According to a recent Dakota County Criminal Complaint a West St. Paul man was arrested after seriously injuring a friend who was dragged by the defendant’s car after the friend tried to take the keys away from him following a night of drinking at the West St Paul Commercial Club.
From the complaint:
On arrival, officers observed the victim lying in the middle of the road. The victim appeared semi-conscious and would open and close his eyes but was not speaking. An officer observed that the victim’s boots were scuffed and one of the boots had a hole all the way through the steel toe. The officer also observed that the victim’s jeans were wet, which was consistent with the wet ground due to snow melt. Officers spoke to a male witness who was standing near the victim. The witness stated that he was at the Commercial Club with the victim and other people including the suspect, who he knew as “Jason”. The witness stated that “Jason” drives a red Chevrolet pickup truck with a topper on it and that he lives close by. The witness and his girlfriend observed “Jason” trying to drive home and tried to stop him because he was falling down and unable to stand due to his intoxication level. The witness went back into the bar and tried to get “Jason’s” girlfriend to get his keys away from him. “Jason” started to get really upset and began to push people in an attempt to get inside his truck. “Jason” was able to get into his truck and the victim ran up to “Jason’s” driver’s side window and told him to roll it down.
“Jason” told the victim, “I’m f****** driving home.” The victim reached into the vehicle to try to get the keys out of the ignition and the suspect stomped on the gas and started to drive away at a high rate of speed up an alleyway while the victim was hanging out of the driver side window. “Jason” slammed on the breaks, which caused the victim to fly into the truck. The witness tried to run after “Jason” to help the victim, but “Jason” drove away again with the victim still hanging out of the truck. The witness got into his vehicle with his girlfriend and followed the direction of the suspect’s vehicle. The witness observed the victim laying in the street. The victim was located approximately two blocks away from where the suspect started driving. The witness believes “Jason” knew that the victim was hanging out of his window because “Jason” yelled at the victim, “Don’t make me stop this truck and call my boys!”
[...]
The female witness was very emotional and excited, and began to vomit. She reported that Schultz was falling over and stumbling and was in no condition to drive. She also reported that before Schultz drove away with the victim, she attempted to stop Schultz from entering his truck by standing in front of the driver’s side door. Schultz came at her like he was going to hit her and told her that he was going to hit her. Schultz gained entrance to his truck through the passenger side door, which is when the male witness and the victim intervened.
[...]
Officers spoke to Schultz’s girlfriend, who was present inside the vehicle during the incident. She reported that she went to the Commercial Club with Schultz at approximately 11:30 p.m., and that Schultz had at least one beer prior to that. She reported that she has seen Schultz drink regularly and has seen him “drunk” before. She stated that when Schultz is “drunk” he gets really angry and doesn’t listen to anyone. She stated that on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being equal to a couple of drinks and 10 being the most drunk she has ever seen Schultz, he was about an “8” during the incident.
[...]
… the victim sustained a traumatic brain injury with bleeding on the brain, a nasal fracture, a head laceration and multiple lacerations and contusions from “road rash”.
The questions for this one are numerous:
- 1. Why do we frequently have reports of bars and liquor stores being busted for underage sales violations but we’ve never once seen a bartender charged for allowing a patron to walk away from the bar and get into their car when they were so intoxicated they had trouble standing?
2. How drunk does someone have to get to reach a 10 out of 10 on a relative drunkenness scale and be unable to understand they were dragging someone with their vehicle at an 8/10?
3. Do you think the witness who threw up, “was very emotional and excited,” or do you think she was just as intoxicated but the police needed another valid witness and did not want to admit she may have been just as inebriated as the defendant?
Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 12th, 2012 at 7:38 am
Tragic story. I feel awful for the victim and his family.
January 12th, 2012 at 7:43 am
I think in most states, the bar has civil liability under dram shop acts. Criminal liability might be kind of hard to prove. What if the dude was drinking from pitchers ordered by someone else? What if there are a chain of bars he visited? Question #2 seems kind of rhetorical, so I won’t go after it. As to #3, the witness was drunk, but put yourself in the place of a juror. I would believe that based upon her ability to give the statement she did, she could certainly identify the driver and indicate he had been drinking without much question of credibility due to intoxication. Identification can also be linked through ownership of the truck and testimony of other witnnesses who saw it happen. There shouldn’t be too much problem getting a conviction here. As for penalty, duct tape the assholes hands to the outside of a “tilt-a-whirl” car and turn it on high.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:01 am
If bars were smart they’d take your keys when you walk in and make you blow under 0.08 before giving them back. But then, they’d lose half their business.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Many if not most states have some version of a “Dram shop act” (an arcane term no doubting dating back quite a while) this fixes liability on a bar for damages as a result of injuries, etc, caused by/to individuals or property as a result of serving minors, or visibly intoxicated individuals. I don’t know about Minnesota. Case law evolves and state legislatures do tinker with the statutes from time to time due to political pressure. I have never owned a restaurant or bar but some of your commenters seem to be associated with the business and business liability insurance usually covers this in most states. Its the reason why many establishments ask you for your ID even though, like me, you look obviously like you were born sometime before the Beatles were formed in Liverpool.
No doubt a Ron Paul supporter might have some trouble with these types of laws and suggest that personal responsibility is the main point. The laws flowed from the Temperance movement and were institutionalized during the 1890-1920 Progressive period. They ebb and flow with enforcement. The strength of MOthers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) in the 80′s and 90′s brought them back into stronger use.
I think there is criminal liability in the case of serving a minor, usually a fine or suspension of license. I am not sure if there is more severe criminal liability in the case of death related to serving a minor, perhaps sui generis might know. In any case every state has different standards, i think some have no dram shop law, but the event is handled in common law one way or another.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:27 am
I would normally assume that the “1″ on the scale of inebriation would be zero drinks, not one or two drinks. I guess I am just a prude.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Unfortunately we read about these kind of incidents way too frequently. My gut tells me there has to be a way to hold the Commercial Club responsible; if not criminally, certainly civilly. At least I hope so.
As to mulch’s comment about libertarians pointing to personal responsibility – most reasonable folks will see that a threshold was crossed here. In this instance the person trying to adhere to a certain code of personal responsibility ended up being the victim at the hands of someone lacking that same quality. That’s why we’re a nation of laws.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:37 am
The VFW I was at last weekend was more concerned with my use of foul language and how it may offend the veterans singing karaoke, poorly, than what I was going to do once I left their bar. Maybe the overweight security guard should have been more concerned about veterans being killed by drunk drivers leaving the parking lot than my language–likely uttered in disgust of the bad singing.
January 12th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Come on Bill, didn’t you know swearing is disrespectful to veterans? I know I’ve never heard a military guy use foul language.
I will say that I’ve never seen an entire bar (or any group) actually rise in respect for a karaoke singing of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA.” That left me very confused. I didn’t know we had another national anthem!
January 12th, 2012 at 8:57 am
I understand the intent of the law and the liability, but really it is impossible.
To define “obviously” intoxicated is so subjective. I know that if I have too much too drink and would be over the limit to drink, I don’t get loud and boisterous, but more the opposite. I get tired. There is no way that a bartender could tell I was in no condition to drive.
Also, with .08 being the limit, I think most people would appear to be just fine in a bar setting when at or just over that limit even though their capacity to drive has been significantly diminished. Heck, I had two Bell’s Two Hearted last night after work with a friend and I added a glass of water over the final 45 minutes just to make sure I was feeling right to drive 6 miles home.
I think I am falling on the side of personal responsibility here. I do think that the actions of the person who was injured are more common than they ever were 25 years ago when people didn’t police themselves at all. Now that I have young people of the legal drinking age spending time at my home once in awhile, they ALWAYS have a plan for transportation. That is just the norm now for “kids”.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:13 am
I guess it is probably also hard to distinguish between who is driving and who is not. If I’m a bar, I need people to drink to intoxication to make money. I also can assume that not everyone is driving. So I how do I know who to cut off and who to let keep drinking?
January 12th, 2012 at 9:37 am
Ah, the Commercial Club. The reason people thought we lived in a bad neighborhood. Always hogging all the WSP crime.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:43 am
I always cringe when I read a story of a bar being blamed for a problem. In general I’m much more of the opinion that we need to hold people personally responsible for their actions. It gets problematic when you hear stories of people who are hardly able to sit on their bar stool being served more drinks. I’m still not sure it makes any sense to legally blame the bar for any problems as a result of the patron getting those drinks simply because there are too many subjective circumstances at play. Bartenders often have enough chaos going on already and accurately determining the level of inebriation of each person at the bar just isn’t going to happen in many circumstances.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:48 am
I was going to make the obvious comment that some would rather blame the bar than the drunk, esp based on the previous thread indicating that a person who is very much under the influence should not be held responsible for their actions. Out of disgust for this whole deal I left it out of my first post.
The idea that the bar should be blamed for this is sort of far fetched in my opinion. As noted in a few posts above, its a pretty subjective thing. Most people drinking more than 1 drink per hour would be considered legally drunk. Should the bar then be forced to quit serving you if you have have finished a drink in 45 minutes? Three beers with dinner, esp craft beers, would clearly leave you unable to legally drive, but most people would be far from falling down drunk.
If the guy was falling off his bar stool and the bartender gave him a shot to celebrate thats a little different, but illustrates how subjective the whole deal is.
I would agree and support 100% what Joey noted above, requiring bars to take keys when you walk in and only giving them back if you or your driver can pass a breathalyzer, but that gets to be hard to enforce as habitual drunks would just leave a set of keys in the car or whatever.
Personally, my solution would involve llittle to no govt or bar involvement. Put the breath test machines with ignition lock in every single car. 99% of the problem solved.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:51 am
Chad,
It’s against the law (criminally) to serve drinks to someone who is obviously intoxicated: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=340A&view=chapter#stat.340A.501
The criminal complaint states, “The witness and his girlfriend observed “Jason” trying to drive home and tried to stop him because he was falling down and unable to stand due to his intoxication level.” If he couldn’t stand then he was likely served when he was obviously intoxicated–that or he was drinking in the parking lot.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:53 am
I’d like to know the legal definition of “an obviously intoxicated person.” There’s no way it’s someone who blows over .08. As Chad and others have noted, .08 doesn’t take long to hit.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:56 am
Also, I’d love to have an ignition lock on my car. It would take away some of the guess work of whether I’ve waited long enough after the last drink to head home.
On the flip side, I’d hate to have a major emergency and be unable to get to a hospital because I’m blowing a .09 into my car.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:56 am
I’m fairly certain that being unable to stand is a pretty clear indicator.
January 12th, 2012 at 9:59 am
Do you know if he was drinking in the parking lot? Maybe he had a bottle in his truck? Maybe he was fine when he ordered his last 22 OZ 6% alchohol beer and it put him over the edge. Maybe he drank one last tall beer and then went out back and got high.
Its a dumb law. If I serve you three strong beers, or three whiskey cokes with dinner, in a span of one hour, I KNOW you are LEGALLY drunk, regardless of your “OBVIOUS” level of intoxication. For that matter, if you come to happy hour after work, have not eaten for 5 or 6 hours, and you order your second drink 15 minutes after your first, slam it, and then say “Sorry, have to run, the wife is making dinner!” I have just knowingly let you walk out of my establishment legally drunk. But it happens literally thousands of times per day across the country.
Again, I think its a different story if the bartender is feeding the drinks to someone, or if they are falling down drunk when ordering drinks. But thats probably more of a common sense issue than a legal issue.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:01 am
Either you enforce the laws or you don’t.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:01 am
But could he stand before he ordered his last drink is the question.
I am being a bit silly, but there is nothing precluding him from ordering 5 shots and then drinking them all himself even though he was quite competent when ordering them.
Too much grey area, especially when it would be the insurance company paying for a decent lawyer to defend the bar’s actions.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Agreed. I’m also fairly certain that there are a number of levels (belligerence, moody, tired & quiet, and any other number of ways that each person behaves when they get drunk) prior to being unable to stand that could arguably be considered “obviously intoxicated.” We’re definitely way too tolerant of drunk driving, but I have trouble seeing how this law can be enforced in court except for the most extreme cases.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:04 am
Who to hold responsible? The person or the bar? Criminally, the person, most certainly. Civilly, to pay for damages caused? Holding both liable is fine by me. (Yes, MN has a dram shop) The potential for damage caused by intoxication is very high. Drunk drivers kill people. Drunks can get surley and assault people (The asshole in this story was known as an “angry” drunk). It is not unheard of for angry people to become physically violent people as this person did in fact become. Does anyone seriously think this moron has the means, or adequate insurance to cover the injuries he caused to this would-be good samaritan? A bar, which makes its money by enabling people to voluntarily enter various states of reduced capacity is in the best position to be adequately insured to cover the enormous damages that can result from the effects of intoxication. This being said, I certainly would object to requiring people who wish to drink to carry minimum amounts of liability insurance. You want to buy alcohol? Proof of insuance and ID please! I can see no other reasonable way to safely shift the burden of responsibility for damages from the bar to the voluntarily intoxicated. This isn’t really about the government protecting us from ourselves. If the drunken idiot had instead plowed into a wall, paralyzing himself, I do not believe he would be able to use the dram shop act effectively due to the voluntary nature of his intoxication. Instead, this dram shop act protects third parties.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:17 am
C+V, my comment on Ron Paul supporters is just that there is actually a historical record of libertarians being against these types of statutes, which follows from the same vein as decriminalizing drugs and prostitution. I dont think my comment was demeaning to be honest, just to say that libertarians see the issue differently sometimes. My guess is the civil litigation and awards ebb and flow with the general public sentiment. right now the public sentiment and politics is pretty strongly in favor of cracking down on things like DUI (which i agree with), but I remember being stopped while driving drunk in 1972 and having my license taken from me and told to sit in the back of my car while a less inebriated friend drove the car, my uncle who knew the guys at the sheriff’s office picked up my license the following morning and gave it to me with a wink later that morning . Maybe something like this happens still in places like Louisiana, but I doubt it would ever happen in most places.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Sui generis hits the nail on the head. The issue of responsibility in our society isnt resolved philosophically , but rather with cash. Plaintiffs attorneys look for the “money”, or the ‘deep pockets”. And logically as SG says the bar or business is the logical point where either insurance or deep pockets reside. The “moron” who is drinking to excess is usually unlikely to have the liability insurance or the deep pockets in most cases.
Public service advertisements on TV regularly speak to personal responsibilty and of course the criminal consequences of driving drunk.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:25 am
SG has a great defenense in post 22, but really its still just saying “They can afford the insurance, so lets make them pay for this guys actions.”
Going back to Mr Wolfswinkel, who was walking, what if he had walked in front of a car, they swerved to avoid him, and someone was killed? Still going to blame the bar he was drinking at? There is no law in MN against public intoxication as Bill pointed out. So, the bar cant serve drinks to you if you are intoxicated, but you can be as intoxicated as you want to be in public without recourse?
This whole argument is convoluted. Its all hypocrisy. If you want to stop drunk driving, make the laws MUCH more stringent and put a breathalyzer in every single car that is sold in this country. Beyond that is just a bunch of talk about who to blame after the fact, not how to actually stop it from happening.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:27 am
Apparently .09 is “too drunk” to call 911… :-P
January 12th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Chad,
I want to be clear here: the guy is at fault for what he did here but the bartender(s) who served him past the point of intoxication should be brought up on charges. If it happened enough, with plenty of individuals serving drinks being fined/jailed for their actions, I’m guessing the problems would eventually slow–much like underage sales violations.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Bill,
The dirty secret is that if bars actually had to be accountable to the level you suggest, bars would go out of business.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:40 am
I guess we fundamentally disagree.
You cant legislate something subjective. If you want to change the rules to say that based on scientific fact a person cant drink more than 1 drink per hour, so bars are not allowed to serve a person more than one drink per hour, I am fine with that. But, you, and likely most of our elected officials, would be upset about not being able to go to happy hour or out for drinks with the boys.
You cant define what “Obviously Drunk” is. Lefty may have thought he was being silly, but a person could quite easily be lucid and able to talk, walk, etc after a few drinks, then order a 22 or 24 oz tall glass of strong beer and be wasted by the time they finish it, as the first few enter their system and the cumulative effect catches up with them. How do you blame the bar for that?
January 12th, 2012 at 10:40 am
lefty, they said that about anti-smoking regulations too.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Chad,
We don’t disagree. I don’t like the rules as written but they are there. So either the law needs to change or we need to enforce it as it is.
Also, I can go to HH and have as many drinks as I like because I ride the bus home and my wife gets me at the transit station (winter) or I walk.
Perhaps a related solution to my situation as stated above, because the law will never change, would be to have the bartender ask how a person plans on getting home and prove that question occurred. If the person lies then it’s no longer on the bar and we can all live happily ever after.
I’m guessing that it really wouldn’t be too hard to ask this question. I mean after all they’re already asking you for your ID right?
January 12th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Bars have never made their living by selling cigarettes. That is apples and oranges to me.
If you start telling people they can’t go to a bar and get rip roaring drunk because the bar will get in trouble, people won’t go.
Did I just read yesterday that one in six Minnesotans “binge drink” and that means they drink 9 drinks in one sitting on average? Something on those lines anyway.
Not only would people stop going to bars because they can’t get that fix, but the ones that will stop going are their best customers.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:50 am
lefty, it’s 5 for men and 4 for women in two hours and I think you’ve explained why the State’s culture has ignored the laws they have.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:58 am
Are you talking about the definition of binge drinking? If so, that makes sense.
I think I may have mixed studies though. Upon further review, 1 in 6 of us is a binge drinker. On a different study, it indicated that when young drinkers party or binge drink (college age), they average nine drinks in an outing.
Either way, you and I seem to agree that the law is looking the other way.
January 12th, 2012 at 11:03 am
I am VERY against D&D and think there is absolutely no excuse. This situation makes me sick and they should throw this drunk bastard in the slammer for attempted murder on top of DWI. I think his friends were right in trying to get him to stop but this was very unfortunate how it ended. Poor victim was probably just trying to prevent any other inncocents from potential danger with this A-Hole drunk on the roads.
January 12th, 2012 at 11:27 am
Wow question #1 just shows how ingrained our car culture is. Who’s to say people drive to bars? I walk to bars all the time. That’s why I chose to live in Minneapolis. If someone chooses to frequent bars, drink too much, and do stupid things it should not be the bar’s fault unless they knew someone intended to drive and they did nothing to offer an alternative. It’s the drunkie’s fault for not planning a safe way to get home. That includes choosing to live beyond walking distance from a bar.
January 12th, 2012 at 11:31 am
This is completely asinine.
January 12th, 2012 at 11:39 am
How, Bill? Even if the laws don’t currently reflect it, people should be responsible for getting themselves home safely when they go to a bar. It doesn’t mean people ought to live walking distance from a bar, but that’s one option. I’m a $10 cab ride from Uptown. Or a two block walk from the local watering hole. I sure as heck would think about those options when I’m choosing where to go out. If someone lives in Lakeville and drinks too much at Babe’s or Carbone’s, then they better have a plan other than driving themselves home. Hundreds of thousands of people choose not to live in Lakeville for reasons such as this. Why do you think I have many friends paying $1500 a month to live in a 1 BR apartment in uptown? Because they can walk to the bars and have fun.
January 12th, 2012 at 11:45 am
These are not compatible:
“That includes choosing to live beyond walking distance from a bar.”
“It doesn’t mean people ought to live walking distance from a bar, but that’s one option.”
Now, let’s say we were going to go with your original statement which I decided was asinine. I move to a section of town I can afford (my mortgage is ~$700 a month, I cannot afford to live in a $1500/month apartment and especially not if I was going to go to the bars and have fun) and I live near a bar or three. All is well until those bars close up and nothing replaces them or the city changes the zoning and wants no bars or no commercial entities there so they can build more housing for the elderly.
So now I’ve purposefully moved to an area which had accessible bars only to have those pulled out from under me. What am I to do now? Sell my house and move again so I can be close to bars?
That is why your statement was asinine.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
My point is that if you choose to live within walking distance to a bar, it’s less of a burden to find a safe way home after drinking too much. If there was a hypothetical situation where a city closed three bars, I don’t think I’d want to live there anymore.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
We’re actually talking about people orienting their lives/place of residence based on proximity to a place to get drunk??
Cars are ingrained in our culture? Sounds to me getting wasted is the thing that’s really ingrained in our culture.
These comments are depressing.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
And I don’t mean just your comment, Matt. ALL of these comments are depressing.
January 12th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Well, it’s not exactly the most uplifting topic of conversation.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Not just the topic, but the range of comments. ALL of these are disgusting to me for one reason or another. But I’ve said on here before, I have a disproportionate hatred for our culture of alcohol:
January 12th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
MSPD, sounds like you need a beer.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Well it looks like none of us will be having fun at a bar with MSPD anytime soon! Bars aren’t inherently good or bad. Drinking isn’t inherently good or bad. People drink and go to bars for social situations, to meet people, or to listen to music. If that’s the focus (and it’s the primary focus for most people who drink) then it’s not bad. Getting drunk for its own sake or to drown out reality, now that’s a problem. But there are many wonderful things in this world that wouldn’t happen if we didn’t have bars. I appreciate live music and having a couple beers at a club is a great way to support it.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I enjoy live music as well. Paying a cover and drinking a couple of sodas is a great way to support it.
I will never understand the mentality that a sporting event/ music event/ wedding/ children’s birthday party with the family can’t be fun without the aid of alcohol.
Everybody seems caught up on who we hold responsible… I would much rather hold the bar jointly responsible to an innocent third party and let them worry about recouping thier losses from the drunken idiot they served, than require the horribly injured person recoup from the drunken idiot.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
@sui, the nature of holding someone responsible is that they were actually responsible. And that comes down to the person who drinks too much and then does something stupid as a result.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
DING! Exactly.
Further proving the point that the default opinion is “no alcohol = no fun” in society.
Go ahead and thumbs it down. I’m OK with it. It’s not like I’m never in a bar. Like I said, I fully admit I have a disproportionate/extreme hatred for America’s culture of alcohol and all of the senseless pain and tragedy it causes.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Matt,
(This is completely hypothetical) but what happens when a bartender makes a very strong mixed drink for someone (adds Everclear instead of rum) and they drink it and are mentally incapacitated by the drink? Who would you say is at fault then?
January 12th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I think it’s more productive to provide an alternative to our pervasive car culture. :)
January 12th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Matt, that same person could go off and stab someone in the face and not know it regardless of the availability of a car.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Bill, if a bartender knowingly made something that wasn’t what the patron ordered, then they enter into responsibility to some degree. But has that ever happened? It seems pretty easy to separate the responsibilities of each party and calculate how that responsibility played into an outcome that infringed upon someone else’s rights.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I don’t think it’s that simple. So the person is at a bar and they order a couple of mixed drinks. The last one is loaded with Everclear (or 100 proof rum/vodka/whatever) and they go off and do something stupid. They are at the mercy of the bartender and what they put in the drinks but because they are the ones drinking and did something stupid it’s all on them now?
January 12th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Exactly, Bill. And that person would be charged with assault instead of a DUI. It’s pretty well accepted in American legal jurisprudence (except for dram shop laws) that those who commit a crime are the ones held responsible civilly in addition to criminally. Thus it’s not illegal (even if it’s rather sad) for someone to get crazy drunk so long as they don’t cause harm to others. Getting behind the wheel or stabbing someone in the face (or dragging a friend with your truck) qualify as causing harm to others.
My comment about the car culture is with regard to how others have reacted to this story, not to the story itself. The perp’s car dependence isn’t to blame in this incident any more than the bar that served him. Which is not at all. But your question #1, which implicitly assumed people leave bars to get into their car, along with many people’s comments point out the default assumptions provided by our society’s dependence on cars.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Bill, if I was at a bar and wanted a drink without alcohol, I’d ask for a water or a Coke. If I was at a bar and ordered “a few mixed drinks,” the bartender would ask me what drinks and how many?
January 12th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
“because they are the ones drinking and did something stupid it’s all on them now?” Yes, that’s how personal responsibility works. Unless someone was somehow forced into consuming alcohol, they are responsible for what they do as a result.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
I know the solution for this.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
OK, now that is complete and utter bullshit.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:56 pm
MSPD, I doubt it should bother me, but it does. You make it sound like this culture of alcholic consumption is limited to America. Certainly not the case.
You could say that our lax view on holding people accountable for drunk driving is an American problem I guess.
I think you guys are being hard on Matt. I cant be a surprise to you that a certain group of people have chosen to live downtown, or in uptown, or dinkytown specifically for the proximity to night life. You are being obtuse.
SG, I think your posts and your viewpoint is informative, but also somewhat influenced by your legal background. Again, the idea that the bar should share responsibility for a persons actions simply because they have the financial ability seems pretty sad to me, but again, is probably something we just fundamentally disagree on.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Matt:
I believe your understanding of what is generally accepted in American Jurisprudence is flawed.
Yes, a person who commits a crime is the one held criminally responsible. However, they may not be the only one held to civil responsibility for damages. The examples of this go far beyond just dram shop laws.
January 12th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Yah, whenever I think pathetic drunk I usually think “50 year old woman trying to act like she’s half her age” in Apple Valley, USA or “60 year old man drinking his evening away by himself” in Randolph, USA, not “young people enjoying live music, dancing, and meeting other singles” in Uptown.
January 12th, 2012 at 3:08 pm
I’m with you on that SG. I grew up in a home of teetotalers, never did drink in college, and I rarely drink more than 1 or 2 drinks now, so maybe that colors my perspective. I love a good craft beer but drinking to get drunk has never appealed to me.
I will say that when my wife (who also grew up in a home of teetotalers) gets tipsy, the side of her that comes out is pretty fun. However, she’s a hell of a lot of fun perfectly sober too.
January 12th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Incorrect. But I live in America among Americans, so the American culture of alcoholism is particularly bothersome to me. I will say that I believe we are one of a select few of the most egregious societies when it comes to living in excess. That bothers me.
I would assume that most people live in those places for many reasons, only one of which is proximity to “night life”. Convenience, energy, vibe, history, culture (of many sorts), types of housing, concentration of population facilitating better concentration of cool shops/restaurants/and, yes bars.
I do find it disturbing if someone genuinely chose where to live for no other reason than their ability to navigate safely to getting drunk (post #36).
Chad, you’ve read my crap on here long enough to know I’m not a prude. But, as I was reading post after post about “getting around the rules” and stuff that made it seem like the only way businesses could thrive was if people got drunk…well…it struck me that what’s lost is that people actually have the choice to (gasp) not drink at all, or just have one. The drunkenness is just a given.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
MSPD you are preaching to the choir. Except on the part about America, as I think heavy drinking was being practiced in Germany and Ireland and probably several other places before America was even a country.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
I want to know who is paying $1500/month for a one bedroom in Uptown? That’s insane.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Dumbshit 20-somethings who go out every night and get shitfaced.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
20-somethings who probably make a lot more than the 50-somethings who complain about it. Personally, I decided to buy a house in a nice neighborhood when I was 22, and I can pay $10 for a cab to take me home from Uptown if needed. Now I’m looking at purchasing some investment properties in the Lyn-Lake area.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Yeah, $1500 for a 1BR in Uptown seems really high. Maybe if it’s in one of the brand new buildings and has lots of amenities, but even then that seems like a ripoff. Now, for downtown, I could see it, since I work with people who pay that much or more for 1BRs and live here.
Still, Matt has a point — there are a lot of people willing to pay a premium to live in the city. And I can’t say I blame them.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
I have family who just moved out of a rental in a somewhat rundown building on Grand avenue and was paying approx $1000 a month for a 1BR. I am sure there are many places that run higher than that in the nicer buildings. And I would think Grand is probably cheaper than Uptown.
Regardless of if you think its cheap or expensive, certainly, as Tim notes, people, for a variety of reasons, are willing to pay a premium to live in the City.
Its harder for me to understand the confusion being expressed. If I was 20 something, single, and had just got my first job making decent money, its not a strech of the imagination to think I might want a place within walking distance of night life.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
These are the same people bitching about being unable to afford their student loans. They can’t afford them because they’re busy paying high rents so they can walk to the bars every night.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Yeah, sadly thats probably true.
January 13th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
I want to thumbs up Bill’s comment. Oh well. Instead I’ll add my agreement so people can thumbs up me. ;)
When I was a post-college single I got a 1-BR apartment in Oakdale for $625 a month, and I thought that was too much. Proximity to night life was the least of my concerns.
January 14th, 2012 at 2:40 pm
For the record re: posts 45 and 46, I went to a bar last night and had a beer AND I was fun.
January 14th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I have no doubt about the first 2 assertions. The 3rd assertion should really be verified by a 3rd party.
January 16th, 2012 at 10:14 am
I’m with MSPD that the comments on this thread are generally depressing, not all, of course. And the discussion has taken a turn for the better in the last third of the responses.
Chad – your comments about being legally drunk if you have three craft beers or whiskey cokes with your dinner is totally off. Drinking 12 oz bottles of any beer or a one-shot mixed drink isn’t going to get hardly anyone over .08 if taken over the course of a meal. But if you refer to any glass of beer as “one beer” it may be different. However, three 22-24 oz glasses is equal to drinking a six pack – not really “3 drinks.” If you drink a six pack in an hour, you may not be under .08 – some people will be and some won’t.
While there is a general consensus that drinking and driving is terribly wrong, not all the comments indicate it is taken serious. You really need a ignition lock to tell if you are able to drive? Wow, if you are driving can’t you just limit your alcohol intake so you are definitely under the limit and – more importantly – safe to drive? Don’t mix your pleasure of drinking with driving. Many countries/cultures already do this and people make the decision not to drive. Why? Penalties are severe and the culture has made it unacceptable.
Bartenders do have a difficult time in determining each patrons’ level of intoxication. The language of “obviously intoxicated” has been described as vague, but can’t we all agree we know when we see someone obviously intoxicated? Bartenders and servers are capable and most do a good job of cutting off or slowing drinkers down. Others don’t. There are bars known for having drunk, rowdy crowds and it isn’t just in rough areas. Bartenders/servers in those bars don’t care and/or don’t do a good job of cutting people off. Obviously intoxicated is the state of customer they are know for in some cases. It is possible to recognize and address but some businesses are known not to abide. (This is where Bill will chime in, “If we have the law, enforce it.”
January 16th, 2012 at 10:31 am
No, I don’t really want that. But I’d definitely like to have a breathalyzer with me so I could be absolutely certain that if I get pulled over for not using my blinker at 12:30 AM in Podunk, MN (also known as Fergus Falls) while pulling out of a gas station, I’m not going to blow a .09 and get hit with a DUI. (Remember, the limit was .10 until just a few years ago, so what a few years ago was considered sober enough to drive is now considered drunk.)
Just about every traffic stop between 12 and 4 AM is an alcohol check from my experience, regardless of the purported reason for the stop. (The example of no blinker coming out of a gas station in Fergus Falls happened 2 years ago coming back from a wedding in Wyoming. A few years before that my aunt was pulled over on I-35 in Kansas when I was with her at 2:30 AM and was driving 5 under the speed limit…they claimed she was just over the white line, out of her lane, though they didn’t even call it swerving. Alcohol hadn’t been consumed at all on either night.)
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate law enforcement’s efforts to crack down on DUI. I think DUI should be strictly enforced with more severe punishment than it’s given. I’m just not sure that .08 is really where “drunk” begins and I’d hate to find out that 2 drinks, which have zero effect on me, find me on the wrong side of the breathalyzer test.
January 16th, 2012 at 10:53 am
Debunker, I am sorry, but your facts are wrong. Three craft beers (generally quite a bit stronger than a domestic) would 100% cause an average size person to be over the legal limit, if consumed over a normal 30 to 60 minute meal. Three Whiskey Cokes, depending on the strength of the poor, would also likely cause you to be over .08 if consumed over dinner. If you were a small person it would be quite a bit less than this.
If these are things you truly dont realize, perhaps it is you that needs an ignition lock.
Beyond that, its a silly statement. Clearly there are thousands of people who dont realize when they have had too much to drink, or drunk driving would not be a problem. And your statement, that if you are driving, can’t you just LIMIT your alchohol intake speaks to the real problem. First, in a perfect world, the two dont mix at all. If you are drinking, you should not be driving. At All. Second, as noted on this an other threads, drinking is something that alters your perception and self awareness. You might have had the best intentions after one drink, and they are much different after three drinks.
January 16th, 2012 at 11:05 am
Even after just 1 12-ounce watered-down Natty Light? At what point should you not drive “at all?”
January 16th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Mmmmm Natty Light.
January 16th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Joey, if I am going out and going to have a drink, which is seldom, I limit myself to one drink, unless its a very long night (maybe a 4 hour baseball game for example) and then I might have a second drink.
I would agree that a single drink is not likely to hinder anyone (unless they are quite small), however tests would show that even a single drink does impact your reaction time in a negative way.