Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adam Herstein on June 3, 2013 at 4:29am

What? You want to sue the bar that served him? It's not their fault he drank so much, then decided to drive. I can see maybe placing a tiny fraction of the blame on his friends who let him drive and were in the car with him, but it is no way the bar's fault. He could have just as easily gotten drunk at a friend's house instead. Are we to blame the liquor store who sold him a 24 back of Bud Light? In the end, the driver has the sole responsibility to not drive if he knows he is impaired, and thus should receive the full punishment.

David crZven 10.6 said:

What needs to be done is a demand for greater accountability in the law and a private law suit by the family and the estate extracting as much money as it can from the driver, the place that served the alcohol, and to the extent that it can be established, the "friends" in the car that let him drive.   Money  does not bring back the dead, but its the best that we can really do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on June 3, 2013 at 4:35am

Hell yes.  And its a legitimate target under Illinois law.  Its called the "Illinois Dram Shop Act"

Here's a brief bit from Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions summarizing the law:

Section 6-21 of the Liquor Control Act of 1934 (the Dramshop Act) (235 ILCS 5/6-21

(2000)) creates a cause of action against owners of businesses that sell liquor, and also against

lessors or owners of the premises on which the liquor is sold, for physical injury to a person, for

injury to tangible property, or for injury to means of support or loss of society, but not both,

caused by an intoxicated person.

   If somewhere legally sells alcohol for a profit, it is legally responsible if the customer gets involved in a drunk driving accident.   They are subject to limits, frankly rather low limits, but they have legal responsibility.  Under Illinois law, servers are supposed to be trained to determine whether the customer has had to much to drink and to cut them off from buying more.  

The law was created expressly because consumers of Alcohol are NOT good judges of whether they have had too much.

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

What? You want to sue the bar that served him? It's not their fault he drank so much, then decided to drive. I can see maybe placing a tiny fraction of the blame on his friends who let him drive and were in the car with him, but it is no way the bar's fault. He could have just as easily gotten drunk at a friend's house instead. Are we to blame the liquor store who sold him a 24 back of Bud Light? In the end, the driver has the sole responsibility to not drive if he knows he is impaired, and thus should receive the full punishment.

David crZven 10.6 said:

What needs to be done is a demand for greater accountability in the law and a private law suit by the family and the estate extracting as much money as it can from the driver, the place that served the alcohol, and to the extent that it can be established, the "friends" in the car that let him drive.   Money  does not bring back the dead, but its the best that we can really do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barish on June 3, 2013 at 6:22am

I agree.  Assuming that all we have discussed on these pages is true the driver is guilty of multiple crimes.  The law assumes he is innocent until proven guilty but the early discussion seems to lead us to believe that the State can overcome their burden.  If this is the case, it may well be that the parties will negotiate. This is not a sell out. This is the system working Trials are not held simply for catharsis or to make us feel good. There is ample room for justice in a negotiated outcome.  If the parties settle it will be based on how likely each side feels their position may be.  (We must remember that they certainly have more facts than we do. He may be even more or perhaps less guilty than we all think)  If the State has strong evidence its likely the driver will be a guest of the People of the State of Illinois for a while. We don't need a show trial to scare people into better behavior. We don't need to draw and quarter the guilty party. Whatever you say about our society, it has grown past such things.  Bad people should get a fair trip through the system and  good outcomes should result.

I have been chastised in other threads for discussing the reality that a civil proceeding (for money) will also likely result.  No amount of damage can replace a lost son.  Its still a more humane pound of flesh. I really get no satisfaction from seeing another person go to jail or suffer. That's the last I will discuss of this. I am not involved and assume the family will make their own decisions once the utter agony of the past week has passed from acute searing pain to a more chronic dull ache.

Lisa Curcio 4.0 mi said:

May I just add that there apparently is more than one charge pending:  Aggravated DUI ( a Class 2 felony) and Reckless Homicide (a Class 3 felony).  The state must prove each element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If for either charge they cannot prove just one element, there must be a finding of not guilty on the charge for which they cannot prove all elements.  The defendant does not need to prove anything.

Taking a case to trial is risky for everyone.  The suggestion of attending court hearings is a better one than to sign this petition.  Attending court hearings lets the State's Attorney's office know that there is concern in the community for a stiff sentence, and might influence what they are willing to offer in exchange for a plea.  Of course, the State's Attorney has the evidence and also knows the risks and possible benefits of going to trial. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on June 3, 2013 at 6:23am

A Jury Trial will be held if the Defendant wants a Jury Trial.   But a defendant can knowingly waive a Jury Trial.  And this might be one of those cases where the Defendant might want to waive a jury trial.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip Bird on June 4, 2013 at 6:51am

Much thanks. God bless.

Ace Mann said:

Phil

 Here,is a short video I took at last months Ride of Silence. You might see Bobby in it. I took a lot photos from the ride. If you or his Family would like to look thru them, let me know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip Bird on June 4, 2013 at 7:26am

They have. They hired a well-known, reputable attorney to represent Bobby yesterday morning.

h' 1.0 said:

It's been very hard to follow all the discussion, so it's very likely I missed something, but I have an ongoing nagging concern that the victim's family does not seem to have sought legal representation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian on June 15, 2013 at 5:19am

...in Lake County

...with cocaine in his (boater's) system

...the victim was related to several judges and attorneys in Lake County.

not sure this is the best comparison.  The off duty cop who killed a 13 year old cyclist in '09/10 and fled got 3 years.

h' 1.0 said:

Breaking: 10 years' jail time for drunk boater who killed 5-year-old child:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drunken-boater-sent...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on June 15, 2013 at 6:57am

Good points, but I'm not sure your counter example is the best either. The case is three or four years older and involved a cop. I interpreted the news this morning as a good sign. 

Ian said:

...in Lake County

...with cocaine in his (boater's) system

...the victim was related to several judges and attorneys in Lake County.

not sure this is the best comparison.  The off duty cop who killed a 13 year old cyclist in '09/10 and fled got 3 years.

h' 1.0 said:

Breaking: 10 years' jail time for drunk boater who killed 5-year-old child:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drunken-boater-sent...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page