18 PSU frat brothers charged with manslaughter...

[tboyer]

This is really sad for all involved. I truely feel for his family, but, what happened to self accountability? Why is it always someone else's fault these days?

In the mid to late 90's, when I attended, I remember at least 2 deaths from guys falling off of balconys off campus while drinking at partys. Does this mean that everyone that was at those parties would be arrested by today's standards?

Balcony falls are a little different because there's no question, 911 is going to be called. This is about not calling 911 when someone needs medical attention (and of course the issue is going to be whether the frat brothers should have known he needed medical attention).

I think this case is more like a group of junkies sitting around in the shell of a burned out warehouse shooting up. One of them overdoses but the others are too high to notice -- or if they do notice, they don't call 911 because no one wants the cops to come in and arrest everybody. A lot of people die of drug overdoses BECAUSE of our harsh criminal response to drug use. The policy produces the opposite of what we want -- more people die. Some states with a lot of heroin deaths are starting to address this.

These frat boys are charged with felonies for a hazing ritual involving forced ingestion of alcohol (STUPID! can you believe they still do this!) but the primary allegation is that they didn't call 911. But calling 911 would have resulted in .... criminal charges against everyone at the fraternity, so no one called 911. That is awful, that is tragic, maybe it's manslaughter.... but it's understandable given they were drunk themselves, they didn't know he was dying, but they did know what would happen if the police were called.

 

[PSU_Nut]

What's the logical extension of this. Next time someone dies after drinking at a PSU tailgate, maybe Stacey Parks Miller can criminally charge everybody at Beaver Stadium for contributing to the lawless atmosphere that lead to the death. I'm sure the manslaughter statute can be stretched as far as she wants to stretch it.

I think you are making a huge stretch. Are you seriously saying purchasing alcohol for a minor and hazing a pledge is the same as tailgating and attending a football game? Last time I checked tailgating and attending a football game are legal in pa. Hazing and buys by alcohol for minors is not. That makes as much sense as saying because they charge people with manslaughter because they were driving drunk they are going to start charging people who had caffeine in their system.

 

[PSU_Nut]

This is really sad for all involved. I truely feel for his family, but, what happened to self accountability? Why is it always someone else's fault these days?

In the mid to late 90's, when I attended, I remember at least 2 deaths from guys falling off of balconys off campus while drinking at partys. Does this mean that everyone that was at those parties would be arrested by today's standards?

No because having a balcony is not illegal. Providing alcohol to a minor and hazing are. I don't see why people are having a tough time grasping the concept. If you do something illegal and someone dies as a result you likely are facing charges.

 

[PearlSUJam]

I believe in self accountability but if the kid died of an OxyContin OD after a brother gave him a bunch of pills, does the person who gave it to him not have any responsibility? I know where I'd stand if it was my kid.

And in your example, those things happened in an instant. Anytime somebody is completely unresponsive, and you do nothing to get him medical treatment, you always run the risk that they won't wake up.

An adult knows this. A bunch of scared ass kids don't. But legally they are still adults and are going to have to face the consequences.

I see what you're saying, but these were legally adults and unless they held him down and forcefully made him swallow the Oxy, I respectfully disagree.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Balcony falls are a little different because there's no question, 911 is going to be called. This is about not calling 911 when someone needs medical attention (and of course the issue is going to be whether the frat brothers should have known he needed medical attention).

I think this case is more like a group of junkies sitting around in the shell of a burned out warehouse shooting up. One of them overdoses but the others are too high to notice -- or if they do notice, they don't call 911 because no one wants the cops to come in and arrest everybody. A lot of people die of drug overdoses BECAUSE of our harsh criminal response to drug use. The policy produces the opposite of what we want -- more people die. Some states with a lot of heroin deaths are starting to address this.

These frat boys are charged with felonies for a hazing ritual involving forced ingestion of alcohol (STUPID! can you believe they still do this!) but the primary allegation is that they didn't call 911. But calling 911 would have resulted in .... criminal charges against everyone at the fraternity, so no one called 911. That is awful, that is tragic, maybe it's manslaughter.... but it's understandable given they were drunk themselves, they didn't know he was dying, but they did know what would happen if the police were called.

One thing that is very important to what you're saying is that someone who has head trauma and someone whom is really drunk act very similarly.

 

[PSU_Nut]

I see what you're saying, but these were legally adults and unless they held him down and forcefully made him swallow the Oxy, I respectfully disagree.

Actually he was a minor legally in the eyes of a law. Providing him with alcohol and Hazing is illegal in Pennsylvanian. You may not disagree with laws but they are still illegal activities. When one participates in illegal activities they must be aware that those actions can have severe consequences. It is no different then choosing to drink and drive. You might not have planned to wreck but if you do there are consequences. Instead of trying to make excuses for these guys who call themselves Men of Principal perhaps we should use this as a teaching moment to other young men. .

 

[Bob78]

Balcony falls are a little different because there's no question, 911 is going to be called. This is about not calling 911 when someone needs medical attention (and of course the issue is going to be whether the frat brothers should have known he needed medical attention).

I think this case is more like a group of junkies sitting around in the shell of a burned out warehouse shooting up. One of them overdoses but the others are too high to notice -- or if they do notice, they don't call 911 because no one wants the cops to come in and arrest everybody. A lot of people die of drug overdoses BECAUSE of our harsh criminal response to drug use. The policy produces the opposite of what we want -- more people die. Some states with a lot of heroin deaths are starting to address this.

These frat boys are charged with felonies for a hazing ritual involving forced ingestion of alcohol (STUPID! can you believe they still do this!) but the primary allegation is that they didn't call 911. But calling 911 would have resulted in .... criminal charges against everyone at the fraternity, so no one called 911. That is awful, that is tragic, maybe it's manslaughter.... but it's understandable given they were drunk themselves, they didn't know he was dying, but they did know what would happen if the police were called.

Subject matter aside, this is one of those posts that I enjoy because although I don't agree with all of it, it brings up some interesting, well-considered points of view that are worthy of further consideration and discussion. The drug abuse analogy is interesting. I happen to agree that drug abuse needs to be treated as an illness first, rather than a crime. But that is OT here, so I'll stop there.
Thanks for putting your thoughts out there for others to read.

 

[tboyer]

Not sure...I think supplying to minors is a misdemeanor.

It's funny, misdemeanor doesn't sound that serious, and maybe at the time the term was created, it was intended to distinguish from more serious crimes.

But a misdemeanor conviction brings fairly catastrophic lifetime consequences. A huge huge swath of the job market, including most professional jobs, is going to be off limits FOR LIFE to someone with a misdemeanor conviction.

At the time criminal codes were written of course there was no internet, there were no criminal background databases. Nobody 30 years ago would have intended that a misdemeanor conviction would have meant "NO professional employment, ever." But that is what it means today for many people. Heck, you can't even get a job as a security guard or apartment manager or even a cashier or bookkeeper with a misdemeanor conviction. The computer that does employment screening just rejects you automatically at the first line background check. So -- what the frat members are facing is fairly catastrophic even if they escape felony conviction. Maybe they deserve that -- I guess that's what some people think. But it seems harsh to me.

 

[tboyer]

Actually he was a minor legally in the eyes of a law. Providing him with alcohol and Hazing is illegal in Pennsylvanian. You may not disagree with laws but they are still illegal activities. When one participates in illegal activities they must be aware that those actions can have severe consequences.

To me it's how severe that's the question. $10,000 fine, 3 months in jail, 2 years probation, that's one thing. But how about -- you will never, ever, for the rest of your life, work as an engineer, teacher, lawyer, nurse, doctor, architect, accountant etc......You will never ever work for a large company that does criminal background screening. A misdemeanor is 100 times bigger deal today than it used to be because of the criminal conviction databases.

 

[PSU_1991]

I read much of the presentment and this is not equivalent to tailgating. This went way over the line. His blood alcohol level was estimated to be at or close to the level of toxicity. He fell multiple times. If I read it correctly, he fell down the basement stairs twice! And, I don't think it's a case of just charging everyone just because they were at the party. The video apparently shows multiple people involved in attempting to help him but only one person advocated for calling 911. There's also evidence of attempts to cover it up. It also was not just head trauma. He had bruises that were visible from the video and the brothers obviously saw them as well. At the hospital they found that 80% of his blood was in his abdomen.

 

[tboyer]

One thing that is very important to what you're saying is that someone who has head trauma and someone whom is really drunk act very similarly.

Really it's amazing to me that students don't die at PSU every weekend because the level of drinking (and fighting, and falling) is just astonishing. It's 100 times worse than when most of us were students. That is one of the great ironies here. They have banned alcohol use, then criminalized it more and more harshly, to the point where there are lifetime consquences for a single underage drinking violation -- and yet the students drink much more heavily than ever before. To me it is a lesson in the limited power of negative reinforcement.

 

[voltz99]

Doesn't Pa have some type of good Samaritan law that protects the students who call 911 if someone is drunk/hurt?


Found this.

http://www.mystatecollegelawyer.com...tan-law-on-penn-state-underage-drinkers.shtml

Pennsylvania's Underage Drinking Good Samaritan Law
As of September of 2011, the Underage Drinking law, found in section 6308 of the Crimes Code, was amended to include a Good Samaritan exception to prosecution. Now, underage drinkers are able to contact medical assistance providers without fear of criminal prosecution for Underage Drinking if: 1) the police only became aware of the underage drinker because the drinker called medical services on behalf of another person, and the drinker believed that the medical attention was required to prevent death or serious injury; 2) the underage drinker believed that he was the first person to call for medical services; 3) the underage drinker provided his name to the medical services dispatcher; and 4) the underage drinker remained with the person that needed medical assistance until the need for assistance had ended.

To date, I have not heard of any instances of the Good Samaritan defense being asserted in a State College Underage Drinking case. Obviously, some officers from the State College or Penn State Police Departments may not file charges in a clear cut instance of the Good Samaritan exception, but I have not heard officers from those departments speak about instances either.

 

[JoeDidntKnow]

Parks-Miller sounds just as bad as Michael Madeira. Madeira made a living going after college students who did nothing wrong.

 

[tboyer]

I think you are making a huge stretch. Are you seriously saying purchasing alcohol for a minor and hazing a pledge is the same as tailgating and attending a football game? Last time I checked tailgating and attending a football game are legal in pa. Hazing and buys by alcohol for minors is not. That makes as much sense as saying because they charge people with manslaughter because they were driving drunk they are going to start charging people who had caffeine in their system.

Yeah it was a stretch. I was trying to make a point about overprosecution but it was off base.

Still, isn't everybody drinking beer outside the stadium breaking the law? It's illegal for anyone to possess alcohol on PSU property, right? If the police treated a football game as a giant fraternity party and had the resources to "process" everybody breaking the law, couldn't they charge 75,000 people with an alcohol violation? Just a question. I'm not saying it's equivalent to the crimes of the brothers.

 

[PSU_Nut]

To me it's how severe that's the question. $10,000 fine, 3 months in jail, 2 years probation, that's one thing. But how about -- you will never, ever, for the rest of your life, work as an engineer, teacher, lawyer, nurse, doctor, architect, accountant etc......You will never ever work for a large company that does criminal background screening. A misdemeanor is 100 times bigger deal today than it used to be because of the criminal conviction databases.

There are people who deal with that who action did not lead to a death. The victim won't ever be able to work. What about him and his family?

 

[tboyer]

Thanks, great research. Looks like would only protect the actual person who called 911, and only under very narrow circumstances, and it wouldn't prevent the police from arresting everybody else and doing a full criminal investigation into who obtained the alcohol for the party. Still, it's a well intended law.

Doesn't Pa have some type of good Samaritan law that protects the students who call 911 if someone is drunk/hurt?


Found this.

http://www.mystatecollegelawyer.com...tan-law-on-penn-state-underage-drinkers.shtml

Pennsylvania's Underage Drinking Good Samaritan Law
As of September of 2011, the Underage Drinking law, found in section 6308 of the Crimes Code, was amended to include a Good Samaritan exception to prosecution. Now, underage drinkers are able to contact medical assistance providers without fear of criminal prosecution for Underage Drinking if: 1) the police only became aware of the underage drinker because the drinker called medical services on behalf of another person, and the drinker believed that the medical attention was required to prevent death or serious injury; 2) the underage drinker believed that he was the first person to call for medical services; 3) the underage drinker provided his name to the medical services dispatcher; and 4) the underage drinker remained with the person that needed medical assistance until the need for assistance had ended.

To date, I have not heard of any instances of the Good Samaritan defense being asserted in a State College Underage Drinking case. Obviously, some officers from the State College or Penn State Police Departments may not file charges in a clear cut instance of the Good Samaritan exception, but I have not heard officers from those departments speak about instances either.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Actually he was a minor legally in the eyes of a law.

Well, actually, he was not a minor, since people age 18 or older are adults in Pennsylvania and (I believe) every other state in the Union. I think the commonly accepted term for drinkers who are between 18 and 21 years of age is "underage" drinkers.

 

[chrisrn1965]

Do felonies really get you tossed out of school?
And for that matter, do misdemeanors disqualify you for scholarships?
I know I had underage possession May of my senior year in HS, and I got scholarships to go to PSU in the 80's
How would the colleges/scholarship givers find out?

In Nursing yes criminal convictions can cause a student to be dismissed from the program. Hospitals now require criminal background checks for all students who are assigned to do clinical rotations in their facility. If the student cannot complete their clinical rotations they cannot complete the program. State boards of nursing also require criminal background checks before nursing graduates get licensed. Not all criminal convictions are an absolute barrier to licensure but some are. Even relatively minor convictions will require a review by the Board of Nursing before the student will be approved to take the licensure exam.

 

[AWS1022]

I just think using the criminal justice system to essentially do social work is generally a bad idea. It's using a sledge hammer to try to do surgery -- you get a bloody mess.

Prosecutors justify it as deterrence -- i.e. next generation's teenagers won't use alcohol because they've seen the horrific lifetime consequences of getting an alcohol violation on one's record. But it just doesn't work. Teenagers don't make decisions that way, they make decisions in the moment and their decision are mostly steered by what feels good and what their friends are doing.

You want to do social work, hire social workers. Social workers are a LOT cheaper and probably more effective than judges, lawyers and prisons for certain kinds of problems.

If your goal is to try to discourage teenagers from drinking or using drugs, throwing people in jail and making them basically unemployable for the rest of their lives... it's barbaric. It's the modern day equivalent of chopping someone's hand off for stealing. People still steal, but you have a whole lot of folks not able to work because they're missing hands.

If you could bring back the Founding Fathers today, I would bet they would agree it is cruel and unusual punishment to essentially take away a kid's educational future and their intended career for the crime of drinking beer before they turn 21 -- or smoking a joint with their friends. But that is what we do in the United States every single day.

Too bad they didn't go after real criminals this hard. I've had two situations in the last three years where people did illegal sh!t that cost me a lot of money, but in both cases the police didn't feel like doing anything about it. Both criminals were repeat offenders and apparently knew the police would not pursue it. It was easier for them to deliberately break the law knowing nothing would happen to them. And they offer nothing to society nor will they ever....but let's destroy a kid's future instead of going after habitual losers.

 

[Chris92]

High schoolers partying with cases of wine? Wine? This can't be all there was to it. Link?

....and eating caviar with a plastic soup spoon.

 

[AWS1022]

For those of you defending the fraternity brothers, how would you feel if this was your son. Some of these comments are ridiculous. Maybe I'm in the minority thinking accountability isn't a bad thing.

How would you feel if your son was one of the fraternity brothers? That hypothetical works both ways.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Actually he was a minor legally in the eyes of a law. Providing him with alcohol and Hazing is illegal in Pennsylvanian. You may not disagree with laws but they are still illegal activities. When one participates in illegal activities they must be aware that those actions can have severe consequences.

I'm seriously not trying to get into a pissing contest but he was legally an adult and could have been drafted to go to war not long ago. You said, when one participates in illegal activities they must be aware that those actions can have severe consequences. He was a willing participant in an illegal activity.

I'm sorry, but I think you and I can both agree that none of these men had criminal intent that night or the following day. This happened at college where they are attending to better themselves. I'm sure they all have a hard time sleeping at night and will for the rest of their lives knowing what happened. To add criminal charges for an accident that if charged will be on every resume for the rest of their lives is just wrong. Just my opinion.

 

[Bobpsu]

She's typical. Prosecutors get elected by sensationalizing crime and putting as many pelts on their wall as they can get. Prosecutors never have to balance overprosecution against the costs - it's always someone else paying the costs. This case will cost many, many millions, it will ruin the futures of everybody at that party, it will bankrupt a half dozen families as they desperately try to save their kids.

And it won't do a single thing to prevent underage drinking at Penn State.

Beer will continue to flow like it always has, and drunk students will occasionally fall down steps and die.

And Parks Miller will run for higher office.

How about your child is dead ..then how would you feel!

 

[mydome88]

How would you feel if your son was one of the fraternity brothers? That hypothetical works both ways.

I would feel like crap, same way as I would feel if my son committed any crime. But I would expect him to be held accountable for his actions. I read the presentment. They have these kids on tape so there isn't a lot of ambiguity that they should have done more on multiple occasions. I would be beyond disappointed if that was my son and he treated his 'brother' that way.

 

[mydome88]

I'm seriously not trying to get into a pissing contest but he was legally an adult and could have been drafted to go to war not long ago. You said, when one participates in illegal activities they must be aware that those actions can have severe consequences. He was a willing participant in an illegal activity.

I'm sorry, but I think you and I can both agree that none of these men had criminal intent that night or the following day. This happened at college where they are attending to better themselves. I'm sure they all have a hard time sleeping at night and will for the rest of their lives knowing what happened. To add criminal charges for an accident that if charged will be on every resume for the rest of their lives is just wrong. Just my opinion.

So I guess by your logic, they could have shot him and buried the body.

I'm sorry, but some crimes don't get away with a punishment of bad sleep. They certainly slept well that night.

 

[PSU_Nut]

I'm seriously not trying to get into a pissing contest but he was legally an adult and could have been drafted to go to war not long ago. You said, when one participates in illegal activities they must be aware that those actions can have severe consequences. He was a willing participant in an illegal activity.

I'm sorry, but I think you and I can both agree that none of these men had criminal intent that night or the following day. This happened at college where they are attending to better themselves. I'm sure they all have a hard time sleeping at night and will for the rest of their lives knowing what happened. To add criminal charges for an accident that if charged will be on every resume for the rest of their lives is just wrong. Just my opinion.

Should a person who drives drunk and kills someone not be charged because they have no criminal intent? How about a person testing and driving? If a family member of yours was killed by a person texting and driving would you just be brushing it off? The law is written as gross negligence not criminal intent. That is why the legal system has different grading of offenses. It not like they were charged with murder. Those charged had plenty of opportunity to say no we are not going to force these guys to drink massive amounts of alcohol. They had every opportunity to call for help. They even had a trained medical member living in the house. They decided to do nothing and now must pay for it.

 

[Bobpsu]

Really it's amazing to me that students don't die at PSU every weekend because the level of drinking (and fighting, and falling) is just astonishing. It's 100 times worse than when most of us were students. That is one of the great ironies here. They have banned alcohol use, then criminalized it more and more harshly, to the point where there are lifetime consquences for a single underage drinking violation -- and yet the students drink much more heavily than ever before. To me it is a lesson in the limited power of negative reinforcement.

They think they are bullet proof. Invincible!

 

[tboyer]

In Nursing yes criminal convictions can cause a student to be dismissed from the program. Hospitals now require criminal background checks for all students who are assigned to do clinical rotations in their facility. If the student cannot complete their clinical rotations they cannot complete the program. State boards of nursing also require criminal background checks before nursing graduates get licensed. Not all criminal convictions are an absolute barrier to licensure but some are. Even relatively minor convictions will require a review by the Board of Nursing before the student will be approved to take the licensure exam.

And even if the person wins the appeal and gets the license, the hospitals will do that same background check and throw that person's resume away. There is just no flexibility.

The criminal background check is automatic. Employers subscribe to the database and it costs 50 cents. The hiring services, the companies who handle online applications -- they can automatically just throw away any applicant who has a conviction of any sort. A misdemeanor however minor it may seem is a criminal conviction for life. The applicant will never know why but they'll never be able to get a decent job.

I have heard -- others are in a better position to know -- that just one underage citation is enough to prevent a person from getting hired as a teacher in Pa. All the districts will reject based on the background check.

So ... if your kids are going to drink before 21, it might be the smart play to do it before they turn 18, because they'll have a better chance of being able to prevent the juvenile record from getting into the background check databases. If they're arrested at college it's much harder. They can get expungement from the official record but the unofficial records stays out there in the databases forever.

 

[Bobpsu]

I'm seriously not trying to get into a pissing contest but he was legally an adult and could have been drafted to go to war not long ago. You said, when one participates in illegal activities they must be aware that those actions can have severe consequences. He was a willing participant in an illegal activity.

I'm sorry, but I think you and I can both agree that none of these men had criminal intent that night or the following day. This happened at college where they are attending to better themselves. I'm sure they all have a hard time sleeping at night and will for the rest of their lives knowing what happened. To add criminal charges for an accident that if charged will be on every resume for the rest of their lives is just wrong. Just my opinion.

How about criminal stupidity?

 

[mgkpsu]

the frats should probably just separate themselves from the school and function as their own groups.

Give it up already. No national organization wants to be associated with a non-University recognized group, and no local organization could buy any decent house. The Greek system is toast.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Should a person who drives drunk and kills someone not be charged because they have no criminal intent? How about a person testing and driving? If a family member of yours was killed by a person texting and driving would you just be brushing it off? The law is written as gross negligence not criminal intent. That is why the legal system has different grading of offenses. It not like they were charged with murder. Those charged had plenty of opportunity to say no we are not going to force these guys to drink massive amounts of alcohol. They had every opportunity to call for help. They even had a trained medical member living in the house. They decided to do nothing and now must pay for it.

This

I'll save my hand-wringing and concern for more worthy causes than a bunch of obtuse frat boys. Seems like Kordel Davis was about the only one with half a brain that night and his testimony will bury the others.

 

[AWS1022]

I would feel like crap, same way as I would feel if my son committed any crime. But I would expect him to be held accountable for his actions. I read the presentment. They have these kids on tape so there isn't a lot of ambiguity that they should have done more on multiple occasions. I would be beyond disappointed if that was my son and he treated his 'brother' that way.

I think everyone would be disappointed if it was their child involved...but I also doubt anyone would want their child's future destroyed for using bad judgment in college. I would say most everyone did some pretty stupid things when they were young but most don't get caught...that doesn't make them bad people. It makes them pretty normal. I knew two guys when I was in high school that did something stupid that resulted in someone's death. They did not get caught but one committed suicide and the other ended up in a mental institution. These fraternity brothers have to live with what happened. Bringing the hammer down on them probably isn't as productive as some more educational form of punishment.

 

[tboyer]

Should a person who drives drunk and kills someone not be charged because they have no criminal intent? How about a person testing and driving? If a family member of yours was killed by a person texting and driving would you just be brushing it off? The law is written as gross negligence not criminal intent. That is why the legal system has different grading of offenses. It not like they were charged with murder.

That one I don't have too much trouble with. A car is a deadly weapon. Driving a car drunk is like waving a loaded gun around drunk. It requires a whole series of decisions that someone can be held responsible for.

I'm fine with a DUI being a very serious crime with lifetime consequences. I'm not fine with just an underage citation having the same kind of consequences as a DUI.

But again, it shouldn't be ONLY about what I would want if I had a loved one hit by a DUI (or texting) driver. I think MADD has done a lot of good but that whole mindset of letting the bereaved family members decide the punishment -- it can lead to barbarism. And prosecutors naturally manipulate the bereaved families and use them as political props (no doubt practicing for the days when they become personal injury lawyers).

Society as a whole should decide what punishment should be, and there need to be other factors weighed in addition to vengeance (not that vengeance isn't part of the equation). The no. 1 factor should be -- what will save future lives.

 

[PearlSUJam]

So I guess by your logic, they could have shot him and buried the body.

I'm sorry, but some crimes don't get away with a punishment of bad sleep. They certainly slept well that night.

I'm sure all the lawyers will sleep well when this case is over too.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Should a person who drives drunk and kills someone not be charged because they have no criminal intent? How about a person testing and driving? If a family member of yours was killed by a person texting and driving would you just be brushing it off? The law is written as gross negligence not criminal intent. That is why the legal system has different grading of offenses. It not like they were charged with murder. Those charged had plenty of opportunity to say no we are not going to force these guys to drink massive amounts of alcohol. They had every opportunity to call for help. They even had a trained medical member living in the house. They decided to do nothing and now must pay for it.

Was there a conspiracy to do nothing?

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Was there a conspiracy to do nothing?

Their deleted texts, cobbling together alternative facts, and other backtracking will not help them.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Their deleted texts, cobbling together alternative facts, and other backtracking will not help them.

Ok. Now you've got my attention. Carry on.

 

[PearlSUJam]

Their deleted texts, cobbling together alternative facts, and other backtracking will not help them.

Alternative facts. Lol! Guess that's vernacular now. I'm not questioning what you're saying but is this just hearsay or fact?

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

Bottom line is when you are over 18 and you let someone who you forced into gross intoxication bleed to death, you deserve some jail time.

These are tough situations to judge. On one hand the law says that we are adults on our 18th birthdays, while recent medical research suggests that our brains (and particularly the part which rationalizes the sort of behavior that goes on in frat houses) aren't fully developed until our early-mid twenties. How do we properly hand out punishment in the face of new scientific evidence?

 

[PSU_1991]

This is all just so sad. A young man had his life cut short. A family lost a son and a brother. And the lives of several other young men will be changed forever.