Chi Psi Colorado Proceeds

[33girl]

Originally Posted by macallan25

I was raised in a pretty strict household and was taught plenty about personal responsibility, accountability, respect, and all of that good stuff.............and I do dumb shit all of the time. Its college.

I'm betting you were also taught that gentlemen drink responsibly and things of that nature. i.e, you didn't come to college just amazed that if you didn't eat all day and had 5 shots of Jack, you might be a tad-bit buzzed.

I think there are too many parents out there who keep their children shielded from everything, to the point that they don't educate them as to what to expect. (See: don't teach my kids about contraception because if you do, they'll Do It.)

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm betting you were also taught that gentlemen drink responsibly and things of that nature. i.e, you didn't come to college just amazed that if you didn't eat all day and had 5 shots of Jack, you might be a tad-bit buzzed.

I think there are too many parents out there who keep their children shielded from everything, to the point that they don't educate them as to what to expect. (See: don't teach my kids about contraception because if you do, they'll Do It.)

yeah, absolutely. I was definitely taught to drink responsibly. Do I always do..........ummmm, no.

[UGAalum94]

The reported info. in this case makes the group look pretty bad. Letting a guy die of alcohol poisoning isn't brotherly or moral. Period.

Generally, however, I think there ought to be a pretty tight limit on how legally responsible we are for other people.

Yes, we all feel pressured to conform and do what others expect of us when we want to be members of a group. And yes, in the spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood, we ought to take good care of each other.

But, when adults willfully undertake activities that they know contain risks and are injured as a result, then I think the adults alone should be legally responsible.

In almost all of the college hazing cases, though, you have people of legal age to buy and consume alcohol providing it to people not of age, and that illegal act maybe should make them legally responsible for the outcome.

It's a really tough situation, and it's always tragic when a kid dies. But moms need to remember that their kids have free will. Sometimes they are mainly victims of their own bad judgment. The outcomes are sometimes tragic but it shouldn't mean someone else was more responsible for the outcome.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

The reported info. in this case makes the group look pretty bad. Letting a guy die of alcohol poisoning isn't brotherly or moral. Period.

I'm pretty sure no one "let" anyone die. It was a negligent act. To say they "let" it happen makes it sound like they were reckless with regard to the kid's life. That may well be the case, but based on the facts presented in the news article, I'd say there's a definite factual issue there.

Generally, however, I think there ought to be a pretty tight limit on how legally responsible we are for other people.

That gets to be tough. From the organization's perspective, yeah, we'd love this to happen. On the other hand, if nothing else is going to get the attention of our respective organizations, it'll be huge cash awards to plaintiffs and increased insurance costs. You're already seeing this. There are several examples of chapters being completely shut down just because they violate some hazing protocol whether there's a danger or not. These aren't small chapters either. Sigma Nu, for example recently shut down its MTSU chapter -- easily one of our top 10-15 chapters due to hazing. A few years earlier, it was Vanderbilt. Before that, Arkansas. Not even our old, respected southern chapters are immune where before the age of sky-high insurance, hazing was treated with a nod and a wink.

So these settlements hopefully force us to be safer, or they force the closure of organizations which refuse to hold their members accountable. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

Further (and I know, I'm getting political here), by setting caps on damage awards as you seem to be suggesting, you are harming parties injured by the negligence of others to protect the people causing the harm. That just ain't right. As for LaneSig, eliminating J&S liability does the same thing. It makes sure that organizations which cause harm to people and the people causing the harm have less liability. How about we just stop doing things which kill people? Is that so hard?

Yes, we all feel pressured to conform and do what others expect of us when we want to be members of a group. And yes, in the spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood, we ought to take good care of each other.

But, when adults willfully undertake activities that they know contain risks and are injured as a result, then I think the adults alone should be legally responsible.

Assumption of risk does not apply to crimes in most cases. Hazing is a crime, serving alcohol to minors is a crime. I'd say this young man would be in the class of persons which those laws are made to protect from harm. The term is negligence per se. At first glance, this definitely looks like a case of negligence per se.

It could probably be shown that in providing alcohol for an organizational function, the officers in charge were in fact agents of the organization. That's just one way I think you could get to the chapter.

In almost all of the college hazing cases, though, you have people of legal age to buy and consume alcohol providing it to people not of age, and that illegal act maybe should make them legally responsible for the outcome.

Jointly responsible. That means that the plaintiff sues anyone who could be at fault, gets his money from whoever is insured. Then, the insurance company turns around and gets contributions from the other co-defendants for whatever their liability is.

The theory is that the law's goal should be to make the plaintiff whole for the wrong to them. Let the negligent actors sort out the mess later.

It's a really tough situation, and it's always tragic when a kid dies. But moms need to remember that their kids have free will. Sometimes they are mainly victims of their own bad judgment. The outcomes are sometimes tragic but it shouldn't mean someone else was more responsible for the outcome.

While the victim may have been partially at fault here (and that could maybe be a defense), the organization and its officers certainly played a role. They are anything but innocent third parties (from what I've read).

[Tom Earp]

While all may be true to a point, the parents of most kids who can afford to go to college today can also be found at fault.

Parents are one of two ways.

Either coddle kids and give anything they want or do not give nothing to them and the kids are either used to getting their way or are rebelling against them.

When they get to college, they want to do what they want to do. So is it the School or the GLOs responsibility to baby sit over them?

So, where does the problem stem from?

Kids going to school now do not like to live in rooms with one or more people. Kids are used to having cable, phone, and lots of plug ins just like home!

It seems it has become a "ME" attitude society.

Schools are changing dorms, new GLO houses are being built the same way.

Our new house has all of the above with 2 to a room and a common shared bathing area for another room!

Figure the cost of building a new house now!

PSU, KS. not counting the land was 3/4 Million! The New LXA House.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

While all may be true to a point, the parents of most kids who can afford to go to college today can also be found at fault.

Parents are one of two ways.

Either coddle kids and give anything they want or do not give nothing to them and the kids are either used to getting their way or are rebelling against them.

When they get to college, they want to do what they want to do. So is it the School or the GLOs responsibility to baby sit over them?

So, where does the problem stem from?

Kids going to school now do not like to live in rooms with one or more people. Kids are used to having cable, phone, and lots of plug ins just like home!

It seems it has become a "ME" attitude society.

Schools are changing dorms, new GLO houses are being built the same way.

Our new house has all of the above with 2 to a room and a common shared bathing area for another room!

Figure the cost of building a new house now!

PSU, KS. not counting the land was 3/4 Million! The New LXA House.

Tom, its 2007......cable, "plug ins" and a phone are pretty much a requirement. I've had plenty of classes that heavily utilized online resources, email, tv programming etc. Utilizing available technology doesn't mean we are a self absorbed "me" society.

Also, I think your discription of parenting today is rather off base. Basically you are saying that parents either give their kids everything or treat them like crap, hence they either get their way all the time or basically hate their parents. Tom........that is absolutely ridiculous and I honestly don't think you would actually believe that that is the way it is.

[UGAalum94]

I was going with the "waited 10 hours" to get the guy help as support for the let him die.

I was really stating what I thought ought to be the case, rather than trying to say anything about what was legally true.

I think we need to go back more to individual responsibility for our actions. As a society, we're letting people shift blame on to others too much.

As a individual member of a GLO, I don't think the members of the group behaved in a moral and ethical way if the account from the paper is accurate. It seems really strange and sad to me that only major lawsuits and criminal charges are considered motivating in keeping groups from acting this way. The main reason that you don't let members drink themselves to death shouldn't be your insurance policy.

On the other hand, this was group that the guy freely chose to be associated with, and I suspect he knew kind of what was going to happen to him that night (except for his death, of course), and he went along with it. My guess is that he took health in high school and may have even had seminars and classes in colleges about the dangers of alcohol. People should have been looking out for him, and one of the people is the guy himself.

There were a lot of things that could have happened differently and the guy would still be alive; one of the most straightforward would have been his choosing not to go or not to drink. He paid for that decision with his life, but I'm still not sure that makes the other guys responsible for his death. (But I'm still thinking it through.)

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Tom, its 2007......cable, "plug ins" and a phone are pretty much a requirement. I've had plenty of classes that heavily utilized online resources, email, tv programming etc. Utilizing available technology doesn't mean we are a self absorbed "me" society.

Also, I think your discription of parenting today is rather off base. Basically you are saying that parents either give their kids everything or treat them like crap, hence they either get their way all the time or basically hate their parents. Tom........that is absolutely ridiculous and I honestly don't think you would actually believe that that is the way it is.

mac, I respectfully disagee with you.

I see many people daily who are going through the same thing I mentioned. These are people with children so that is why I mentioned it.

Kids today who can afford to go to college are used to many things and expect it. That is why when we just built our new house, it included all of the finer things of life except they are 2 person rooms as far as all of then hook ups..

I have to agree with EE-BO!

They want to be a part of something that are not run by parents and prove that they can make decissions wrong or right, they want to be who they are and follow those they think they may be able to trust.

Now, it is up to those who are supposed to be in that possition to be trusted.

Is that not an act of Faith and Hope or Stupidity?