing the blame on those who provide a completely legal service is not the answer. The bartender's job is to serve alcohol, not babysit each individual and determine their limit. If someone is obviously passed their limit, they need to deny them service. Deciding the limit is not always an easy decision.

If the owner of a bar hears of their bartender refusing to serve people, they may leave their job in jeopardy. Which could in turn have their children coming home to an empty table. So from that perspective, maybe the owner of the bar is accountable for this man's death. What of the organization that provided them a license in the first place to sell alcohol?

Where does it stop?



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
When will people quit trying to follow a string back until some sucker pays them money.

Why not sue his parents for making him a drunk

How about the Cowboys for losing a playoff game that set him off, etc.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Tell ya what. I'm all for giving people enough freedom to people to kill themselves. No prob. The prob is though, that these same people have clearly shown that they can't handle it. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING KILLED EVERY NIGHT, EVERYWHERE, BY THEM.

So clearly something needs to be done to eliminate this problem, and retain what little safety there is left on the roads. For one, killing a person while DUI should be immediately punishable by death with no appeal allowed, and execution within 10 days after conviction. THAT might sober up a few more people. But just a few.

Next, the states could require that weight be taken prior to club entry, and a system set up to limit the amount of drinks served, per hour, and per night, based upon body weight. And that might sober up a few more. But just a few.

Next, the people that want to get that blitzed, should just stay at home. And that will definately sober up no one. Great! At least they won't be on the roads. If a drunk driver hits me critically and I live to tell about it, it will be from prison on a manslaughter charge.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I know in Texas (at least when I was last licensed to serve alcohol) that not only is the establishment liable for such things, the server is also considered guilty by refusing to serve one who is obviously "over the limit".

Granted - I worked in higher class establishments back then than the standard dive bar, but I'd think the law would apply - regardless.

And for an extra two cents -

I'd sue the man, the bar, and the server over a case like this.

No one forces a man to drink and drive, but places that serve should take their liability seriously.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
As with various locations cited in above posts, the law in Australia forces publicans to accept responsibility also. When patrons have consumed x-amount of alcohol or are clearly inebriated, the publican is required by law to cease serving the drunk any further alcohol.

In one well-publicised instance in Queensland, a male patron became drunk in a licenced establishment and walked onto a busy road and into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

The vehicle, driven by a woman at less than 40 kph, struck the drunk: it was unavoidable as he'd suddenly walked directly in front of her.

The drunk subsequently attempted to sue the driver, despite that it was obvious his injuries were his own responsibility.

The drunk appeared in court (an on tv news, etc) in a wheelchair. He was awarded in the region of half a million dollars.

There was a strong public and other outcry.

From memory, the female driver of the vehicle which had struck the drunk (or more correctly which had been struck BY the drunk) claimed if anyone deserved to be sued, it was the publican, who had testified in court that the injured drunk had spent many hours in his establishment, drinking continually. The establishment had continued to serve the drunk when it was obvious that drunk could barely provide his own name.

As consequence of the above case, publicans were advised that if they served to already drunk members of the public, such actions would be punishable under law.

Yes, it sends the wrong message.

But hey, the legal fraternity has for decades now imposed Frankist illogic on the world at large, i.e., black is white, right is wrong and vice versa, the innocent are deemed guilty, the guilty are deserving of sympathy, blame the victim, etc.

Most often, drunks haven't a penny to their name. So, accountable or not, THEY won't be reimbursing those whose lives they've ruined.

And GOVERNMENTS don't want to be held accountable for these situations, even though they are responsible.

So licenced premises, hotels, publicans etc. are forced by gutless, corrupt politicians to play 'nanny' to loser drunks and gamblers who REFUSE to deal with day-to-day reality and instead hide inside a bottle or within gambling-sustained fantasies.

Governments derive huge profit from gambling and alcohol. So it's a no- go zone as far as 'war on gambling' or 'war on alcohol' campaigns go.

In Australia, governments are even giving the green-light to poker machines within shopping centres and malls !

And alcohol is spared the gruesome warning campaigns of cigarettes. Yet how many cigarette-smokers, after smoking too much, turn in a smoker's frenzy and rape a child or beat a child to death or take a gun and blast their perceived enemies or crash their car into a family of four?

Thanks to conscienceless politicians, alcoholics are free to consume mind-altering substances and wreak havoc on populations at large and to consider themselves AND their actions as someone ELSE's responsibility.

Which of course suits the alcoholic down to the ground, because the reason they drink in the first place is because they refuse to grow up and take responsibility for themselves or their actions. They're spoilt children who sustain their childlike mentality via copious amounts of alcohol. I despise them for the UNIMAGINABLE damage they do to ALL those who are unfortunate enough to associated with them (workmates, colleagues, children, spouses, family, friends, neighbours, local police and numerous other victims of alcoholics).

Disgusting politicians only pay if and when someone THEY or someone they value becomes a victim of a drunk.

Politicians long ago made it clear that they have NO intention of sacrificing alcohol and gambling derived revenue in the interests of a better, safer society.

So, I made up my mind that if a drunk hurt or kills anyone I value, I will exact my own punishment, in proportion to the damage inflicted. That keeps me sane in this increasingly INsane, Frankist-ravaged society.




top topics



 
0

log in

join