From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:21:09 GMT

In <exuptr.726.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Sunbird a la 400ci) writes:

>In article <1993Jan15.135648.9705@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
>>Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
>>Date: 15 Jan 93 13:56:48 GMT

>>In article <exuptr.632.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan12.132911.6207@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>
>>>>The PERSON DRINKING ought to be responsible if they place themselves
>>>>behind the wheel of a car.  
>>>
>>>>Hell, why not hold the auto manufacturer
>>>>responsible (for providing the car), the highway department
>>>>responsible (for providing the road), etc.?
>>>
>>>Because the presumption is that they did not see him leaving the bar drunk 
>>>with his car keys in his hand.

>>But they should KNOW that someone, somewhere will be driving one of
>>their cars and kill someone with it.  

>Why should they know that?  You are confusing prediction with observation.  
>You cannot predict what a person *might* do, but when you see them about to 
>do it, you can intervene.  

They should know that the same way that that bartender is expected to
KNOW that someone is going to go out, drive drunk, and kill someone.
In other words, they can't and it is stupid to try to claim that they
should be responsible when someone does, any more than you would hold
the car manufacturer responsible for building a car that a drunk can
get started, the highway department for building a road that a drunk
can get onto, or the police for not stopping them.

>Don't be ridiculous.

Good advice.  You should take it.

>>At least when the car was sold,
>>the salesman should have made an assessment of the moral and personal
>>responsibility of the buyer to determine if he thought that person was
>>a responsible individual who wouldn't drive drunk.

>Why?  That's not what the bartender is being asked to do.  The bartender is 
>just being asked to be responsible about someone who is stinking blind drunk 
>walking out of the bar with some car keys.  That might be a tough one for 
>you, but I think most people could handle it.

In other words, he's being asked to make an assessment of the moral
and personal responsibility of the person, examine to see if what they
have in their hand is actually car keys, follow them out to make sure
that they give them to someone else, etc.  Sorry, but people ought to
be responsible for THEIR OWN actions, and that includes people who
drink and drive.  Blaming anyone else for their actions is just a cop
out. 

>>I know this is absurd, but so if the idea that a bartender in a busy
>>bar should be a mother hen to his or her customers.

>Someday, when it's your kid that you are asked to identify in the morgue, 
>maybe you'll feel different.

Oh, horseshit.  Nice emotional appeal, but all that does is convince
me that you're using emotion rather than reason, which further
invalidates your position.  Hell, by all means, fry the guy who was
driving.  How many of those fatalities are caused by people who have
prior records of the same sort of thing?  If they put them away the
first time (not for drinking and driving, but for what they do while
drinking and driving), the problem seems to get a lot smaller.

Hey, I've got a great idea!  Let's insist on prior restraint for ALL
possible crimes.  We could then lock up EVERYBODY and all the problems
would go away.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.