Beta Chi at Leigh Univ

[EE-BO]

Jon- I think the point of the hypotheticals is to get right down to the specific points of law to consider. We do this here often- trying to get very specific on RM issues and the applicable rules.

And thank you MysticCat for your input- your comments are much in line with what I was thinking to be the case based on my reading of our state laws and consideration of the kinds of scenarios OldestPledge has put forth.

The real law to be worried about here is provision of alcohol to a minor- not hazing. In this type of situation I see a hazing charge coming into play perhaps from the standpoint that on the facts presented it is reasonable to conclude that pledges were coerced into committing an illegal act (the extremity of this situation I think justifies playing armchair lawyer since the outcome is going to make it hard for facts to present otherwise), but I don't see where the mere presence of alcohol creates hazing.

And in the grand scheme of reality, providing alcohol to minors is going to be a far easier charge to prosecute in the end- so the hazing discussion is interesting and useful for the purposes of discussion and getting to the heart of what laws chapters should think about- but ultimately on the facts known to date I think this could be a slam dunk for a prosecutor without having to touch hazing laws.

Back to the detailed discussion- aeBOT, how does what your professor told you change- if at all- if the encounter between pledges not drinking and actives drinking takes place in the house versus in a public venue- like a bar- where the owner of that public venue has the overriding legal obligation to ensure underage people don't drink? The answer to that question I think could resolve OPs reasonable concerns and also really nail down where the liability rests in a variety of scenarios from the viewpoint you present.