Barmen charged of killing Man with Booze

The_B_Man

over here, if a barman serves someone who is drunk, they get personally fined, and the bar also gets fined. you're talking personal fines in the thousands. premises fines of at least triple that.

fines also apply for selling to underage patrons and prostitutes on the job.

so over here, the bar staff take responsibility in these cases.

11811

pistonsvox wrote: »

Wait a minute...

what?

Barmen are supposed to babysit their customers

Not baby-sit as such, but they do have to ensure their customers safety and well-being - like any service industry really, Im sure you appreciate people ensuring your safety on a plane or train for instance?

pistonsvox

The_B_Man wrote: »

over here, if a barman serves someone who is drunk, they get personally fined, and the bar also gets fined. you're talking personal fines in the thousands. premises fines of at least triple that.

fines also apply for selling to underage patrons and prostitutes on the job.

so over here, the bar staff take responsibility in these cases.

Ah right. Would the same apply if a friend was buying the rounds though?

dumbyearbook

There is a reason that to hold a license to sell alcohol you have to be 'of good character' no previous criminal record etc., its so deaths like these should'nt happen, i.e. the person selling it can decide what should and should not happen on his premises - the bar men here were in the wrong place wrong time but still should have stopped serving the guy, there is a duty as stated above to protect your customers and others.

IMO the license holder, should be prosecurted (vicarious liability) etc. for his employees actions though I dont't think this can be stretched to a violation of criminal law, these barmen had'nt a clue i'm sure nobody ever gave them a responsible serving of alcohol or anything, the owner should take the hit here no question.

Pherekydes

MagicMarker wrote: »

Posting links should be against the charter!

Can someone please paste the information for those of us who don't have access to the link?

Thanks.

Back seat modding! Should have a 7 week ban!

Regarding the case, at what point does it seem likely that someone is going to choke on their own vomit? How can anyone predict the future? People have to take responsibilities for their own actions.

NothingMan

The_B_Man wrote: »

fines also apply for selling to underage patrons and prostitutes on the job.

Barmen aren't allowed sell alcohol to prostitutes? Am I reading this wrong?

crasher_lou

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, speculating on this matter. None of you have the full facts and your idle gossip is sickening.
None of you knew the deceased or the circumstances of the death, or of the loving family he left behind.

Keep your thoughtless disrespectful remarks to yourselves.

Sheeps

This case is retarded.

Turd Ferguson

Adyx wrote: »

Irish law says differently afaik. If something happens to you while you are pissed, whoever served you is technically held responsible.

Thats just stupid. People working in a bar shouldnt have to babysit their customers. The guy died because of his and his friends irresponsability. There have been times where I have drank way more than I should have and bad things have happened and I knew it was my own fault. All this passing the blame is fucking ridiculous. The guy was an adult and he knew it was his birthday and he knew he was going to get really drunk. Here is a question, why didnt him or his friends tell the barmen before they started drinking to stop serving them when they get really drunk?

NothingMan

crasher_lou wrote: »

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, speculating on this matter. None of you have the full facts and your idle gossip is sickening.
None of you knew the deceased or the circumstances of the death, or of the loving family he left behind.

Keep your thoughtless disrespectful remarks to yourselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself, speculating on our speculating! Your signing up to a website just to give out is sickening.
You don't know anyone here, or the circumstances behind after hours, and what of our loving forum family?

Keep your nagging disrespectful remarks to yourself!

Kintarō Hattori

crasher_lou wrote: »

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, speculating on this matter. None of you have the full facts and your idle gossip is sickening.
None of you knew the deceased or the circumstances of the death, or of the loving family he left behind.

Keep your thoughtless disrespectful remarks to yourselves.

No harm in a bit of idle speculation. As long as no-oneis being libelous or truely disrespectful and bearing in mind that the site is heavily moderated.......... it's all good.

seamus

irish_goat wrote: »

This could set a very dangerous precedent. I've worked in large bars where it's impossible to know who is buying drink for who. If it was this guy's birthday then there's a high chance he was sitting down most of the time and his friends were buying rounds hence the barmen might never have really seen the guy unless they noticed him if he got up to go to the toilet.

From what I've heard, the barmen were serving the guy themselves.

I've no doubt that it's a bartender's social duty to not serve drink to someone who has clearly had enough but them being but legally it's totally unfair to blame them for this man's death.

It's illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk. It's not a social duty, it's a legal one.

That's the most important thing that will come out of this case, regardless of which direction it goes - you will find yourself having difficulty getting a drink anywhere in this country if you already seem pissed. And rightly so tbh.

pistonsvox wrote: »

Ah right. Would the same apply if a friend was buying the rounds though?

It's a thorny one. The barman *should* know who's getting the drink. This also ensures that it's not being supplied to a minor.

pistonsvox wrote: »

Barmen are supposed to babysit their customers

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Thats just stupid. People working in a bar shouldnt have to babysit their customers.

They do, legally. This is because, as we all know, your capacity to make good decisions diminishes with every drink. After 12 pints, the 13th one sounds like a fncking great idea, but in the sober light of the day with your head down the toilet, you know it wasn't. It's the concept of "diminshed responsibility" which comes into play and has been used to get lighter sentences for rapes and murders.

Ironically, if the barmen themselves had been pissed, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Here is a question, why didnt him or his friends tell the barmen before they started drinking to stop serving them when they get really drunk?

Because they are legally compelled to stop serving them when they're drunk. And basic common sense assumes that you wouldn't serve someone who's falling on the floor. You should never have to say to anybody, "Stop serving me if I'm really pissed".

humanji

The_Minister wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you.

However, someone who has had 11 shots in quick succession is not capable of rationally deciding to have a 12th.

A barman has a duty, if someone who is dangerously intoxicated seeks more alcohol, to refuse to serve them, as they may be unable to make that decision themselves.

Where does it say anything about 11 shots?

eviltwin

You can't seriously expect bar staff to keep tabs on how much a person is drinking.

Whose to say he didnt have a few beers elsewhere before arriving in the pub? Whose to say he didnt just have a very low tolerance for the stuff?

I dont agree with bar staff allowing someone openly locked to continue drinking but I don't think even if that was the case here that they should be up on a manslaughter charge

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? At the very least his mates should have been keeping an eye on him

Kintarō Hattori

eviltwin wrote: »

You can't seriously expect bar staff to keep tabs on how much a person is drinking.

Whose to say he didnt have a few beers elsewhere before arriving in the pub? Whose to say he didnt just have a very low tolerance for the stuff?

I dont agree with bar staff allowing someone openly locked to continue drinking but I don't think even if that was the case here that they should be up on a manslaughter charge

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? At the very least his mates should have been keeping an eye on him

That's the problem right there. I feel as a society we are disregarding our personal responsibility more and more. We want someone to hold our hands and take the blame if we hurt/injure ourselves. People are becoming more self centered and less responsible for their actions. It's a really dangerous direction and the powers that be seem to be saying it's OK........ when it's really not.

The_B_Man

NothingMan wrote: »

Barmen aren't allowed sell alcohol to prostitutes? Am I reading this wrong?

as part of the terms of the Responsible Supply of Alcohol (RSA) you cant serve a patron if u suspect they're a (currently working) prostitute.:p

NothingMan

The_B_Man wrote: »

as part of the terms of the Responsible Supply of Alcohol (RSA) you cant serve a patron if u suspect they're a (currently working) prostitute.:p

I wonder if I was a barman and I didn't want to serve a woman, what would be the reaction if I cited that as the reason? Hilarious! :pac:

Gannicus

If thats the case why not start sue-ing your local shop for getting cancer because they sold you smokes. This is retarded.

leave the 2 barmen alone. he was an adult. he got stupidly drunk
dont blame them for doing a job.

crasher_lou

NothingMan wrote: »

You should be ashamed of yourself, speculating on our speculating! Your signing up to a website just to give out is sickening.
You don't know anyone here, or the circumstances behind after hours, and what of our loving forum family?

Keep your nagging disrespectful remarks to yourself!

I might not know you, or this forum. But I do know Graham, who died. And i think a little more repsect if you are going to "gossip" about his death would be appropiate.

Turd Ferguson

crasher_lou wrote: »

I might not know you, or this forum. But I do know Graham, who died. And i think a little more repsect if you are going to "gossip" about his death would be appropiate.

I dont think this thread is "gossiping" about his death, its just used as the example. In my opinion is about the law that hold the barmen responsible for other people actions, which is not right at all

NothingMan

crasher_lou wrote: »

I might not know you, or this forum. But I do know Graham, who died. And i think a little more repsect if you are going to "gossip" about his death would be appropiate.

I am very sorry for your loss. However when something is in the public eye like this story. Especially when it is a topic that can devide people like this one, it will be discussed.

I am sure noone here means any disrespect to you or the family of the deceased.

doubtfir3

crasher_lou wrote: »

I might not know you, or this forum. But I do know Graham, who died. And i think a little more repsect if you are going to "gossip" about his death would be appropiate.

Were you there the night he died?

Who do you believe is responsible for his death? Would you have stopped him from drinking, or would you (like most others) have been disgusted if the barmen stopped serving him for being too drunk?

I personally sympathise with Graham, and his family and friends - especially those who were with him on the night he died as they must feel at least partly responsible for his death and for not looking after him.

However, I do not believe that it is the barmen's fault that he has died. He went to sleep and was unsupervised by his friends, he vomited in his sleep and unfortunately died.

Not the bar staff's fault, OK they could have refused to serve him, but he could have fallen asleep after 4 pints and vomited and died just as easily.

Venom

The whole idea of charging the barmen is just retarded imho. A person should be held responsible for their own actions even when the outcome is tragic as is this case.

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

From what I've heard, the barmen were serving the guy themselves.
It's illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk. It's not a social duty, it's a legal one.

That's the most important thing that will come out of this case, regardless of which direction it goes - you will find yourself having difficulty getting a drink anywhere in this country if you already seem pissed. And rightly so tbh.
It's a thorny one. The barman *should* know who's getting the drink. This also ensures that it's not being supplied to a minor.

They do, legally. This is because, as we all know, your capacity to make good decisions diminishes with every drink. After 12 pints, the 13th one sounds like a fncking great idea, but in the sober light of the day with your head down the toilet, you know it wasn't. It's the concept of "diminshed responsibility" which comes into play and has been used to get lighter sentences for rapes and murders.

Ironically, if the barmen themselves had been pissed, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Because they are legally compelled to stop serving them when they're drunk. And basic common sense assumes that you wouldn't serve someone who's falling on the floor. You should never have to say to anybody, "Stop serving me if I'm really pissed".

In theory this is fine. But in say a nightclub with 1000 patrons and 8-10 bar staff it's unworkable.

seamus

ShooterSF wrote: »

In theory this is fine. But in say a nightclub with 1000 patrons and 8-10 bar staff it's unworkable.

Of course it is. That's what bouncers are for and it's why they eject anyone who's asleep in the corner or seems very drunk.

doubtfir3

True, but surely then part of the responsibility also lies with the security staff and not solely with the bar staff?

If, for example I go to the bar and have had a couple of drinks and the barman deems me fit for further comsumption and hands me a pint then all is well.

If I then travel to the other end of the bar, and proceed to give the pint to my friend who is being propped up by two other friends because he is so drunk, how is the barman responsible for this?

If in the same scenario I am deemed fit for more by the barman, and he gives me two pints, should the onus be on the barman to ask me who the second pint is for? Should he leave the bar area and find out to whom I am giving the second pint? Should he ask one of the security staff to come with me to ensure that my friend to whom I am giving the second pint is fit to consume it?

Turd Ferguson

To be honest, this country is so fucking retarted I can actually see them banning the sale of alcoholic drinks in pubs over this. It seems like something that would get voted through in the Dail :rolleyes:

topper75

NothingMan wrote: »

Arresting an off license worker for selling me a litre of vodka after I decide to drink it all in 20 minutes?

Different situation there. You are pouring yourself the measures of an off licence bottle. This case involved an already drunk person being actively served.

I wouldn't throw book at barman for this (they didn't murder) but law was broken.

seamus

doubtfir3 wrote: »

If I then travel to the other end of the bar, and proceed to give the pint to my friend who is being propped up by two other friends because he is so drunk, how is the barman responsible for this?

He's not. You might be though

If in the same scenario I am deemed fit for more by the barman, and he gives me two pints, should the onus be on the barman to ask me who the second pint is for? Should he leave the bar area and find out to whom I am giving the second pint? Should he ask one of the security staff to come with me to ensure that my friend to whom I am giving the second pint is fit to consume it?

Unbelieveably, the last option is most rational. The security staff should be well on top of it so that the guy being propped up is removed before the problem arises. Not a perfect solution, but if you were to pose this argument in court, then that would be the court's response to the claim that, "I can't know what everyone is up to".
You couldn't find any one specific person to blame, but the club itself could be found liable.

deisedevil

Imagine this, someone gets hammered drunk, gets in a car and crashes into another car killing someone. That would be the drunken drivers fault.

Someone gets hammered drunk to the point where they choke on their own vomit. That's the barmans fault?

So if you kill someone else because you were intoxicated it's your fault but if you kill yourself due to intoxication it's whoever gave you the drinks fault?

Would they take whoever was on the tills at Spar to court if I went in and bought bag after bag of crisps until I choked on them?