University officials charged for hazing

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

What is interesting is the typical Suing everyone in a situation like this!

The thing is that upsets me most is that His Own Brothers did not take a positiion to care for him!

Now, golly gee whiz, they feel bad!

It's kind of hard to "care" for someone who has alcohol poisoning--they took him to the hospital, but they should not have allowed/encouraged him to drink at all, or even that much, in the first place. Someone--his chapter president or even other pledge brothers--should have stepped in and said enough is enough. The fact of the matter is, they didn't. This is why chapters are supposed to have risk management--unfortunately, some people ignore this very important aspect of proper chapter operations.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

It's kind of hard to "care" for someone who has alcohol poisoning--they took him to the hospital, but they should not have allowed/encouraged him to drink at all, or even that much in the first place. Someone--his chapter president or even other pledge brothers--should have stepped in and said enough is enough. The fact of the matter is, they didn't. This is why chapters are supposed to have risk management--unfortunately, some people ignore this very important aspect of proper chapter operations.

So, I am still asking why these other People are being sued?

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

So, I am still asking why these other People are being sued?

They are being sued because they were in leadership positions for either the university, or the fraternity. That's what happens when you take on responsibility--you agree to take the good with the bad, as well as legal ramifications for what occurs under your jurisdiction. Sure it sucks, but that's what happens in the real world.

[exlurker]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

So, I am still asking why these other People are being sued?

Tom, from the several news reports I've seen, I think that technically they aren't being "sued." They have been indicted by a grand jury -- it's a criminal prosecution, not a civil lawsuit. But my terminology may be off somewhat.

As to your question: according to the news stories, which are all I have to go on, the county prosecutor has stated that the grand jury indicted the university officials due to the way they did (or didn't) do "oversight" of campus fraternity / sorority life.

Edited to add: Please remember that people charged with a crime, or indicted by a grand jury, etc., are presumed innocent until / unless found guilty.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by exlurker

Tom, from the several news reports I've seen, I think that technically they aren't being "sued." They have been indicted by a grand jury -- it's a criminal prosecution, not a civil lawsuit. But my terminology may be off somewhat.

You're not off at all. Being criminally charged is not the same as being sued.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You're not off at all. Being criminally charged is not the same as being sued.

True--I mispoke when I said "sue." They are being charged for these reasons, and they could also later be SUED for wrongful death if they lose in court.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

They are being charged for these reasons, and they could also later be SUED for wrongful death if they lose in court.

Technically, they could be sued for wrongful death regardless of how they do on the criminal charges. The elements of a claim for wrongful death are different from the elements for aggravated hazing, the crime with which they are charged. The burden of proof is different as well -- in a criminal case, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Liability on a wrongful death claim only has to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). That means that the same evidence might not be enough for a criminal conviction but might be enough for a civil judgment.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Technically, they could be sued for wrongful death regardless of how they do on the criminal charges. The elements of a claim for wrongful death are different from the elements for aggravated hazing, the crime with which they are charged. The burden of proof is different as well -- in a criminal case, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Liability on a wrongful death claim only has to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). That means that the same evidence might not be enough for a criminal conviction but might be enough for a civil judgment.

True and true--so technically, I was correct in saying that they could be sued, in either case, but they have not been sued--YET.

[Tom Earp]

Oh, once again, they are sued or criminaly charged for what ever for any reason, they are sued or brought up in a suit from their position only?

Well, if there is a definition of being Sued or Charged for a Criminal Act, I am still wondering why?

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Oh, once again, they are sued or criminaly charged for what ever for any reason, they are sued or brought up in a suit from their position only?

Well, if there is a definition of being Sued or Charged for a Criminal Act, I am still wondering why?

Tom you know I have no issue with you, but I explained above why they were being held accountable for the circumstance, and so have others... What do you need explained, exactly?