BuffettNews.com

buffettbride wrote:

chibears wrote:Not to throw out another what if.....but I am.

First off, I do not support guns.

So, if a parent buys their son/daughter a shotgun for hunting, then that child commits murder, the parents should be jailed or fined?

To many laws, our politicians come up with TO MANY laws trying to cover nearly any situation. its a little out of control

I am also not a gun supporter, but ultimately, a parent is responsible for a minor child's behavior.

In the situation you suggest, yes.

I agree on the notion that too many laws cover other stuff up, but I also think it's partly an attempt to make sure responsibility is put in the right place. IMHO, that's with both parent and child.


The other point, about underage drinking. I *think* I agree with Kurt if what he's saying it's silly that an 18 year old can go to war but can't drink. I think 18 is is a decent enough drinking age. Maybe 19 since some 18 year olds are still in HS. That one is tricky, because it again comes to parents teaching responsible habits.

Ya, I agree with ya BB. Drinking age is 19 in Canada, but the main point is parents need to take more responsibility for the children. Its sad, but many parents today do not disipline their children, I guess that is the point of the laws.

chibears wrote: Its sad, but many parents today do not disipline their children, I guess that is the point of the laws.

I totally agree. It is sad we need laws to define that for us.

buffettbride wrote:

chibears wrote: Its sad, but many parents today do not disipline their children, I guess that is the point of the laws.

I totally agree. It is sad we need laws to define that for us.

What is even more sad is when teachers get in trouble for disiplining their students. Teachers would not have to if parents did the disiplining and teachers could teach.

iuparrothead wrote:

Tiki Bar wrote:I was Polly Purebred

What?

Tiki Bar wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

Tiki Bar wrote:I was Polly Purebred

What?

I believe you... I just love the phrase 'Polly Purebread'!!!

(especially in reference to yourself!) LYMI!!!

I think there are far too many laws on the books that the police cannot possibly enforce all of them.

Blaming the parent in this case, really does nothing. Who is to say the parent/adult gave the keet the alcohol. Perhaps it was beer in the referigerator and the keet took/stole it or found the key to the liqour cabinet and stole it. Would the parent still be responsible??? The keet is already doing wrong by the parent/adult/guardian.
What if the keet breaks into a house and steals it or steals it out of a cooler in th back of your truck or while someone is tailgating.
I cured some keets of stealing beer out of my cooler.
I kept old old beer that had been hot and cold and hot and cold many times. They never took any beer from me again.... would I be responsible for their actions? I did not give them the beer. Should I pay a fine or go to jail for that?

At some time it comes down to the keet actually being responsible. I had a nephew in his 20s that was murderedby a 13 year old punk. Do we hold the punk's parent's responsible as well???

I think with kids, in this day and age are growing up faster than we ever had to. The way they dress, etc. I think the responsibility is in their hands to the majority of the extent. They know it is wrong. The parent tells them often enough. Almost all of the people talking of sneaking out when they were younger, now blame their parents for not keeping a better watch on them. Perhaps they should have, but how much reason, did you really give your parents not to trust you???

Currently as far as I know it is against the law to give an underage person alcohol...it is called "Contributing to the deliquecy of a minor" here, and I thought that was pretty much every where.

When I first went in the military you could drink at 18, then I went to a state that said you had to be 21, even on base. Most people looked at it, that you were old enough to vote and be in the military and put your all on the line, you deserved to drink what you wanted, though there were quite few people that did not see it that way.

I am very against this. Yes it's wrong for an adult to supply alcohol, and there should be some reprecussions if that is the case, but jail time? Nope. I feel like we are beginning to overgovern ourselves. Laws laws and more laws - all because there is this trend of lack of responsibility. Prime example: McDonalds coffee cups having "hot" on it because some dope put a cup in her crotch and it spilled. What did she think? I know that's different than 3 years in jail, but the same thing is the lack of accountability. If a kid gets drunk and gets in to an accident,... well then - ok, jail him. Pursue legal action. But I think that jailing an adult because of that achieves nothing more than ruining someone else's life.

I know some of you won't agree with me.

buffettbride wrote:

chibears wrote: So, if a parent buys their son/daughter a shotgun for hunting, then that child commits murder, the parents should be jailed or fined?

I am also not a gun supporter, but ultimately, a parent is responsible for a minor child's behavior.

In the situation you suggest, yes.

There is no way for a parent to govern the actions of their children at all times. Even with the greatest of parenting, situations like that are still going to happen from time to time. Now in the situation you suggest, what if the parent had bought a baseball bat for their kid to use on his high school baseball team. Then he murders somebody with that bat. Are you going to hold the parents responsible for an action their child committed with a bat? What if your child drowns somebody in your pool, do you arrest the parents for having a pool? I know you're going to say those situations aren't the same, but they really are.

Point is, one of the rights of living in this country is supposed to be freedom and personal responsibility. What the government (and your line of thinking) does is remove all personal responsibility from those who should actually take the blame. The one who committed the actions have nobody to blame but themselves.

IrishG wrote: The one who committed the actions have nobody to blame but themselves.

For the most part, that's what I want to believe. However, if a parent puts alcohol in the hands of a child, they are partially responsible for that child's actions while under the influence of alcohol. That is a law that is already established; it's against the law to supply alcohol for minors. For me, the alcohol scenario I can buy into pretty easily.

The sneaking out and other areas like you mentioned with the baseball bat and drowning, etc. is where I really struggle. I do have a hard time saying if my kid snuck out of the house and got busted for vandalism or something, that I would be OK accepting responsibility for something like that.

It would be great to live in a world where each individual was exclusively responsible for his/her own actions--but the truth is, when it comes to such crimes, it's not always clear cut.

mings wrote:I Prime example: McDonalds coffee cups having "hot" on it because some dope put a cup in her crotch and it spilled.

I laughed out loud on this one!

This also becomes a case of "depends on your point of view". 2 weeks ago I had the worst call I've ever had in my carreer. A 16 year old, drunk, ran a stop light in her pick up and broad-sided a sedan that had a mother and her 2 kids- a 10 year old girl and a 6 year old boy. The mother was relatively uninjured. The truck struck the vehicle on the kids side. The 10 year old was basically dead at the scene. We worked on her, to no avail. The 6 year old is still in a coma with a HUGE head injury. He'll probably never recover. The mother was hysterical.
If I was that Mom, I think first that I would have rather died in that car with my kids. I also would want to literally squeeze the life out of the adult who supplied the alcohol and allowed this kid to drive drunk (it was not her parent). Her life is ruined also.

Paradise wrote:This also becomes a case of "depends on your point of view". 2 weeks ago I had the worst call I've ever had in my carreer. A 16 year old, drunk, ran a stop light in her pick up and broad-sided a sedan that had a mother and her 2 kids- a 10 year old girl and a 6 year old boy. The mother was relatively uninjured. The truck struck the vehicle on the kids side. The 10 year old was basically dead at the scene. We worked on her, to no avail. The 6 year old is still in a coma with a HUGE head injury. He'll probably never recover. The mother was hysterical.
If I was that Mom, I think first that I would have rather died in that car with my kids. I also would want to literally squeeze the life out of the adult who supplied the alcohol and allowed this kid to drive drunk (it was not her parent). Her life is ruined also.

I suppose you're right. Thankfully, I've never had to experience something like that, and I hope I never will. And I hope no one will.

However, I think what I'm trying to say is that I don't advocate blanket changes, based on the actions of a few. I truly believe that things should be on a case-by-case basis, with the punishment for those involved & guilty fitting the crime.

I think if an adult puts alcohol in the hand of an underage person and something bad happens as a result the adult is responsible. They are the adult. I am not talking about kids stealing alcohol. I'm not talking about kids swiping drinks at a party. I mean an adult who clearly allowed underage drinking to take place. My 3 keets are 18-20. I allow them to consume a bit of alcohol in my house if they are home for the night. Not alot, a beer or a drink or a glass of wine. I am accepting responsibility for this. I would never let one of their underaged friends drink in my house. I would never let my kids drive afterwards. To be sure, they don't leave the house.
I know that all of my kids have had alcohol before they were of age. I know that wherever they got it, it was illegal. If it is kids using a fake id and buying a case of beers or having a keg party they are responsible for their own foolishness. But if they are at a house with adults present and the adults provide the booze then i'd hold them responsible. If something happened to one of my kids in this setting I'd be very upset with the adults involved. There's a reason they are adults and I refer to mine as still kids.
I believe the drinking age should be 18 but it isn't. If it isn't then we have to behave according to some level. I know for a fact that one of my son's employers allow underage workers to drink at work and at house parties. Foolish in today's climate. If something happens to one of those minors he may lose his home and business as well as do jail time.

I agree with what ya'll are saying. I'm just saying that there are a lot of gray areas. I have teenagers also and, like many of you, they are allowed to have a couple of drinks at my home and they can not go anywhere if they have. I like to have a few drinks occasionally too. But boy do I get to see the other side of alcohol!!!! Most of the people who cause accidents because of drunk driving are SO drunk that they can't even walk much less drive!!!

First rule of Emergency Medicine: If you respond to an auto accident after midnight and there is no one there who is drunk; keep looking because someone is missing!!

buffettbride wrote:

IrishG wrote: The one who committed the actions have nobody to blame but themselves.

For the most part, that's what I want to believe. However, if a parent puts alcohol in the hands of a child, they are partially responsible for that child's actions while under the influence of alcohol. That is a law that is already established; it's against the law to supply alcohol for minors. For me, the alcohol scenario I can buy into pretty easily.

I agree on the alcohol scenario, which is why I skipped straight to the weapons issue

I seriously ticked off a guy once for telling him his single mother was a bad mom for buying him and his friends liquor starting at the age of 15

I was drinking at 15 too....but I did it the old fashioned way. You sneak what you can out of the cabinet or find somebody old enough to buy it for you (coworkers at Winn Dixie were great)

OceanCityGirl wrote:I think if an adult puts alcohol in the hand of an underage person and something bad happens as a result the adult is responsible. They are the adult. I am not talking about kids stealing alcohol. I'm not talking about kids swiping drinks at a party. I mean an adult who clearly allowed underage drinking to take place. ...... If it is kids using a fake id and buying a case of beers or having a keg party they are responsible for their own foolishness. But if they are at a house with adults present and the adults provide the booze then i'd hold them responsible. ....

Exactly. (I just edited your kids out!)

IrishG wrote:
I was drinking at 15 too....but I did it the old fashioned way. You sneak what you can out of the cabinet or find somebody old enough to buy it for you (coworkers at Winn Dixie were great)

(so were coworkers at Denny's)

here's my two cents and it's from merely a first year law student's viewpoint. I would have to say that the three year prison sentence and a charge for manslaughter seem to be extremely steep, and there's a possible constitutional argument there. If passed needless to say, the first person arrested under the new statute would have some strong arguments on appeal. In my mind, I agree with having a law, but the punishment in my mind is extremely severe. That law should sound more in a negligence theory instead of a manslaughter theory. Granted, if it weren't for them buying alcohol it's arguable they never would have been able to drink and get drunk and get behind the wheel and cause the death of an innocent victim. The definition of involuntary manslaughter is "Homicide in which there is no intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm, but that is committed with criminal negligence or during the commission of a crime not included within the felony-murder rule." Applying that law to the rough facts in my mind would be difficult. The third party did not commit the crime, and I'm not sure you could lawfully hold the third party vicariously liable. I may be off base but that's just how i would analyze the situation....

I still don't agree with the law but I will still hold you on retainer.

habourgirl wrote:here's my two cents and it's from merely a first year law student's viewpoint. I would have to say that the three year prison sentence and a charge for manslaughter seem to be extremely steep, and there's a possible constitutional argument there. If passed needless to say, the first person arrested under the new statute would have some strong arguments on appeal. In my mind, I agree with having a law, but the punishment in my mind is extremely severe. That law should sound more in a negligence theory instead of a manslaughter theory. Granted, if it weren't for them buying alcohol it's arguable they never would have been able to drink and get drunk and get behind the wheel and cause the death of an innocent victim. The definition of involuntary manslaughter is "Homicide in which there is no intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm, but that is committed with criminal negligence or during the commission of a crime not included within the felony-murder rule." Applying that law to the rough facts in my mind would be difficult. The third party did not commit the crime, and I'm not sure you could lawfully hold the third party vicariously liable. I may be off base but that's just how i would analyze the situation....

buffettbride wrote:

chibears wrote: Its sad, but many parents today do not disipline their children, I guess that is the point of the laws.

I totally agree. It is sad we need laws to define that for us.

Perhaps people would discipline their children more if they weren't scared of Child Services taking their children away for something as small as a spanking. All it takes is one belt whoopin' and a kid to say "daddy beat me" and the family is screwed.

Kids need to get their ass whipped once in a while......a lame "time out" doesn't work for a lot of kids.