HS Party with Alcohol... Death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will all be based on the facts of the case. Dead people can't testify and Maryland law gives a presumption that they exercised due care for their own safety. It can be rebutted with testimony. But that presumption exists. The proximate cause of death here is likely speeding vs dui. So it can be argued both ways -- that the kids didn't agree to speeding, or that one or two or three of them egged the driver on to speed/beat the speed camera. You could have different outcomes based on the actions of each of the three passengers.

I know the thread-bully doesn't like legalese, but this presumption is interesting. It seems there's a decent argument that this presumption of due care is rebutted the moment the teens got into the car with a driver they knew had been drinking. This, of course, seems much easier to presume or prove that the egging-on of the driver.
One additional point: the case will be based on the facts (as determined by the fact-finder, which is not necessarily the same as the police report) and the applicable law (which has not been made clear -- at least certainly not in these 72 pages, the Bethesda Mag notwithstanding).

[Anonymous]

Well, there is the impact of complicity on the legal proceedings, yes. But I think the above posters were focusing more on the Murk's statement and some of the statements on DCUM that don't acknowledge the wrongdoings of the other kids in the car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will all be based on the facts of the case. Dead people can't testify and Maryland law gives a presumption that they exercised due care for their own safety. It can be rebutted with testimony. But that presumption exists. The proximate cause of death here is likely speeding vs dui. So it can be argued both ways -- that the kids didn't agree to speeding, or that one or two or three of them egged the driver on to speed/beat the speed camera. You could have different outcomes based on the actions of each of the three passengers.

I know the thread-bully doesn't like legalese, but this presumption is interesting. It seems there's a decent argument that this presumption of due care is rebutted the moment the teens got into the car with a driver they knew had been drinking. This, of course, seems much easier to presume or prove that the egging-on of the driver.
One additional point: the case will be based on the facts (as determined by the fact-finder, which is not necessarily the same as the police report) and the applicable law (which has not been made clear -- at least certainly not in these 72 pages, the Bethesda Mag notwithstanding).

Thanks, Mr Attorney!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The aspect of complicity in terms of the teens who were drinking themselves and made the decision not to wear their seat belts would come into play with regard to the disposition of the case of the teen driving the car.

However, the case of the adult parents - especially the one or both if there who was in the house at the time of the party - is what needs to be focused on in a wider sense of the community. From the testimony of the teens present, the Dad had visual knowledge of liquor coming in and also personal one-on-one conversation with at least one teen about the beer. He should be held accountable in a court of law. Also there should be a different "magnitude of sanction" if hosting an underage drinking party results in the loss of life for any adult in a household. Since the girl hosting the party was in her parents home, I would focus less on her and more on them in terms of criminal negligence. This is the only way to try and get more of a sense of accountability in the wider community - threat of prosecution.

I can only imagine the pressures being put on the Montgomery County police in this case, and I do commend them for doing their due diligence. Now let's see how the local district attorney's office follows through.....

Mark Anderson, is he heading this? What's his record with these issues? Is there one iota of hope for justice?

Curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, there is the impact of complicity on the legal proceedings, yes. But I think the above posters were focusing more on the Murk's statement and some of the statements on DCUM that don't acknowledge the wrongdoings of the other kids in the car.

Right. But aren't these two sides of the same coin: complicity in the legal proceedings and the parents' wrongdoings that should have been noted in the statement? (Although perhaps the legal complicity argument is precisely why the Murk statement didn't mention possible complicit actions of their son.) Or I don't understand your point.

[Anonymous]

Just read the Murk's statement. I feel terrible for them and think they make some excellent points, but they fall short of putting any blame on their son.

Their son made a fatal lapse in judgment to ride in car with someone that was drinking. He also made a fatal lapse in judgement by not wearing a seat belt. And could he have possible been the one encouraging the fast driving.

Also, curious if the other boys had alcohol and drugs in their systems. I seriously doubt the driver was the only one smoking weed and doing xanax.

[Anonymous]

Don't you people know that once you have the first drink, your ability to make rational decisions goes down with each drink? Is this rocket science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read the Murk's statement. I feel terrible for them and think they make some excellent points, but they fall short of putting any blame on their son.

Their son made a fatal lapse in judgment to ride in car with someone that was drinking. He also made a fatal lapse in judgement by not wearing a seat belt. And could he have possible been the one encouraging the fast driving.

Also, curious if the other boys had alcohol and drugs in their systems. I seriously doubt the driver was the only one smoking weed and doing xanax.

It's called, what happens when you consume alcohol, not a lapse in judgment.

[Anonymous]

its illegal call the non emergency line

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:its illegal call the non emergency line

Wtf? Punctuation is your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't you people know that once you have the first drink, your ability to make rational decisions goes down with each drink? Is this rocket science?

I've gotten drunk and done some stupid shit but always knew not to drive drunk or be a passenger with a drunk driver. It's ingrained in me and drinking doesn't take that away. Drank plenty in college but never drove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you people know that once you have the first drink, your ability to make rational decisions goes down with each drink? Is this rocket science?

I've gotten drunk and done some stupid shit but always knew not to drive drunk or be a passenger with a drunk driver. It's ingrained in me and drinking doesn't take that away. Drank plenty in college but never drove.

This is my goal for my teen-aged children. (Well, I'd greatly prefer that they not drink underage but failing that: NO DRINKING AND DRIVING NO DRINKING DRIVING UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES). Has this meant that I've been called to open fields at 2 am to retrieve my own kid (when kids were supposed to be a Bobbie's house), that I've driven home other people's drunk teens, and that I've woken up/been woken up other parents in the middle of the night to ensure the safety of our kids? Yes to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/potomac/2015/09/21/family-n-potomac-crash-victim-releases-statement/72583840/

I'm not sure how I feel with this statement. I agree with most of it, especially that the host parent should be held criminally responsible. However, their child wasn't doing right either. It feels like they are blaming everyone else, without admitting that their son was drinking underage.

I agree that it wasn't acknowledged in their latest statement, but you can see both of them responded to the following blog post and they most definitely recognize that their son made poor choices that night...

http://evvastarr.com/1/post/2015/07/i-make-this-oath.html#comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need a law on the books before you can charge and prosecute crimes. Come on people, this is an emotional issue, but please put your thinking caps on. Anyone knowledgeable of the Maryland Code would be useful now.

If no one died I can see how without a law, no crime for hosting Dad. However people died because of his actions. Can they not file involuntary manslaughter charges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't you people know that once you have the first drink, your ability to make rational decisions goes down with each drink? Is this rocket science?

I've gotten drunk and done some stupid shit but always knew not to drive drunk or be a passenger with a drunk driver. It's ingrained in me and drinking doesn't take that away. Drank plenty in college but never drove.

This is my goal for my teen-aged children. (Well, I'd greatly prefer that they not drink underage but failing that: NO DRINKING AND DRIVING NO DRINKING DRIVING UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES). Has this meant that I've been called to open fields at 2 am to retrieve my own kid (when kids were supposed to be a Bobbie's house), that I've driven home other people's drunk teens, and that I've woken up/been woken up other parents in the middle of the night to ensure the safety of our kids? Yes to all.

+1
My rule is - you call and get:
No questions asked. I pick them up, I put them to bed. They are alive. The End.