I Want My Own Bird

Jay Honeck wrote:

Not in my book. Driving after drinking, unless someone forces you at
gunpoint, is just as intentional as any other form of murder.


How can you equate premeditated murder with a car accident while under the
influence?

I would hope that "criminal intent" still counts for *something* in this
country, or we are surely all doomed.

Because driving while intoxicated greatly increases the chances of
having an accident that kills someone. Driving after drinking is a
choice that is made. Getting drunk was a choice. So, you have someone
who has made a choice to engage in a behavior that has a significant
chance of killing someone. Sounds premeditated to me. Sounds criminal
to me.

That is no different that me getting mad at you and cutting the brake
lines on your car. You then go out and get killed because you can't
stop at an intersection. I may have only intended to scare you, didn't
really mean to kill you, however, the fact remains that I consciously
took an action that could result in your death and did result in your
death. I see this as being virtually identical to DWI.

I realize the law would probably consider both as manslaughter rather
than murder, but I still feel that is too light.


Matt

I would hope that "criminal intent" still counts for *something* in this
country, or we are surely all doomed.

I realize the law would probably consider both as manslaughter rather than
murder, but I still feel that is too light.

So what responsibility do the victims have here? The dead best friend and
the girl who was injured (whose parents are suing the hotel where the
wedding reception was held) apparently got into this guy's car knowing that
he was drunk, right?

Is there any personal responsibility here? Or was there no way for them to
know that this kid was loaded to the point of making a stupid decision?

Obviously this will come out in court, and this is sheer speculation, but I
suspect that her attorney is going to portray her as a victim who had no way
of knowing the driver was drunk. Which, if true, will absolve the hotel of
all liability, since how could *they* possibly know the kid was drunk, if
his own friends didn't?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

Not in my book. Driving after drinking, unless someone forces you at
gunpoint, is just as intentional as any other form of murder.


How can you equate premeditated murder with a car accident while under
the
influence?

I would hope that "criminal intent" still counts for *something* in this
country, or we are surely all doomed.

Because driving while intoxicated greatly increases the chances of
having an accident that kills someone. Driving after drinking is a
choice that is made. Getting drunk was a choice. So, you have someone
who has made a choice to engage in a behavior that has a significant
chance of killing someone. Sounds premeditated to me. Sounds criminal
to me.

Actually the person made two bad choices which without a doubt adds up to
premeditation.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:XdHbd.393727$Fg5.164566@attbi_s53...
I would hope that "criminal intent" still counts for *something* in
this
country, or we are surely all doomed.

I realize the law would probably consider both as manslaughter rather
than
murder, but I still feel that is too light.

So what responsibility do the victims have here? The dead best friend
and
the girl who was injured (whose parents are suing the hotel where the
wedding reception was held) apparently got into this guy's car knowing
that
he was drunk, right?

Is there any personal responsibility here? Or was there no way for them
to
know that this kid was loaded to the point of making a stupid decision?

Obviously this will come out in court, and this is sheer speculation, but
I
suspect that her attorney is going to portray her as a victim who had no
way
of knowing the driver was drunk. Which, if true, will absolve the hotel
of
all liability, since how could *they* possibly know the kid was drunk, if
his own friends didn't?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The hotel served or allowed alcohol to be served to an underage person.
Soon as they do that their fate is sealed and they only have to look in a
mirror to find the guilty party.

The hotel served or allowed alcohol to be served to an underage person.
Soon as they do that their fate is sealed and they only have to look in a
mirror to find the guilty party.

Total, utter crap.

Have you ever been to a big wedding reception? You know as well as I do
that there is a beer tapper in a corner, and a mob scene at the bar. In the
celebratory chaos it is child's play (literally!) for a 21-year old friend
to feed beers to an 18-year old at a wedding reception.

To hold the hotel responsible for the death of that boy is ridiculous, and a
travesty of justice. To send the victim's best friend to prison for 25
pointless years is even more of an injustice. What possible point is there
in sending that kid away for a quarter of a century?

At some point in life you just have to say "**** happens", and stop trying
to blame everyone for it. To equate this tragic accident with premeditated
murder is ignorant, and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the law.

THIS is why I despise liability attorneys, and everything they stand for.
They're not interested in justice; they're interested in cash, and they're
playing on a victim's desire for revenge in order to achieve their goals.

And everyone pays for it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:_9Ibd.250150$D%.247549@attbi_s51...
The hotel served or allowed alcohol to be served to an underage person.
Soon as they do that their fate is sealed and they only have to look in
a
mirror to find the guilty party.

Total, utter crap.

Have you ever been to a big wedding reception? You know as well as I do
that there is a beer tapper in a corner, and a mob scene at the bar. In
the
celebratory chaos it is child's play (literally!) for a 21-year old friend
to feed beers to an 18-year old at a wedding reception.

That in no way makes it right. The hotel assumes the responsability and
liability when they purchase a liquor license. They might get away with it
9,999 times out of 10,000 but that one time ends up deadly. They rolled the
dice and lost.

To hold the hotel responsible for the death of that boy is ridiculous, and
a
travesty of justice. To send the victim's best friend to prison for 25
pointless years is even more of an injustice. What possible point is
there
in sending that kid away for a quarter of a century?

Simple, he made at least two bad decisions that resulted in one death and
one injured person. The hotel made a bad decision by allowing alcohol to be
served to an underage person plus it sounds like they allowed him to be over
served.. All were conscious decisions with known consequences. He
consciously killed the kid same as if he held a gun to his head and pulled
the trigger.

At some point in life you just have to say "**** happens", and stop trying
to blame everyone for it. To equate this tragic accident with
premeditated
murder is ignorant, and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the law.

This case is premeditated. The kid made at least two horrible decisions
that resulted in a death. Your "**** happens" example results in 20,000
deaths per year in this country. The spirit of the law says if you kill
someone you go to jail. Are you saying the spirit of the law is to ignore
someone that gets drunk and kills someone? There were at least three
chances for the murderer and the hotel to avoid the tragedy. No one took
advantage of those chances.

THIS is why I despise liability attorneys, and everything they stand for.
They're not interested in justice; they're interested in cash, and they're
playing on a victim's desire for revenge in order to achieve their goals.

The kid going to jail has nothing to do with liability lawyers. It is a
criminal case. You gotta think if liberal Iowa sent the kid up the road for
25 years it is probably a pretty reasonable sentence.

And everyone pays for it.

That's right, we all pay for alcohol related traffic deaths. Sad thing is,
not much is done to prevent them. This is one case where something was done
to possibly prevent the guy from causing another tragedy. I only wish it
happened more often.

--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

All were conscious decisions with known consequences. He
consciously killed the kid same as if he held a gun to his head and pulled
the trigger.

That, Dave, is just plain wrong.

That dumb kid driver showed no signs of premeditation in his actions, and
he's effectively lost his life because of it. The hotel showed no signs of
premeditation, and (by all accounts) wasn't even serving the beer. (At many
wedding receptions, a member of the wedding party runs that tap.)

Yet the hotel owners have been bankrupted.

Drunk driving that results in an accident is a terrible thing, but to equate
it with premeditated murder (versus, say, manslaughter) is just wrong, and
(IMHO) actually diminishes the gravity of an actual murder.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Actually the person made two bad choices which without a doubt adds up to
premeditation.


I am no lawyer, but I do know the language. This is not premeditation. It
is complete lack of forethought, also known as negligence. Society has
decided that the two are differrent, and need different punishments.

Society has also decided that Dram Shop Laws are desirable.

IMO, The 25 years is too much. How do you, on the one hand, say that the
kid is too young to make a decision about alcohol use, but still say that he
is responsible enough to make a decision about alcohol use?

As for the dram shop laws, I would simply not engage in this business in
this way.

Jay, for your own sake. Figure out a way to avoid the liability, insure
yourself against it, or something. Perhaps you should video tape the bar,
and not allow an open tap. Of course, this means your bar tender better be
ckecking id's, and checking sobriety. Tapes cut both ways, but if your
example hotel could show that they did not serve this kid, they should be
able to get out of the suit, or at least avoid much of the damages.

Dude wrote:

Actually the person made two bad choices which without a doubt adds up to
premeditation.



I am no lawyer, but I do know the language. This is not premeditation. It
is complete lack of forethought, also known as negligence. Society has
decided that the two are differrent, and need different punishments.

Society has also decided that Dram Shop Laws are desirable.

IMO, The 25 years is too much. How do you, on the one hand, say that the
kid is too young to make a decision about alcohol use, but still say that he
is responsible enough to make a decision about alcohol use?

As for the dram shop laws, I would simply not engage in this business in
this way.

Jay, for your own sake. Figure out a way to avoid the liability, insure
yourself against it, or something. Perhaps you should video tape the bar,
and not allow an open tap. Of course, this means your bar tender better be
ckecking id's, and checking sobriety. Tapes cut both ways, but if your
example hotel could show that they did not serve this kid, they should be
able to get out of the suit, or at least avoid much of the damages.

The bars around here have a simple solution. Everybody holds up their
ID as they walk in and they get photographed holding that ID. So if you
are underage and committing fraud to get in the bar cannot be held
liable for serving you. They made a good faith effort to keep you out,
which is all the law requires.

"Dude" wrote in message
...

Actually the person made two bad choices which without a doubt adds up
to
premeditation.


I am no lawyer, but I do know the language. This is not premeditation. It
is complete lack of forethought, also known as negligence. Society has
decided that the two are differrent, and need different punishments.

Society has also decided that Dram Shop Laws are desirable.

IMO, The 25 years is too much. How do you, on the one hand, say that the
kid is too young to make a decision about alcohol use, but still say that
he
is responsible enough to make a decision about alcohol use?

I did not say he was too young to make a decision about alcohol use. It is
unfortunate the numerous older adults did not step in and stop his abuse.
Seems there are a multitude of guilty parties in a situation like this any
one if which could have stepped forward and prevented the accident.

I work for an organization that serves alcohol from time to time. It is a
major concern and anyone that does not understand the risks and liabilities
is not being honest with themselves. The web has some excellent articles on
dram shop laws. The law is pretty cut and dried and leaves no out for "****
happens."

As for the dram shop laws, I would simply not engage in this business in
this way.

Jay, for your own sake. Figure out a way to avoid the liability, insure
yourself against it, or something. Perhaps you should video tape the bar,
and not allow an open tap. Of course, this means your bar tender better
be
ckecking id's, and checking sobriety. Tapes cut both ways, but if your
example hotel could show that they did not serve this kid, they should be
able to get out of the suit, or at least avoid much of the damages.