Victims Father wants zero tolerance

[turbodish]

The KIA wouldn't have made it 2 blocks down the road. Hard to kill your friends that way.

In all seriousness it might not have made a difference but its similar to why a new rider riding a honda rebel and one riding a GSXR-1K are in 2 very different risk categories. Its easier to get yourself in too deep the more horses you have and also its easier to turn simple lapses of judgement deadly. Give a young kid a crappy car and a sports car and see how it effects attitude and the way they drive.

Agreed, but heavy alcohol consumption tends to level out the vehicle playing field when it comes to killing yourself or others in that vehicle.

As far as attitude goes, some of the worst drivers I've seen were the owners of absolute crapwagons desperate to show the guys in the fast cars that they could be fast too.

[Duster929]

I understand the legal issues around this. But I still think it's a lot of after-the-fact willful blindness. I think it's a cute little legal concept, like the speed limit, that gets applied inconsistently, and usually only after something horrible has gone wrong.

If it is against the law to serve alcohol to someone who appears intoxicated, then every bar should lose their liquor license with alarming regularity. I'm no trained bartender, and I'm no trained police officer, but even with my untrained eye, I see drunk people drinking in bars almost every time I go into one. Heck, sometimes that drunk person is me. And you can go down to Queen & John on any weekend night and make a list of all the bars that should lose their licenses.

I've been drunk and visibly intoxicated a number of times in my life. I've never been cut off or refused a drink.

I know the law, I know the rules, but I don't think it's fair to pick and choose when they should be enforced. If it's illegal to serve a drink to a drunk person, then it should be illegal all the time, not just when a rich kid kills his friends and his father complains to politicians about it.

And if we're not prepared to enforce a law consistently and regularly, then the law needs to be changed.

--- D

[AdRath]

I understand the legal issues around this. But I still think it's a lot of after-the-fact willful blindness. I think it's a cute little legal concept, like the speed limit, that gets applied inconsistently, and usually only after something horrible has gone wrong.

If it is against the law to serve alcohol to someone who appears intoxicated, then every bar should lose their liquor license with alarming regularity. I'm no trained bartender, and I'm no trained police officer, but even with my untrained eye, I see drunk people drinking in bars almost every time I go into one. Heck, sometimes that drunk person is me. And you can go down to Queen & John on any weekend night and make a list of all the bars that should lose their licenses.

I've been drunk and visibly intoxicated a number of times in my life. I've never been cut off or refused a drink.

I know the law, I know the rules, but I don't think it's fair to pick and choose when they should be enforced. If it's illegal to serve a drink to a drunk person, then it should be illegal all the time, not just when a rich kid kills his friends and his father complains to politicians about it.

And if we're not prepared to enforce a law consistently and regularly, then the law needs to be changed.

--- D

Very well said.

[type_s kid]

I understand the legal issues around this. But I still think it's a lot of after-the-fact willful blindness. I think it's a cute little legal concept, like the speed limit, that gets applied inconsistently, and usually only after something horrible has gone wrong.

If it is against the law to serve alcohol to someone who appears intoxicated, then every bar should lose their liquor license with alarming regularity. I'm no trained bartender, and I'm no trained police officer, but even with my untrained eye, I see drunk people drinking in bars almost every time I go into one. Heck, sometimes that drunk person is me. And you can go down to Queen & John on any weekend night and make a list of all the bars that should lose their licenses.

I've been drunk and visibly intoxicated a number of times in my life. I've never been cut off or refused a drink.

I know the law, I know the rules, but I don't think it's fair to pick and choose when they should be enforced. If it's illegal to serve a drink to a drunk person, then it should be illegal all the time, not just when a rich kid kills his friends and his father complains to politicians about it.

And if we're not prepared to enforce a law consistently and regularly, then the law needs to be changed.

--- D

VERY VERY well said !!!!!!

[turbodish]

I know the law, I know the rules, but I don't think it's fair to pick and choose when they should be enforced. If it's illegal to serve a drink to a drunk person, then it should be illegal all the time, not just when a rich kid kills his friends and his father complains to politicians about it.

And if we're not prepared to enforce a law consistently and regularly, then the law needs to be changed.

I read about liquor licenses being revoked from time to time even without being instigated because of a fatality, and warnings, fines and temporary suspensions happen frequently. Check out this page: http://www.agco.on.ca/en/f.hearings/f3.decision.html

I think that the laws are being reasonably enforced to the degree possible with the number of available liquor inspectors, but unless you're going to have an inpector in each and every bar all of the time, there is certainly going to be a little playing of the odds by bar owners and staff. After all, higher liquor sales mean more money for the owner, more work hours and tips for the staff, and the line between drunk and sober can be a very fuzzy one to determine in a bar setting.

That said, any incident resulting in death or serious injury is headed right to the front of the list as far as investigative priorities are concerned, and the wealth or lack thereof of the victims doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

I'll bet you didn't hear about this one:

Jun 25, 2009 By:
Sudbury Northern Life




Cranky Joe's in Hanmer was issued an interim liquor license suspension June 24 because the bar allegedly over-served alcohol to the suspect in an incident last weekend which led to the deaths of three teens, who were hit by a car.

The license suspension was issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

“As soon as we had been advised of the incident (on Sunday), and that there may be a connection between the driver of the accident and having been over-served by Cranky Joe's, we were in touch with the Sudbury police,” said commission spokesperson Lisa Murray.

“They provided us with information that they'd collected during the course of their investigation.”

Const. Bert Lapalme of the Greater Sudbury Police Service said he was “sure (Cranky Joe's) will be a part of the investigation,” if the bar “comes into the picture.”

“What investigators do in a matter like this is they try to retrace steps taken by the person that is charged with impaired driving,” Lapalme said. “And if there are establishments, or there are individuals that might have played a role in the whole process, that certainly will be followed up.”

Before suspending the licence, the commission “would have” carried out their own investigation, which involved speaking with people who had been at the bar on the night of the accident, including staff and other patrons, according to Murray.

The commission also looked at the history of the establishment, she said.

“What had happened in the past... Cranky Joe's had received warnings for serving intoxicated people,” Murray said.

Using that information, “It was in the public's interest” to suspend the liquor licence, she said.

Suspensions are rare, according to Murray. With roughly 17,500 establishments in Ontario, there are only about 10 suspensions given annually.

The commission is looking at revoking the bar's liquor licence altogether, according to Murray.

[nfq]

Duster for Premier!

[FiReSTaRT]

If you're allowed to walk into a bar and order a drink, you're assumed to be a legal adult, responsible for your actions. I don't see why bars should be held responsible at all. When I go clubbing, I either have a DD, take public transit or cab it. Sleeping over is an option if you go to a party.
I have been cut off on (literally) a couple of occasions, but that was more for the lack of motor skills after having a few too many, nothing to do with misbehaving myself One common element is that I've always made sure to either not drive or stay sober.