Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: cassandra and sara's daddy on August 01, 2013, 10:42:40 AM
-
how many is too many?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-case-shows-bars-should-be-liable-for-drunk-patrons/2013/07/31/e5fc6974-fa15-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html?hpid=z2
-
Bull.
You want another one, get another one.
Wear your big boy (or big girl) pants when you go out on the town.
Life has consequences, and the only entity that can balance those is the individual.
-
Unless the bar serves liquor to a minor, IMHO the drunk himself - and ONLY the drunk himself - is responsible for any harm that comes from his actions while he's drunk.
-
its against the law to serve a drunk. usual defense is claim you didn't know. hard to do when you serve them 20 drinks
-
its against the law to serve a drunk. usual defense is claim you didn't know. hard to do when you serve them 20 drinks
Stoopid law.
"Drunk" will typically mean BAC of .08 or whatever legal limit is.
ONE Kiltlifter pint will do that.
Yet another law with no victims, only empowers the State.
-
Stoopid law.
"Drunk" will typically mean BAC of .08 or whatever legal limit is.
ONE Kiltlifter pint will do that.
Yet another law with no victims, only empowers the State.
didn't read the article?
-
Are you willing to give bar employee's the power to hold someone against their will and/or steal their car?
Then the drunk is the one responsible.
-
Are you willing to give bar employee's the power to hold someone against their will and/or steal their car?
Then the drunk is the one responsible.
serve someone 20 drinks?
hes in blackout
-
Eaton, a self-described alcoholic, was duly punished. He was sentenced to eight years in prison after pleading guilty to vehicular manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident.
Problem solved.
The bar isn't at fault.
Guy might live near by.
Guy might be using a cab, bus or light rail.
Guy might be from out of town and staying at a hotel that's close.
Bar has no business impeding someone that wants to leave their establishment. We have a word for that: kidnapping.
Eaton’s waitress cut him off about 10 p.m., when he turned argumentative. A manager offered to call him a taxi.
Sadly, Eaton declined the cab. And no one from the alehouse insisted or tried to stop him.
As any decent bar does.
He appeared intoxicated beyond what is allowed in polite social company. And got cut off.
They offered him a cab, he declined.
Shall the bars produce shotguns from under the counter and hold him at gunpoint?
WTF do you want?
“For me, the bar was liable,” said Angela Warr, Jazimen’s grandmother, who raised the girl from age 2. “They knew how many alcoholic drinks they’d given him. Someone should have said, ‘Give me your keys,’ or ‘Let me call a family member.’ Or they could have called the police.”
So some skag who is easily led by the nose by a lawshark is getting towed around by her emotions.
I guess we should all legislate from our feelings. ;/
-
didn't read the article?
Read the article.
Saw where customer was cut off, refused good advice, drove, and hurt another AFTER the last transaction with bar employees.
So, there was no victim from the interactions between bar employees and customer, hence, "victimless crime."
The customer did commit a crime, hurt someone, and is being punished. As he should be. The civil suit against the bar is just legal system lottery and we all end up losers if they win.
If the neo-prohibitionists get their way, I wonder (using their logic) if an auto dealer also ought to be held liable for selling an automobile to a drunk?
-
Read the article.
Saw where customer was cut off, refused good advice, drove, and hurt another AFTER the last transaction with bar employees.
So, there was no victim from the interactions between bar employees and customer, hence, "victimless crime."
The customer did commit a crime, hurt someone, and is being punished. As he should be. The civil suit against the bar is just legal system lottery and we all end up losers if they win.
If the neo-prohibitionists get their way, I wonder (using their logic) if an auto dealer also ought to be held liable for selling an automobile to a drunk?
Or sell a car to someone with a history of DUI problems.
-
Read the article.
Saw where customer was cut off, refused good advice, drove, and hurt another AFTER the last transaction with bar employees.
So, there was no victim from the interactions between bar employees and customer, hence, "victimless crime."
The customer did commit a crime, hurt someone, and is being punished. As he should be. The civil suit against the bar is just legal system lottery and we all end up losers if they win.
If the neo-prohibitionists get their way, I wonder (using their logic) if an auto dealer also ought to be held liable for selling an automobile to a drunk?
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/woodlands-bartender-first-task-force-arrest-for-overserving/article_c1b10607-707b-5c14-816f-470ccd712bca.html
-
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/woodlands-bartender-first-task-force-arrest-for-overserving/article_c1b10607-707b-5c14-816f-470ccd712bca.html
Texas has been screwed up by some sort of weird baptist fundie tendency towards prohibition.
Not sure if all of TX has this, but the Dallas area has something called a unicard. You can't buy a drink in a bar without having a unicard.
You must show your unicard and all drinks you buy are logged to your unicard.
I suspect that DPS has real-time access to unicard info.
Every time I went out when I lived there, I got a new unicard for every drink I had. Unicards are free, and doing that makes it that much harder to aggregate info at the unicard level. Sometimes I'd use my WA driver's license to get a card, sometimes I'd use my TX license, sometimes I'd use my passport. Completely breaks a relational database all to hell.
-
serve someone 20 drinks?
hes in blackout
Bull. I have had 20 drinks In 5 hours and not blacked out. Your statement is false.
-
Bull. I have had 20 drinks In 5 hours and not blacked out. Your statement is false.
Depends on what a "drink" is.
I went to the AZ beer fest last year, and we had a DD take us all in a van. Had this little 3oz plastic beer stein, and a book full of tickets for beer. Fill the stein somewhere, give 'em a ticket from the book. I think I had 36 tickets? Or 48? I don't remember.
I had 4 left by the end of the day.
I drank too much that day, but I also didn't drive. So it doesn't matter other than in the context of whether the bartender should be serving me.
I came to deliberately imbibe as much tasty beer as I could. Sobriety was not an objective.
Doing the same thing in September down in Tucson, going to beer fest down there. Staying at a hotel that night, the hotel is providing a shuttle for beer fest patrons.
Whose effing business is it how much I drink?
-
Iowa yes bars are liable for overserving a customer, or serving a drunk customer.
-
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/courier/news/woodlands-bartender-first-task-force-arrest-for-overserving/article_c1b10607-707b-5c14-816f-470ccd712bca.html
Uh, so?
Just because someone enacted a dumbass law doesn't make it right morally or logically.
Also, TABC is way out of control. They need to be culled of their more outrageous agents.
-
serve someone 20 drinks?
hes in blackout
Who got him there?
He did.
Im tired of "addicts" and "alcoholics" blaming everyone for their own *expletive deleted*it.
"MAN, AS SOON AS I GET ONE DRINK IN ME, I CAN'T STOP"
Then don't have the first one.
This *expletive deleted*it is the drunk's fault. If he gets to black out, it's still HIS fault for getting there.
-
Who got him there?
He did.
Im tired of "addicts" and "alcoholics" blaming everyone for their own *expletive deleted*.
"MAN, AS SOON AS I GET ONE DRINK IN ME, I CAN'T STOP"
Then don't have the first one.
This *expletive deleted* is the drunk's fault. If he gets to black out, it's still HIS fault for getting there.
The death of personal responsibility is the cause of almost all of the idiocy in todays world. Nobody is willing to own up to their actions for anything.
-
The death of personal responsibility is the cause of almost all of the idiocy in todays world. Nobody is willing to own up to their actions for anything.
Nailed it.
-
Nice touch, though... the posting of a link to an idiotic situation as proof that another idiotic situation is valid.
-
Costco should be held liable for people who buy their big ole bottles of vodka then drink too much and drive drunk. We really just need the NSA to install real time BAC monitors on everyone and call out the SWAT team when someone gets over 0.04. They're already monitoring everything but what we think anyway.
-
I am a big fan of the somewhat new local drunk friendly programs. The local bars and catering halls have free taxi service and even triple A offers free towing to drunks on the big holidays. If you are a drunk driver, its all on you. Endless opportunities to limit your own potential to harm yourself and others.
I never got the bible thumping prohibitionists given all the drinking friendly bits in the aforementioned bible. Give strong drunk unto him... :P
-
Here locally there are all kinds of safe ride programs
-
There have been lots of over-serving civil lawsuits in Washington. It is a well-established legal theory here.
-
Texas has been screwed up by some sort of weird baptist fundie tendency towards prohibition.
Not sure if all of TX has this, but the Dallas area has something called a unicard. You can't buy a drink in a bar without having a unicard.
You must show your unicard and all drinks you buy are logged to your unicard.
I suspect that DPS has real-time access to unicard info.
Every time I went out when I lived there, I got a new unicard for every drink I had. Unicards are free, and doing that makes it that much harder to aggregate info at the unicard level. Sometimes I'd use my WA driver's license to get a card, sometimes I'd use my TX license, sometimes I'd use my passport. Completely breaks a relational database all to hell.
I think Dallas is the home of MADD in Texas. MADD has had a lot of political pull in Texas in recent decades. I think we are starting to see some push back though.
-
Why should the bar be responsible for the actions of their patrons bad decisions or actions?
Perhaps a gun store should be responsible when a customer shoots someone?
-
Why pick on bars if you can't pick on the liquor store, the grocery store, the neighbor, the bottler, or anyone else who had a hand in a person having access to something they chose to misuse? Why not charge the car manufacturer, the car salesman, the DMV? Charge BVD for making the underwear he wore to go get drunk in. The gasoline supplier who produced the gasoline for his car.
Just how far can we spread collateral responsibility? I know the answer: just as far as a lawyer can see.
Generally, in gun forums, we find ourselves with folks who believe in the idea of individual responsibility.
-
Oregon law is that you may not sell alcohol to a "visibly intoxicated person". This applies to any establishment with a state issued license to sell alcohol (be it liquor store, bar, grocery store, or stop-n-rob). And yes, Oregon is a control state. I'm somewhat torn on this. It's not aggressively enforced, and it's difficult to prove in retrospect, but it has been used a couple of times here to establish civil liability against the bar in DUII crashes, usually in fairly extreme cases - I.e. continuing to serve someone that is stumbling blind plastere.
Recent example: http://www.katu.com/news/local/89368847.html
-
43 states assign some level of liability
-
43 states assign some level of liability
And it's stupid.
What's your point?
-
Why should the bar be responsible for the actions of their patrons bad decisions or actions?
Perhaps a gun store should be responsible when a customer shoots someone?
We have those lawsuits in Washington as well. Usually in the context of someone willfully ignoring BATF regs and selling to someone ineligble or a strawman purchase.
-
43 states assign some level of liability
It has been many a decade since we spent around 30 minutes discussing dramshop liability in Torts, but I thought I remembered that well over half the states had some form of dramshop liability. It is up to 43 now, eh?
-
Texas has been screwed up by some sort of weird baptist fundie tendency towards prohibition.
Not sure if all of TX has this, but the Dallas area has something called a unicard. You can't buy a drink in a bar without having a unicard.
You must show your unicard and all drinks you buy are logged to your unicard.
I haven't used a unicard in a decade. I got one in '03, used it once, and I haven't been carded at all since then. We tossed a bunch of our liquor laws here over the last decade. We just got liquor in Plano a month or two ago.
-
43 states assign some level of liability
Oh. So because someone passed a law, it's ok.
Right?
-
Oh. So because someone passed a law, it's ok.
Right?
if i knowingly sold a gun to some crackhead here where i live and he drove down rt 3 and hurt someone in your family would i be blameless? particularly if i voluntarily assumed a license that specified it was illegal for me to do so?
-
I don't always agree w/ C&SD... And while it rubs my libertarian side a little bit the wrong way, I think he's got a valid point in his analogy.
No one is saying that the drunk driver (or crackhead in his analogy) is blameless. In fact, I would say he carries the vast majority of the blame. But if someone is impaired, they may not have the judgment to determine if they have had too much to drink. And while I don't worry so much about the drunk's safety (ultimately, he's responsible for that), I do worry about the other innocent people that have to share the road with said drunk.
But my other side has had to go to too many scenes where the drunk is walking around not entirely sure that anything bad even happened, and I'm having to call for the Medical Examiner for the 17 year old who was coming home from their theater production. Or the single mom who was out working her second job to provide for her kids. Or maybe for the 8 year old who was just big enough to not be in a booster seat anymore.
So yeah. That side of me doesn't give a rat's ass for the rights of a drunk to get absolutely *wasted* in a bar.
-
if i knowingly sold a gun to some crackhead here where i live and he drove down rt 3 and hurt someone in your family would i be blameless? particularly if i voluntarily assumed a license that specified it was illegal for me to do so?
They cut him off
They offered to get him a ride
What more should they have done? Keep in mind that often drunks order from different servers to avoid cutoffs
What do you think they could have done differently
-
Ok. I think I missed the part where they cut him off. I think that's the end of their liability. In Oregon, that's the end of it. The case I linked to here was an instance where they kept serving her even after she was obviously wasted.
-
They cut him off
They offered to get him a ride
What more should they have done? Keep in mind that often drunks order from different servers to avoid cutoffs
What do you think they could have done differently
Yup, That's why when I worked bar security and cut someone off I also escorted them out. There's no point to cutting someone off at one bar only to have them wander over to the beer tub girl. And I was actively protecting my employer from liability by doing it, as FL also has laws against serving already drunk people.
That said, Being drunk is not a crime. If it were the bars would have some liability in that. What the guy does when he's drunk is his own responsibility. In this case, the bar did everything they were supposed to and still people want them sued. Bad things happen, and they aren't always a payday.
-
they served him 20 drinks before they cut him off
damn phone
-
if he had bar hopped to get blasted that would be different. they served him all the drinks
damn phone
-
I'm a little teacup, short and stout.
-
they served him 20 drinks before they cut him off
damn phone
And?
-
And?
damn phone
hard to claim you didn't know he was drunk for the last10. evwn moreso for frequent flier. there will be repercussions from abc board. hevk last time i had a license in md was more than 30 years ago and even in pg county they woulda whacked ya. the bar had a good lawyer
-
I remember a drunk driver homicide in the early 90's near Iowa City, IA where the family of the victim went so far as to sue Budweiser. They sued the bar, bartender, etc. I can remember if they won the suit against Budweiser, but they did win against the bar and bartender.
-
Quick calculator reveals that over a 5 hour period (usual gig timeframe for me), it takes me 13 drinks before I'm legally impaired.
Add to that the fact that often legally impaired people still function OK, and it's easy for me to envision someone in a crowded bar gtting their hands on 20 drinks
-
yup it happens all the time. if you tip well and don't cause trouble you can get away with a lot. till you kill someone and then it stops being cool real fast. before i retired i drank a fifth of tequila in one bar in a night several times. it was a running joke. i didn't have a car or a license though and lisa the bartender drove me to rehab.
damn phone
-
I used to routinely drink a bottle of soco in one night
Never drove after
Used to do a lot of other things too. Never endangered others as a result
No one is responsible for your over drinking but you, and if you get in a car after, no one is responsible but you
You missed the point of my post... I don't appear impaired until well past the arbitrary limits some places impose. Once they recognized his impairment, they cut him off
What, precisely, do you think they should have done?
Hard mode: no posting google links in lieu of an answer
Extra hard mode: no assumptions of facts not in evidence
-
I used to routinely drink a bottle of soco in one night
Never drove after
Used to do a lot of other things too. Never endangered others as a result
No one is responsible for your over drinking but you, and if you get in a car after, no one is responsible but you
You missed the point of my post... I don't appear impaired until well past the arbitrary limits some places impose. Once they recognized his impairment, they cut him off
What, precisely, do you think they should have done?
Hard mode: no posting google links in lieu of an answer
Extra hard mode: no assumptions of facts not in evidence
not serve him 20 beers
thats gonna be hard to explain away and i know its gonna cost em big
-
not serve him 20 beers
thats gonna be hard to explain away and i know its gonna cost em big
Objection
You're assuming they knew how many he had. I've ordered drinks from a bar, drinks from several waitresses, paid with cash. Busy bar, you think everyone is comparing notes on how many drinks an individual person has had?
I'll give you a tip from someone with experience in the industry ... The answer is no
You're focused on numbers, when numbers don't matter. Some people are slammed after five drinks. Numbers mean nothing. I could probably stretch 29 beers out over an average show night. I'd be drunk, too drunk to drive, but I probably wouldn't trigger any alarms with bar staff
I'd be willing to test this. You are near me. Lets do it
-
Answer me this. Once they determine he's drunk, how do they keep him from driving? Say they stopped him at 10
Or is your position that bars shouldnt be allowed to get people drunk anymore?
-
Objection
You're assuming they knew how many he had. I've ordered drinks from a bar, drinks from several waitresses, paid with cash. Busy bar, you think everyone is comparing notes on how many drinks an individual person has had?
I'll give you a tip from someone with experience in the industry ... The answer is no
You're focused on numbers, when numbers don't matter. Some people are slammed after five drinks. Numbers mean nothing. I could probably stretch 29 beers out over an average show night. I'd be drunk, too drunk to drive, but I probably wouldn't trigger any alarms with bar staff
I'd be willing to test this. You are near me. Lets do it
i got my first liquor license in pg county md on may 25 1978. had three in that county 2 in dc 2 in fairfax and one in montgomery county md over the next 20 years.
its your responsibility as a license holder to be on top of what happens in your place
when you get a name like mike the corona guy you are one of "those" customers. the kind that get to bend the rules since "hes cool". or he was till he killed that kid
heck i did three day blackout where i went to work i was "that " customer
lets not try to pretend we don't know what drives it
greed
i tip well enough that folks break the law and betray the folks they work for
and greed gets folks dead
how do you feel about the pill pushing doctor thats facing 95 charges in our area? including a manslaughter beef for someone down your way who dies using the pills she served up
-
She didn't force anyone to take pills
Crazy thought , but I believe that people are responsible for their own actions
Odd, I know
-
They were on top of it. They cut him off. They attempted to get him a ride.
-
She didn't force anyone to take pills
Crazy thought , but I believe that people are responsible for their own actions
Odd, I know
inconsistent not odd
did the good doctor not make a commitment to obey the laws under which she was licensed?
what is this method of determining which responsibilities are binding and which are not? is there a decoder ring?
i mean i have such a hard time reconciling a greedy doctor getting rich exploiting addicts with your ethereal "good"
-
Exploiting addicts
Lol
Addicts are weak. It's their fault they're addicts. As such, their exploitation is chiefly their own fault
-
Exploiting addicts
Lol
Addicts are weak. It's their fault they're addicts. As such, their exploitation is chiefly their own fault
ahhhh now we are getting some guidelines
so you support the doctor going ala carte on her legal obligations and responsibilities?
what other areas is this good for? in general or in your life in particular.
if she was treating your kid at the hospital and was impaired harmed her you would support the hospital having immunity?
-
And was impaired harmed her?
Are you drinking tonight?
To answer what I think is your question, no. I don't support the doctor. But , as I said, the person chiefly responsible for an addict being an addict is the addict
-
my questions that you didn't like?
did the good doctor not make a commitment to obey the laws under which she was licensed?
what is this method of determining which responsibilities are binding and which are not? is there a decoder ring?
-
my questions that you didn't like?
did the good doctor not make a commitment to obey the laws under which she was licensed?
what is this method of determining which responsibilities are binding and which are not? is there a decoder ring?
I never countered any of that. Of course she should follow the law.
Doesnt mean she's the origin of the situation.
No one forced the person at the bar to drink
No one forces a junkie to pop pills
-
my questions that you didn't like?
did the good doctor not make a commitment to obey the laws under which she was licensed?
what is this method of determining which responsibilities are binding and which are not? is there a decoder ring?
Strawman. Poor one. A doctor's professional responsibility is so astoundingly different as to make this a case of apples and sea urchins.
Furthermore, the good doctor intentionally participated in a criminal enterprise. The bartender did not.
-
I never countered any of that. Of course she should follow the law.
Doesnt mean she's the origin of the situation.
No one forced the person at the bar to drink
No one forces a junkie to pop pills
who forced the doc or the barkeep to break the law?
no ones asking the barkeep to take a manslaughter beef
-
You're not making much sense
You're asserting positions that I have never held.
The chiefly responsible person is the addict. If the barkeep hasn't served him , he might have gone elsewhere. If he hasn't drank, he wouldn't have been drunk at all. The person most able to avoid the situation, if he had any self control, is the drunk.
-
Strawman. Poor one. A doctor's professional responsibility is so astoundingly different as to make this a case of apples and sea urchins.
Furthermore, the good doctor intentionally participated in a criminal enterprise. The bartender did not.
the bartender did in fact break the law
and someone did die
-
the bartender did in fact break the law
and someone did die
So did Lee Harvey Oswald. We'd better charge the bartender with assassinating the president!
Put him in the doctor's lab coat lab coat and he's still a strawman.
-
So did Lee Harvey Oswald. We'd better charge the bartender with assassinating the president!
Put him in the doctor's lab coat lab coat and he's still a strawman.
so you acknowledge the bartender committed a crime now?
-
so you acknowledge the bartender committed a crime now?
No, I'm mocking your assertion that he committed a crime by suggesting that it has as much merit as charging him for the murder of President Kennedy.
-
so you acknowledge the bartender committed a crime now?
So did you the last time you drove 5 over.
Give the gas station clerk a ticket and fine the gas station for enabling you.
-
if i kill a 10 year old driving 5 over i get a better charge. md makes it a crime to serve an intoxicated person. the insurance companies have sucessfully kept dram shop laws away from the state.
damn phone
-
Just because there is a law against something, doesn't make it wrong (or the law right, I should say). Overserving laws are just another nail in the coffin for personal responsibility in this country.
-
when you make a choice to enter a regulated industry( get licensed snd all) what is the group approved metric for determining when irs ok to declare yourself above the rules you agreed to abide by. when is it "liberty" and when is it fraud abd shirking responsibility.
damn phone
-
if we are not going to believe that personal accountability has merit, why don't we take it a step further and blame the licensing agency, or the liquor producer?
-
the server has no "personal accountability"? in that county they actually are formally trained on law and what is and isn't kosher
-
but the state gave the license that allowed that person to serve alcohol. certainly they should know the failabilities of the human bartender's judgement, and require a patron to pass a breathalyzer test before getting served their next drink?
-
don't give em ideas. they have coin op machines in many bars
damn phone