Barmen charged of killing Man with Booze

ShooterSF

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

So a guy goes into a chipper every day and gets like 7 burgers. He ends up dying of heart disease or heart attack or whatever thats directly caused by his diet. Should the people in the chipper be charged with murder?

To easy to answer. Let me fix your post.

So a guy goes into a chipper every day after a handful of pints and gets like 7 burgers. He ends up dying of heart disease or heart attack or whatever thats directly caused by his diet. Should the people in the chipper be charged with murder?

Turd Ferguson

I was actually just about to edit the post to include the booze element!!

Porkpie

I just feel really sorry for the two barmen. The justice system is a joke in this country.

homerjay2005

this is a disgrace...

what a waste of police time. no matter how many drinks they game him, it did not cause his death.

seamus

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

So a guy goes into a chipper every day and gets like 7 burgers. He ends up dying of heart disease or heart attack or whatever thats directly caused by his diet. Should the people in the chipper be charged with murder?

No, because that's not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of any one specific action (or set of actions). The man also was fully capable of deciding whether or not to buy those burgers.

Don't you think that a responsible person can foresee their own future before they start drinking?

And if the answer to that is no, how can any third party?

But we're not arguing over whether the barman should have served him drink at all, we're arguing over whether they should have continued to pour drink down his throat when he was already hammered. That's the specific action they're up in court over.

The waters are being muddied by mainly irrelevant arguments about choice and the like. This is not the same thing as smoking cigarettes or eating burgers.

This is similar to handing a loaded weapon to a person who has already admitted to you that they're suicidal and you're the only gunsmith in town. It seems a completely different scenario, but I'm trying to clarify what the issue is here - yes, people make their own choices which ultimately lead to their demise, but if someone else intervenes in a way which wouldn't otherwise have lead to the death and it was obvious to them what the outcome of their intervention would be, then surely they have some liability?

And yes, "reasonably foreseeable" is a matter of opinion, but the courts operate on opinion every day of the week. If everything was black-and-white and logical then we wouldn't need half of the court cases that we do have.

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

No, because that's not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of any one specific action (or set of actions). The man also was fully capable of deciding whether or not to buy those burgers.
But we're not arguing over whether the barman should have served him drink at all, we're arguing over whether they should have continued to pour drink down his throat when he was already hammered. That's the specific action they're up in court over.

The waters are being muddied by mainly irrelevant arguments about choice and the like. This is not the same thing as smoking cigarettes or eating burgers.

This is similar to handing a loaded weapon to a person who has already admitted to you that they're suicidal and you're the only gunsmith in town. It seems a completely different scenario, but I'm trying to clarify what the issue is here - yes, people make their own choices which ultimately lead to their demise, but if someone else intervenes in a way which wouldn't otherwise have lead to the death and it was obvious to them what the outcome of their intervention would be, then surely they have some liability?

And yes, "reasonably foreseeable" is a matter of opinion, but the courts operate on opinion every day of the week. If everything was black-and-white and logical then we wouldn't need half of the court cases that we do have.

If that happened it changes things alright. Though any bar I worked on frowned upon giving away drink. Usually you waited for it to be requested, handed it over and received payment for it.

dyl10

spadder wrote: »

What if I buy a chicken from my butcher, under-cook it, and as a result I die from salmonella. Is the butcher liable?

That's not a logical argument.
Chicken isn't a mind altering drug and you making a balls of it's preparation isn't the butchers fault.

A barman choosing to serve you a dangerous product to be consumed on his premises is a different argument altogether.

Turd Ferguson

dyl10 wrote: »

That's not a logical argument.
Chicken isn't a mind altering drug and you making a balls of it's preparation isn't the butchers fault.

A barman choosing to serve you a dangerous product to be consumed on his premises is a different argument altogether.

So I got to a bar and get drunk. I have a bad hangover the next day and dont go to work...I should tell my employers to hold the bar responsible for me calling in sick? They were the ones that gave me the booze and I was drunk so I couldnt reasonably foresee that I wouldnt be able to go to work the next day. If these barmen get charged then that is exactly what I am going to do...EVERY DAY!!!

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

If that happened it changes things alright. Though any bar I worked on frowned upon giving away drink. Usually you waited for it to be requested, handed it over and received payment for it.

Giving it away isn't all that important either actually. There's a fair argument to say that if the guy managed to coherently ask for another beer, he was OK, but if he was prompted by the barman, i.e. "Do you want another?", then it doesn't really matter whether or not he paid for it. He could have also charged it to his room, which would be just the same as being given it for free.

However, now we're getting into speculation mode and until the case opens in a month, we won't know any specifics.

seamus

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

So I got to a bar and get drunk. I have a bad hangover the next day and dont go to work...I should tell my employers to hold the bar responsible for me calling in sick? They were the ones that gave me the booze and I was drunk so I couldnt reasonably foresee that I wouldnt be able to go to work the next day. If these barmen get charged then that is exactly what I am going to do...EVERY DAY!!!

The flaw in your argument here Mr. Ferguson is that you were the one who made the initial decision and you could have reasonably foreseen that you would be hungover the next day, before you even started drinking.

By the same logic, if you asked a guy on the street to push you as hard as he can, he can't be found liable when you trip and fall on your arse bone.
But if he pushes you in front of a bus, he *is* in trouble because he could have foreseen that.

NothingMan

seamus wrote: »

The flaw in your argument here Mr. Ferguson is that you were the one who made the initial decision and you could have reasonably foreseen that you would be hungover the next day, before you even started drinking.

But this guy also made the initial decision to start drinking, knowing (I assume) that this may lead to being drunk, and knowing that being drunk leads to bad decisions like drinking more than you can handle, which can lead to people dying in the manner he did.
So by your argument by making the decision to have the first few drinks, probably with the initial plan to have more than a few, he could have reasonably foreseen that he would be in a bad state that night/next morning. Unfortunately in this instance bad wasn't just a headache and a turned stomach.

seamus

The chain of causation doesn't work like that. As I've pointed out, you could use that fallacy to argue that God/Jehovah/FSM is guilty for all crimes ever committed.

Drinking doesn't usually lead to death. The guy's initial decision doesn't logically follow to his death.

ShooterSF

NothingMan wrote: »

But this guy also made the initial decision to start drinking, knowing (I assume) that this may lead to being drunk, and knowing that being drunk leads to bad decisions like drinking more than you can handle, which can lead to people dying in the manner he did.
So by your argument by making the decision to have the first few drinks, probably with the initial plan to have more than a few, he could have reasonably foreseen that he would be in a bad state that night/next morning. Unfortunately in this instance bad wasn't just a headache and a turned stomach.

If only people were made aware of these risks and the suggestion that they drink responsibly made
As far as I'm concerned unless a barperson pushes drink on you or spikes your drink whether by supplying a larger measure etc than requested it's your own responsibility. Similarly if I go for flying lessons all I ask is that the guy bringing me has made sure the plane works as specified and he can do his job efficiently. After that if I fuk up it's my fault.
As for state of mind. It can't be argued that by now people are unaware when sober what risks they take going drinking.

NothingMan

seamus wrote: »

The chain of causation doesn't work like that. As I've pointed out, you could use that fallacy to argue that God/Jehovah/FSM is guilty for all crimes ever committed.

Drinking doesn't usually lead to death. The guy's initial decision doesn't logically follow to his death.

But you said it would be your own fault if you got hungover, because you know that drinking leads to hangovers. Assumedly this guy, on his birthday, decided while sober, to drink heavily, and in this day and age of shock drink awareness ads and celebrity's dying in similar circumstances, we know drinking heavily leads to worse things than hangovers.

seamus

NothingMan wrote: »

But you said it would be your own fault if you got hungover, because you know that drinking leads to hangovers. Assumedly this guy, on his birthday, decided while sober, to drink heavily, and in this day and age of shock drink awareness ads and celebrity's dying in similar circumstances, we know drinking heavily leads to worse things than hangovers.

"Reasonably foreseeable" means "likely to happen". Dying after you drink heavily is not likely to happen.
Having a hangover is likely to happen if you drink.

Turd Ferguson

seamus wrote: »

"Reasonably foreseeable" means "likely to happen". Dying after you drink heavily is not likely to happen.
Having a hangover is likely to happen if you drink.

Just because something is unlikely to happen it doesnt mean the blame should be put to someone else

seamus

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Just because something is unlikely to happen it doesnt mean the blame should be put to someone else

You're right. The person who caused it should be blamed.

NothingMan

seamus wrote: »

"Reasonably foreseeable" means "likely to happen". Dying after you drink heavily is not likely to happen.
Having a hangover is likely to happen if you drink.

I agree, it isn't reasonably foreseeable to think you will die from a heavy nights drinking. But it isn't outside the realms of possibility when you go on a serious bender.

I'm not arguing that the barman hasn't a ethical responsibility to not serve someone drink when they've clearly had too much. I just don't think they should be legally liable for seling someone a legal drink when they requested it for themselves.

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

You're missing the entire point of the law. The law doesn't go all the way back to first principles and find that your parents are guilty for deciding to have you in the first place. Think about it in terms of what is a "reasonably foreseeable" outcome of your actions. If you keep feeding a drunk guy pints, it's reasonably foreseeable that at some point he's going to collapse and die.
If you eject a drunk guy from a pub, it's *not* reasonably foreseeable that he'll end up under the wheels of a car.

If you fail to spot a reasonably foreseeable outcome of your actions or you ignore that outcome, you are guilty of negligence.

What might save the guys in this case was that the guy choked on his vomit and didn't die of alcohol poisoning. Choking on one's vomit can happen even if you're not completely comatose.

seamus wrote: »

"Reasonably foreseeable" means "likely to happen". Dying after you drink heavily is not likely to happen.
Having a hangover is likely to happen if you drink.

Are you not contradicting yourself here?

Turd Ferguson

ShooterSF wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself here?

Game, set and match

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself here?

No...

If you keep feeding a guy who's already pissed, a whole load of pints, it's likely that he will die.

If you make the decision to go out for a night on the beer, you're not likely to die.

Where's the contradiction?

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

No...

If you keep feeding a guy who's already pissed, a whole load of pints, it's likely that he will die.

If you make the decision to go out for a night on the beer, you're not likely to die.

Where's the contradiction?

Because if it's forseeable to the barman it should be to the sober punter who should make the decision to be somewhat sensible (not even a huge amount) on their night out and not get into a state where they could die.
Again I think you're undermining people's basic decision making abilities before and when drinking.

NothingMan

seamus wrote: »

No...

If you keep feeding a guy who's already pissed, a whole load of pints, it's likely that he will die.

If you make the decision to go out for a night on the beer, you're not likely to die.

Where's the contradiction?

Who siad the barman was feeding him drink? He or a friend would have requested the drink, so as far as I was concerned he was feeding himself a load of pints while he was drunk, so by you're logic, he was likely to die.

At how many pints do you judge him to not be capable of making his own decisions?

EL_Loco

Is this how it works?:

It's the point of escalation of consequences. If you were to be found to have served a drunk person you'd be charged with whatever offense that entails.

The fact the result of that initial illegal act had greater consequences it "raises the bar" on the charges faced.

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

Again I think you're undermining people's basic decision making abilities before and when drinking.

I think you're vastly overestimating it. Have you ever been drinking in your entire life?
Most people can control themselves up to a certain point, but if you're having fun and not otherwise required to do anything/go anywhere, then you will keep drinking well past the point that you would have wanted to if you were sober.

Who siad the barman was feeding him drink? He or a friend would have requested the drink.

But if he was that drunk, how would he request the drink? As I say earlier, there's a fair argument that if you're sober enough to ask for drink, you're sober enough to drink.

But as I said earlier, we're arguing over speculation here. If the guy was well able to ask for the drink himself, there's little or no liability here. If the drink was supplied to him without him asking, there may be a case here.

At how many pints do you judge him to not be capable of making his own decisions?

How long is a piece of string? People get pissed at different quantities. Why is the quantity important? We all know the difference between someone who's completely ****ed and someone who's not.

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

I think you're vastly overestimating it. Have you ever been drinking in your entire life?
Most people can control themselves up to a certain point, but if you're having fun and not otherwise required to do anything/go anywhere, then you will keep drinking well past the point that you would have wanted to if you were sober.

Oh trust me I too have been in some utter messes but often they were premeditated decisions to go out and get hammered or sometimes half assed resistance where deep down I knew "under the influence" I could cave. Then again I have also had nights were I was so drunk I switched to water or lucozade and I'm talking proper drunk there.
Never, and here's the kicker have I got up and thought "That bastard of a barman how dare he let me get that drunk last night." Not even in my worst states.

NothingMan

seamus wrote: »

But if he was that drunk, how would he request the drink? As I say earlier, there's a fair argument that if you're sober enough to ask for drink, you're sober enough to drink.

I can't really picture a barman handing over a pint without them or a friend of theirs requesting it. I would also consider a raise of the empty glass and a nod at the barman to be a request for another.

But as I said earlier, we're arguing over speculation here. If the guy was well able to ask for the drink himself, there's little or no liability here. If the drink was supplied to him without him asking, there may be a case here.

I can't really picture a barman handing over a pint without them or a friend of theirs requesting it. I would also consider a raise of the empty glass and a nod at the barman to be a request for another.

How long is a piece of string? People get pissed at different quantities. Why is the quantity important? We all know the difference between someone who's completely ****ed and someone who's not.

True, but for example I was drinking last weekend. My friend poured me two over zealous measuring jugs of vodka and orange. About an hour later I left feeling merry, but otherwise fine.

About half way home I fell over as I was walking through a field, then fell again when I tried to get up, then lay there for 10 mins til I stopped spinning.

My point being that the full effects of alcohol are not always visable or apparent until later on.

I know that is still speculation as we don't know what kind of drunk the guy was, messy or fine until he went to his room.

seamus

NothingMan wrote: »

I can't really picture a barman handing over a pint without them or a friend of theirs requesting it. I would also consider a raise of the empty glass and a nod at the barman to be a request for another.

I've been in resident's bars for special occasions where the barman had no problem dishing out rounds without prompting

My point being that the full effects of alcohol are not always visable or apparent until later on.

I know that is still speculation as we don't know what kind of drunk the guy was, messy or fine until he went to his room.

Yep, that's a perfectly good point. Be interesting to listen to this case when it starts.

ShooterSF

Some good discussion here but I'm hoping to bow out for the weekend to serve some drunks and then to be one.
Interesting to see if the case turns up some extraordinary situations and if not I hope the bar staff are let go on with their lives.