So there is this girl at a bar

She comes in after lunch and there is a group in the corner doing shots and pounding beers, she knows the guys and tells them to be careful. The group tells her to fuck off, calls her a skanky whore, and laughs at her. She comes back in after work and the guys call her over. The continue to treat her like shit, tell her they have been drinking all day, make a reference to some drug use, but nothing specific. She tells them to call a cab and go home.
She has had run ins with the group before, a lot of the boys at the table are well connected, Police Chief fathers, local judges, etc. She ponders her options and does not take any immediate action. The go back to taunting her and her friends, so her group moves to another location.

The boys drink for a couple of more hours, pile into two Hummers and end up racing down a street then plowing into a crowded bus stop killing numerous people.

In a trial, how much time do you focus on the actions of the girl?

Sarah Palin Linked Her Electoral Success to Prayer of Kenyan Witch Hunter
http://www.alternet.org/election08/99118/sarah_palin_linked_her_electoral_success_to_prayer_of_kenyan_witch_hunter/

nt

If she knew they were drunk and did nothing to stop them, up to and including calling the police, she is every bit as responsible for those deaths as they are (in a court of law).

You just read the story. Is she just as responsible, in your opinion and in a court of law's opinion, as they are or isn't she?

gawd forgot to have them lose their keys in the parking lot.

However, she could be help accountable to a point. Likely not a conspirator, but certainly complicit.

Rather much like someone having a gun in school and you saying nothing about it, even though you know they have it.

There is no duty to call the police, except in some circumstances like a child care worker having a duty to report child abuse.

We all fail to stop things. If you walk into a restaurant and see an intoxicated patron, do you call the police? Do you report every crime you see? Failure to stop can't be equated morally with the culpability of the person who took the wrongful action.

The four waitresses that served the group?
The three bartenders that filled the requests?
The bus boys who cleaned up the numerous messes created by the group?
The guy in the bathroom who told a couple in the group to lighten up only to have them threaten him with bodily injury?
The valet who got the Hummers to the front of the bar?
The Young Republican Group who sat next to the group for three hours?

Where does she fall in the line of blame?

But if they were drunk and acting up, and no one bothered to stop them or even make an effort (such as calling the police) and you were injured...yeah, you might be able to make a case for culpability. I cannot say for certain. And it certainly would not be as responsible as the staff of the bar.

More likely fearful. I wouldn't blame her a bit.

for every asshole in the same bar that I'm in, and neither is anyone else.

But a good one could still likely prove you bear some responsibility. Though I will admit, I only know a small fraction of the story, so I cannot say with any certainty.

As as matter of ethics and morality on the other hand- responsibility certainly does attach.

People are now suing "Good Samaritans."

Although they don't always cover matters of recklessness or gross negligence. One case I can think of involved a drunken person who drug someone from a car wreck and caused a spinal cord injury.

If not, then no attention needs to be placed upon her at all.

the others, but the boys are still guilty.

Not until you see if she floats.

Seriously, is the implication that we (general we) are responsible for every random arsehole we encounter? That's painfully close to the Nazis telling everyone to turn in their neighbor for "suspicious" behavior. I don't get the point of the question, I guess. (Can you tell I concentrated on art and lit classes and avoided the legal and philosophical crap? :P ) The establishment that profited from this bender are culpable, but not other patrons, surely.

For that matter is the driver the only defendant? Or should the entire bar be called in as defendants?

Vehicular Homicide, just for fun we can add this:

The defendants were offered manslaughter, but claimed absolute innocence and went of TV multiple times stating their actions did nothing to cause the deaths. Their position is the new Mayor is responsible because he was reviewing the transportation budget. The bus that was supposed to pick up the people at 8:11 and didn't arrive until 8:12. (for some reason there was a traffic jam!) The accident occurred at 8:05, and the old Mayor was the Uncle of one of the defendants. Under the old Mayor the busses ran, on average, 8 minutes late.

And that girl at the bar, she works for the new Mayor.

radio station, but the DA is up for election in the fall, and there is evidence that GM used Korean steel in the Hummers to which one "Daubert qualified" expert will testify (to a reasonable mechanical and structural certainty) resulted in failure of the steering assembly in one of the vehicles, initiating the fatal carom off the second vehicle into the crowded bus stop.

If there's evidence they were "racing," the girl in the bar might be superfluous.

many diverging opinions on this in this thread when the law is extremely clear on the matter.

What are the criminal charges or the civil theories of recovery at play? If civil, do the defendant(s) have separate attorneys? There are a great many issues that factor into a decision such as you pose, all requiring the application of complex legal judgment tempered by experience and intuition.

Short answer(s)?

Assuming the defendants in the criminal action are the driver(s) and the charges hover around manslaughter or something like that, there is not much of a point to the girl's testimony unless there is an issue of proof as to whether the defendant(s) were under the influence.

In a civil action, she could play a significant role and her testimony could be very probative if the plaintiffs were attempting to hold the bar, or its employees, or others liable.

Never been a fan of laws that prosecute bars, bartenders and servers instead of putting the blame where it belongs.

She was obviously the only responsible one in this group... so give her a gold star!

:thumbsup:

Then left their proximity when they began taunting her and her friends. In light of the taunting, there is no reason to believe she could've done anything to stop them... and your story doesn't indicate any foreknowledge on the part of the girl that the group wouldn't take her advice and take a cab.

If you want her to be responsible, you'll need to add some foreshadowing to the interaction she has with the group of idiots. A comment about taking her out in a humvee... some comment like: "There's nothing like four wheeling after doing a couple of lines babe..." Otherwise, there's no way to blame her... as citizens are not required to read the minds of fellow citizens, nor to police them. Except maybe in the Seinfeld Finale...

Is she hot?

She is not smoking hot like Miss California, but she is attractive for her age, smart. She has some drawbacks as far as I am concerned, but if you dated her you wouldn't have to listen to twisted logic, although you might get details in bits and pieces.

pretty good analogy.

Drinking men with powerful families equals possible rape if antagonized enough.

n/t

Post 31.

n/t

I guess I missed something here, but is she a defendant for some reason?

Insinuating she is to blame, although it is not sure what she is being accused of, if the defendants are arguing they are innocent, not sure what crime she committed. In a strange twist, the focus seems to be on her rather than on those who are guilty.

Some girl in a bar has no duty relative to those drunk guys.

Relative to the CIA, yes, Congress has an oversight and regulatory duty.

In 2002, the Dems were in no position to do anything - they were in the minority, remember? By the time she'd been briefed, the Bushies had already started the torture sessions. Whether or not they actually told her is beside the point.

That is incorrect. You are confusing the duty to exercise lawful authority with the practical result of doing it.

She had every power to introduce legislation which would not pass, or to call for hearings that would not be convened. She did neither, sacrificing integrity and duty on the altar of expedience.

personal now for Pelosi and for all of us that's a very good thing. Her Italian side will flourish in this scenario.

She needs to go down for not stopping torture. Save your posts for the plethora of threads that are ripping into her.

Is she 11, 12, 13, maybe 14 years old?

It's not like she holds a position of authority or has any public duty to do her damn job and protect the constitution, is it?




Weak, weak analogy.

The guy who has the police chief father tells you that if you tell anybody they are going to drive drunk, his father will put you in jail for no less than a year.

And their running dogs at Huff Post and other liberal blogs should gather their torches and pitchforks and form an angry mob.

however, there are few, if any, laws that keep individuals from getting incredibly drunk w/in the confines of an establishment. There may be rules w/in the establishment, but are rarely enforced as the power of the dollar trumps the presumed power of the rules.

Once they entered their vehicles, they broke the law; once they turned the keys, they broke the law; racing down the street, law breaker.

This woman did not know they would do these things before they were done...she might have "felt" they were going to happen, but what cold she do, call the police because they "might" drive away?

These guys were stupid as sticks, they deserve to be taken to task for what they did, but the woman mentioned cannot be responsible for their actions. The owners, bartenders, waitresses might have been legally complicit in the situation, but not this woman. In fact, she tried to provide avenues of that would have avoided the situation...the people who committed the crimes are the responsible ones; all the woman got was harassment and denigration for trying to do the right thing. This is a travesty.

A third party is merely a witness at best.

She told them to be careful. They were rowdy and ready to fight. She had to move for her own safety. She knows the guys and assumes they have some sort of responsibility in them since they are so well connected. If it's a small town, calling the police might have caused her more harm than good (hind sight vision is 20/20).

The woman (I'm going to assume she's an adult, not sure why we'd use children in this analogy) is an employee of the bar. She sees the men are drunk. She has been explicitly told that the bar owner has authorized them to rape any women they see and run over them in their vehicle, and that the local police have signed off that it would be legal for them to do so.

The woman responds by serving them more drinks, she hands them the keys to their hummer, and chips in with everyone else in the bar to help pay for the gas for their hummer.

She speaks to police and the press about this on multiple occasions, never mentions that she was aware they were drunk, raping women, or running over pedestrians as a matter of approved policy. Every time they come into the bar after that, she serves them more drinks and buys them more gas.

Hope that helps clarify who is at fault.