Comments for Thursday, March 04, 2004

Evil Mike (805 comments)
LucasArts is following the same path as LucasFilms.

I'm also in agreement with comment on first article (the drunk thing, not the pantless man, although he could have been chafing himself.)

Rob (209 comments)
You're going to have to convince me as to why the legality of beer and the illegality of drugs changes the responsibility of the impaired driver.
BU (1531 comments)
It doesn't change the responsibility of the driver at all -- just the responsibility of the "provider". The driver is still 100% responsible for his or her actions.
Rob (209 comments)
But should it? Legalize drugs and this distinction vanishes. (Further, the drug trade would be far less lucrative for the "providers".) If everyone is always responsible (only) for their own actions, justice would be served far more easily.
Mark (36 comments)
Hmmm... after reading this article, it appears that the mother realizes that her daughter was ultimately at fault, but for the life of me I can't figure out how the 18 year old boy is anymore culpable in this death than the the driver, simply because he was the one who went into the store and forked over the cash. I'm certain that they made this decision together, and unless they can prove that he forced her to drink, they share the responsibiltiy equally. He broke the law by drinking, she broke the law by drinking, and then again by driving. Her family is paying the ultimate price, and so is he, and it seems frivolous to me to try to pin some extra legal blame on him...
Rob (209 comments)
In legal terms, the girl was not an adult and the boy was. So, for example, he could buy cigarettes for her, and he would be responsible for the consequences of that. The same goes for providing alcohol to a minor: It does not matter that he was not himself old enough to legally purchase alcoholic beverages, he still committed the crime.

I have to admit this is a technicality more than anything else. The blame really belongs on the legal guardians of the minor who injured the other innocent driver whom she struck. Why didn't the girl's parents know what was going on that night? Misinformation or criminal negligence?
BU (1531 comments)
Another technicality: He's being charged for buying the legal parts of a bong, not necessarily supplying alcohol to a minor.

Add a Comment

Have a blog or a Facebook page you would like linked to your posts? Need a new avatar? Email me at .