Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

    Your Brother's Keeper » Eric Peters Autos

    Not sure which place as this is not a breaking story but has other connections so this seemed best forum.

    Where does my legal obligation to my fellow man end? Not my personal moral obligation but my legal obligation end. If friends drink and drive, what am I supposed to do? have a drunk tank in my house? How about at a bar? The Bars are obligated legally but am I as someones drinking buddy obligated? It is a tricky case and has many ramifications including chilling parties and get togethers no matter the age.

  • #2
    Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

    As the article states: This is a Soviet doctrine

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

      Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
      Your Brother's Keeper » Eric Peters Autos

      Not sure which place as this is not a breaking story but has other connections so this seemed best forum.

      Where does my legal obligation to my fellow man end? Not my personal moral obligation but my legal obligation end. If friends drink and drive, what am I supposed to do? have a drunk tank in my house? How about at a bar? The Bars are obligated legally but am I as someones drinking buddy obligated? It is a tricky case and has many ramifications including chilling parties and get togethers no matter the age.
      not necessarily. *puts on his devil's advocate hat* What triggers the issue here is that the kids were all in commission of a crime when the death occured. They were all parties to the same criminal acts. The rule of parties states that ANY party to a crime may be charged with the same thing that all other parties are charged with. Example: You rob a bank with an unfamiliar crew. One of them is the token insane new guy who opens up on the crowd. All of you get charged with HIS murders. Because you are parties to the same crime.
      In this instance, each kid was party to a) possession of alcohol by a minor b) minor in consumption of alcohol c) dwi. If the party owner was a minor or not makes no difference except if he is not you get to add contributing to the delinquency of minors to the list.
      Since the 2 boys were party to a-c with the dead girl, and the girl died while furthering the commission of their joint acts (she was driving them home which was why she ended up where she was, when she was which was why she's dead IE the commission of the crime itself is what led to her death invoking the rule of parties) ergo the boys may be charged under the rule of parties.
      This isn't THAT much of an extension of existing law (personal opinion sans hat would also be that this IS an extension and one that sets a poor precendent) and is arguably not an extension at all but the legitimate purview of the prosecutor and the court.
      As to parties: If it applies to bars it applies to parties too, though the argument could be made that if the party is BYOB its on the partygoer not the party owner (assuming the partygoer and owner are of age). But certainly a party where the host provides alcohol is quite similar to a bar though again arguments could be made that a bar has total control (you have to pay and they have to serve you) whereas a host doesn't really do that (pour every drink and keep a record of who consumes what which bars do do).
      As a host you should always have room for people to crash until sober, or a way to get them home safely. That is YOUR responsibility and duty as host (least that is what I was always taught as a matter of manners and politeness.) though it is ALSO every man's duty to look to himself.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

        That is an interesting case, especially given that the girl driving while intoxicated was not only a danger to herself but to society at large; she might just as easily have killed someone else instead of/along with herself. The charge for the boys is "reckless endangerment." I suppose the big question is whether one should be legally responsible when one's choice not to act recklessly endangers society.

        Would it be any different if the girl had been committing a different crime that placed other people in jeopardy? Instead of knowing that she was going to DUI, suppose the boys knew she was going to go rob commit armed robbery or plant a bomb somewhere? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, as citizens, we should bear some measure of responsibility to ensure the safety of the society in which we live. Where to draw the line is a harder question.

        As an aside, the link the OP goes a little overboard in hypothesizing about what the boys should have done and focuses on options of either physically restraining the girl (obviously a bad idea) or reporting her to the police (less bad, but also problematic). Less radical attempts to intervene would have included calling her parents or simply trying to convince her not to drive while intoxicated. It shouldn't be overlooked that, based on the order of events, at some point one of the boys must have handed her the keys the car.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

          Well, if we have to pay for everyone else's health insurance...

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

            Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
            That is an interesting case, especially given that the girl driving while intoxicated was not only a danger to herself but to society at large; she might just as easily have killed someone else instead of/along with herself. The charge for the boys is "reckless endangerment." I suppose the big question is whether one should be legally responsible when one's choice not to act recklessly endangers society.

            Would it be any different if the girl had been committing a different crime that placed other people in jeopardy? Instead of knowing that she was going to DUI, suppose the boys knew she was going to go rob commit armed robbery or plant a bomb somewhere? I don't know the answer, but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, as citizens, we should bear some measure of responsibility to ensure the safety of the society in which we live. Where to draw the line is a harder question.

            As an aside, the link the OP goes a little overboard in hypothesizing about what the boys should have done and focuses on options of either physically restraining the girl (obviously a bad idea) or reporting her to the police (less bad, but also problematic). Less radical attempts to intervene would have included calling her parents or simply trying to convince her not to drive while intoxicated. It shouldn't be overlooked that, based on the order of events, at some point one of the boys must have handed her the keys the car.
            if he hadn't handed her the keys to the car he more than likely could've been charged with either kidnapping/otherwise holding someone against their will or theft. The best thing would've been to call someone trustworthy and sober to take them home in the first place.... o wait you can't do that either School lawyer lied about &#39;arrest&#39; of girl suspended for trying to help drunken pal, attorney says | Fox News

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

              I wonder how much of this is the girl and her parents not wanted to accept responsibility for her actions.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                Your Brother's Keeper » Eric Peters Autos

                Not sure which place as this is not a breaking story but has other connections so this seemed best forum.

                Where does my legal obligation to my fellow man end? Not my personal moral obligation but my legal obligation end. If friends drink and drive, what am I supposed to do? have a drunk tank in my house? How about at a bar? The Bars are obligated legally but am I as someones drinking buddy obligated? It is a tricky case and has many ramifications including chilling parties and get togethers no matter the age.
                I had to look for several sources on this story to get a better picture of what did happen and what should happen now. This is going to be a tough case.

                There seems to be some source confusion here but it appears Modlesky was only driving when she was the last one in the car. They all seemed to be taking turns of sorts on who was driving at what point during all these drop offs along the way after the party to this terrible conclusion. The reason I bring that up is there was plenty of time to look at Modlesky and realize she (nor really any of them) could drive but at the same time had not driven yet.

                The most reasonable assumption is this case will probably come down to what is "reasonable" to try to prevent someone from driving who should not have been given that none of them should have been driving and not a one of them was of legal age to drink in the first place.

                The article seems to be written from the point of view of responsibility, but I think the opening line "In Connecticut, prosecutors are beta-testing a new legal doctrine: That a person can be held criminally responsible for the actions of other people" is a bit much. The reality is these kids all made a series of terrible choices that night and the result is one dead. Given what I can find on this case I think the answer is yes, these kids did not make a "reasonable" attempt to prevent Modlesky from driving. The alternative the article mentions is also a bit much. If a group of kids really wants to get keys away from a drunk there are ways to do things without it resulting in "assault, battery, and sexual assault." The question is did they try and if so was it "reasonable" effort to save that girls life.

                We may have to wait for the trial to get some answers here, and I do not think we know everything yet that this case will bring out in court. What we do seem to know from what I can find on this case is these boys trying to prevent her from driving. The defense is we are not sure if any of them were really sober and of sound mind to do anything. Again, they were all making terrible choices most of that evening it appears.

                All this being said I do not think this is just about Connecticut thinking everyone should be their brother's keeper. A bit of an oversimplification to make a political point, where there is much more to the case than the OP article hits on.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                  Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                  I had to look for several sources on this story to get a better picture of what did happen and what should happen now. This is going to be a tough case.

                  There seems to be some source confusion here but it appears Modlesky was only driving when she was the last one in the car. They all seemed to be taking turns of sorts on who was driving at what point during all these drop offs along the way after the party to this terrible conclusion. The reason I bring that up is there was plenty of time to look at Modlesky and realize she (nor really any of them) could drive but at the same time had not driven yet.

                  The most reasonable assumption is this case will probably come down to what is "reasonable" to try to prevent someone from driving who should not have been given that none of them should have been driving and not a one of them was of legal age to drink in the first place.

                  The article seems to be written from the point of view of responsibility, but I think the opening line "In Connecticut, prosecutors are beta-testing a new legal doctrine: That a person can be held criminally responsible for the actions of other people" is a bit much. The reality is these kids all made a series of terrible choices that night and the result is one dead. Given what I can find on this case I think the answer is yes, these kids did not make a "reasonable" attempt to prevent Modlesky from driving. The alternative the article mentions is also a bit much. If a group of kids really wants to get keys away from a drunk there are ways to do things without it resulting in "assault, battery, and sexual assault." The question is did they try and if so was it "reasonable" effort to save that girls life.

                  We may have to wait for the trial to get some answers here, and I do not think we know everything yet that this case will bring out in court. What we do seem to know from what I can find on this case is these boys trying to prevent her from driving. The defense is we are not sure if any of them were really sober and of sound mind to do anything. Again, they were all making terrible choices most of that evening it appears.

                  All this being said I do not think this is just about Connecticut thinking everyone should be their brother's keeper. A bit of an oversimplification to make a political point, where there is much more to the case than the OP article hits on.
                  indeed. and not well researched as the first line will tell you. The rule of parties has been long established in the law. People are charged with the crimes of others daily and have been for years. Its nothing new.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                    Originally posted by Wlessard View Post
                    Your Brother's Keeper » Eric Peters Autos

                    Not sure which place as this is not a breaking story but has other connections so this seemed best forum.

                    Where does my legal obligation to my fellow man end? Not my personal moral obligation but my legal obligation end. If friends drink and drive, what am I supposed to do? have a drunk tank in my house? How about at a bar? The Bars are obligated legally but am I as someones drinking buddy obligated? It is a tricky case and has many ramifications including chilling parties and get togethers no matter the age.
                    Yeah that's a tough one. I don't think it'll fly, but how do we keep drunks from getting behind the wheel?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                      This would be an easy case, even for King Solomon. And Solomon IMO would have decided as the courts of my youth would have decided around here, IF this would have even went to court. Which IMO, it would not.

                      You had a car of drunk kids. One kid dropped all the other drunk kids off and then being drunk she wrecked and killed herself. There is no case here, if we would only view some things as simple. Something close to this happened in 1965, with kids from my school. The poor parents buried their child and the other kids and their families grieved for what happened. It was not even in the consciousness of the town in which this happened to charge the others with some crime. And that is what makes us different from what came out of an earlier America which gave us the greatest generation.

                      Like I said an easy case for Solomon or anyone that hasn't lost their wits.

                      In the last show of Seinfeld, the cast was thrown into jail for witnessing a fat man being robbed, across the street, while Jerry and company watched it happen but didn't inject themselves. A new town law it seems. I reckon the writer wanted to add an absurdity to the final show. But these days what was ludicrous and absurd yesteryear is no longer. Does a society just go nuts in slow increments? And insidious creeping thing? I think so.

                      But given our never ending war on drugs, a war on American people for indulging in using something other than booze to escape reality for a little bit, nothing surprises me anymore. You kinda learn to stay sane as the nation around you goes belly up in its own. America has become that tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

                      You guys can debate this nonsense, the fine details of it and a legal system that is just as insane as the gov't. I will just see it for what it is, and read what you guys want to say about the nonsense.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        indeed. and not well researched as the first line will tell you. The rule of parties has been long established in the law. People are charged with the crimes of others daily and have been for years. Its nothing new.
                        It is relatively new, actually, in alcohol related cases. One of the first here was against the hosts of a party who allowed a friend they knew to be too drunk drive home and she ended up killing a kid. They got a conviction, although in that case I did not think they should have since the woman driver was a chronic alcoholic and put up resistance. it was overturned on appeal because of that. So where it stands now you have to make a "reasoned and directed" effort to prevent the person from being a danger to the public. The last part, as you point out, is not new. Man has been placed in responsibility for society is very old, "criminal negligence" date back to the time of the Magna Carta.

                        This case, I suspect, has some hidden aspects and I am intrigued by the host who too has been charged. Although the article reads as though the host is charged secondarily I suspect they are crucial to the case, for they were under age and if they were clearly drunk, then that individual has a giant criminal responsibility; what roll the fellow passengers played is, I suspect, in keeping with what happened before they got in the car.

                        This is not about keeping drunks off the road as it is about responsibility for under aged kids.

                        I bet there is a good grounds for a conviction we are not seeing, as most court test cases usually do have a very solid foundation, else they wouldn't bother.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                          Originally posted by jet57 View Post
                          Yeah that's a tough one. I don't think it'll fly, but how do we keep drunks from getting behind the wheel?
                          first make the penalties for doing so rather stiff. probation is not stiff neither are fines. jail time is stiff.
                          second: city programs that provide for safe rides FROM a place TO your home/friends home. IE you call me I come pick you up from the bar/party no matter if you're underage or not and take you to the address on your ID or your friend's ID.
                          You might also try lowering the drinking age at home but raising it for bars but that strikes me as needlessly totalitarian when economic incentives and stronger penalties would work better than an unequal law.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            This would be an easy case, even for King Solomon. And Solomon IMO would have decided as the courts of my youth would have decided around here, IF this would have even went to court. Which IMO, it would not.

                            You had a car of drunk kids. One kid dropped all the other drunk kids off and then being drunk she wrecked and killed herself. There is no case here, if we would only view some things as simple. Something close to this happened in 1965, with kids from my school. The poor parents buried their child and the other kids and their families grieved for what happened. It was not even in the consciousness of the town in which this happened to charge the others with some crime. And that is what makes us different from what came out of an earlier America which gave us the greatest generation.

                            Like I said an easy case for Solomon or anyone that hasn't lost their wits.

                            In the last show of Seinfeld, the cast was thrown into jail for witnessing a fat man being robbed, across the street, while Jerry and company watched it happen but didn't inject themselves. A new town law it seems. I reckon the writer wanted to add an absurdity to the final show. But these days what was ludicrous and absurd yesteryear is no longer. Does a society just go nuts in slow increments? And insidious creeping thing? I think so.

                            But given our never ending war on drugs, a war on American people for indulging in using something other than booze to escape reality for a little bit, nothing surprises me anymore. You kinda learn to stay sane as the nation around you goes belly up in its own. America has become that tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

                            You guys can debate this nonsense, the fine details of it and a legal system that is just as insane as the gov't. I will just see it for what it is, and read what you guys want to say about the nonsense.
                            perhaps the writer was trying to point out a sickness present in new york the birthplace of the bystander effect where people watched kitty genovese be repeatedly stabbed, raped and the murdered over the course of an hour or so in the middle of a public apartment courtyard as she screamed and pleaded for someone to help or call the cops.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Cain and Able, Conneticut thinks you should be your brothers keeper.

                              Originally posted by FearandLoathing View Post
                              It is relatively new, actually, in alcohol related cases. One of the first here was against the hosts of a party who allowed a friend they knew to be too drunk drive home and she ended up killing a kid. They got a conviction, although in that case I did not think they should have since the woman driver was a chronic alcoholic and put up resistance. it was overturned on appeal because of that. So where it stands now you have to make a "reasoned and directed" effort to prevent the person from being a danger to the public. The last part, as you point out, is not new. Man has been placed in responsibility for society is very old, "criminal negligence" date back to the time of the Magna Carta.

                              This case, I suspect, has some hidden aspects and I am intrigued by the host who too has been charged. Although the article reads as though the host is charged secondarily I suspect they are crucial to the case, for they were under age and if they were clearly drunk, then that individual has a giant criminal responsibility; what roll the fellow passengers played is, I suspect, in keeping with what happened before they got in the car.

                              This is not about keeping drunks off the road as it is about responsibility for under aged kids.

                              I bet there is a good grounds for a conviction we are not seeing, as most court test cases usually do have a very solid foundation, else they wouldn't bother.
                              i was referring to the concept in general and the line from the OP article that prosecutors are "beta testing" a new tact for prosecution. Its hardly new and its hardly a beta test. Alcohol has been included since I was a little kid IIRC which is plenty of time for this not to be "beta testing".

                              Apparently all the parties played musical chairs all night. And at some point someone had to hand control of the vehicle back to the young lady. Methinks they will all argue diminished capacity and plead out, and the party owner will get stuck with the shaft.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X