<p>
</p>
<p>It wasn’t BR’s alcohol, it was the bar’s. They are responsible for it, and it is their job to make sure that underage people don’t get hold of it. That is why bars can lose their liquor licenses if they get caught supplying alcohol to minors-most take it pretty seriously.</p>
<p>I cannot agree that a person(usually the male) has to read his potential partner’s mind to see if they are too intoxicated to say the word “No.” Gloria Allred made her name on a case like this years ago, where the male was supposed to magically know how affected by alcohol the woman was; to interpret what he saw correctly, and for him to say “no” if he believed she might say “no” even though she didn’t say “no”. I am not referring to passed out of course, but to a potential partner that is intoxicated. I think a girl stumbling on the dance floor(for example) could say no. In fact, I wouldn’t find that attractive. But that isn’t my point. A guy that takes advantage of such a stumbler is no rapist as I see it, although he is certainly a low-life.</p>
<p>I agree with Cuse(post 37) that sometimes drunk people say “yes” when they would not have said it otherwise. That doesn’t make their partner a rapist.</p>
<p>Donna is exactly right- post 40
“Gee, I thought she looked 21” isn’t a defense. It is just as illegal no matter what her figure measures.
Would Cuse have us think that if a driver killed a schoolkid in a schoolzone while driving 50 mph, that the parents of the kid might sue the State, on the grounds that it was the State at fault since it is their job to enforce a 20 mph limit, but didn’t? The driver may have not been seen by the cops, but that doesn’t change that he was speeding, and that it caused an accident.
Cuse would want us to think the driver could say- “I wasn’t at fault; the cops didn’t enforce the law”.
There are laws, but there is also personal responsibility. I have little compassion for a woman that chooses to get so drunk she says “yes”(for example), when she normally would have said “no”, but if you serve someone booze it isn’t solely someone else’s fault that they got served. </p>
<p>And by the way, as a former DJ, I’ve seen liquor agents(male) offer to buy a drink for a female they thought was underage. They’d tell the girl “you buy it, I’ll pay you back”. This way they avoided ordering the drink or purchasing the drink. If the girl ordered booze, and was served, then they checked ID’s. If the girl was under, then they had caught the bar and the patron.</p>
<p>“The black players - per stories leaked by the players union - see this as blunt favoritism for a white star QB because this guy would otherwise be in prison.”</p>
<p>Just like Ray Lewis, right? (Who has since been deified by the sports media).</p>
<p>Lergmom,</p>
<p>“My bet, however, is that every Pittsburgh fan will find some reason to declare that BR is not only innocent but misunderstood, that these women enticed him, that they deserved it.” </p>
<p>You lose your bet. This Pittsburgh fan is disgusted by BR’s behavior, and every other Steeler fan that I know is also disgusted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BR doesn’t fit anywhere in this example. If a state trooper was sitting in front of the school zone, tasked with clocking everyone entering the school zone and pulling over cars that were speeding, and he missed someone doing 50 mph that led to a death, then yes, the state would probably be liable. BR isn’t the state trooper in this case, the bouncer is. </p>
<p>It is the bar’s job to make sure that underage drinking doesn’t occur under its roof, much like it would be BR’s job to ensure that underage drinking didn’t occur at a party in his home. BR is as liable for the underage drinking as the girl herself is, but the guiltiest party is the bar.</p>
<p>The point is, if we are going to hold BR accountable for the underage drinking, then we should also hold the girl herself just as accountable. If the bar and bouncer had been doing their job, however, the underage drinking never would have occurred.</p>
<p>Cuse, I’m guessing you don’t have a J.D., do you? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, but I do have a Masters in Bar Hopping. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not big on personal responsibility huh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you mean. If we are shifting towards personal responsibility, then the girl herself is entirely to blame for the underage drinking, because she was the one who chose to drink. Bars are supposed to prevent this from happening, though, hence the need for bouncers, wristbands, etc.</p>
<p>Of course bars have responsibilities. But YOU said the bar was the “guiltiest.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the bar is guiltier than BR. I guess as far as the underage drinking is concerned, it is a toss up between the girl/victim and the bar as to who is mostly to blame.</p>
<p>^^^^This is just a matter of opinion, but unless an individual has been drugged without their knowledge, when a person willfully engages in an illegal act, it THEY who are the “guiltiest.” I have no problem with the concept of various degrees of shared responsibility, but I do have a problem assigning more blame to the entity who didn’t pick up on the crime than the one committing it.</p>
<p>Cuse is muddying the topic he brought up, too. He asked “why is it Ben’s problem?” if the underage girl drank too much.
Why it’s Ben’s “problem” leads us to different answers than “is Ben a rapist?”
They are different questions, and call for different answers. A person can make problems for themselves even if no crime was committed. And choosing to put on blinders and later saying “Gee, I didn’t know” just won’t work as a defense. A child may put his hand in front of his own eyes and say “You can’t see me!” But that doesn’t work for adults.</p>
<p>Very little about bars I haven’t seen or done, since I have been a customer, and/or an employee(as a full-time dj) for years. I’ve seen drinking, drinking laws, and behavior from both perspectives.</p>
<p>Did you know Cuse that here in Ohio a bar is responsible for drinks it sells to a customer? Seem obvious? Do you know what that means? really means? It means if I buy a drink(I’m 50) and give that drink to some 20 yr old, then the bar did not violate any laws, but I did. The bar legally sold it to a legal purchaser, but I provided it to someone underage. In that example, I did the illegal act.
Of course Ben wasn’t in Ohio, but I suspect the law may be the same. Did Ben buy any drinks for the girl, or are we to believe he merely encouraged her to have more and more, AT her own expense?
Somehow I just can’t picture Ben- or any guy- hot for a girl, telling the waittress- “keep bringing her booze, and keep putting it on her tab”. Just can’t picture that.</p>
<p>Again, I love the deflection. Here’s another stab at making this clear:</p>
<p>BR has his pick of women. I was around pro athletes and cheerleaders at a job early in my career life. Women were everywhere. Beautiful women. I saw guys drop their wives at the airport and then come back with two girlfriends. BR could have had sex with any number of women at nearly any time. But at least 3 times that are known he has chosen to force himself on women. That means he likes to do that. One can quibble about whether he’s a rapist, but three times demonstrates pretty clearly that he likes to force himself on women. It gets him off. </p>
<p>I used to work in prosecution. If this guy weren’t an NFL QB - heck, if he weren’t a white NFL QB - odds are pretty good he’d have been charged with sexual assault in both cases. I can also say that when we’d see rapists they had exactly this pattern of forcing themselves on women. Again, it gets him off. He doesn’t need to do this; he chooses to do it.</p>
<p>And as is often the case, he has a bunch to drink and the evil person inside him, the one that wants to assault women, comes out. I’ve seen this dozens of times in the criminal justice system. He drinks, he attacks women and because he’s an NFL QB he has people, even police, setting this up for him and covering it up. His behavior is classic predator.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>younghoss, I wondered if that was how this played out as well. If the bar is serving an underage drinker, that’s certainly on them. But if another adult is purchasing the alcohol and giving it to her, it seems to me that responsibility has now shifted to the purchaser (not letting the drinker off the hook either,though).</p>
<p>I also am not familiar with how these laws work with regard to a bar’s responsibility to recognize a fake ID, or determine that someone holding a valid ID is not actually the one pictured on the ID (Suzy, a dead ringer for Elaine, uses Elaine’s ID).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes means yes. If she wants to have sex, she will indicate her enthusiastic consent. If she does not consent enthusiastically, the man is veering into rape territory. Maybe she actually agrees to have sex but is not that interested (not rape), but then again, maybe she is almost unconscious and too drunk to consent/not consent (RAPE!).</p>
<p>The rule is not: I can have sex with a woman unless she says no. The rule is: I can have sex with a woman if she says yes. How drunk the man is has no relevance. Crimes are crimes, whether the criminal is drunk or sober.</p>
<p>Fang has a good point, and I’m glad I was clear in my previous posts referring to who I felt might say “no” and who couldn’t say “no”. His partial quote of mine in post 57 might give the wrong impression of me to someone that didn’t read my whole point.</p>
<p>Personally, I’m a bit uncomfortable with the idea(in general) that a man is responsible for his own actions when boozed up, and is also expected to be responsible for a woman’s actions too, if she’s chosen to drink a bunch. (here again, not referring to women who are passed out). Basically that point of view SOUNDS TO ME like a woman saying: I choose to booze so much that my desires may not be clear- men must guess what I want. I sure agree with Fang that how drunk the man is is of no relevance. Sad though. It should be. The very idea that a man is completely responsible for his actions when drunk, but a woman gets a pass is terribly unfair. I’m surprised those who espouse women’s rights don’t stand up for a woman right to be treated like a man. I don’t mean here in this forum, I mean nationally, and legally.</p>
<p>Well…according to the Pittsburgh paper, at least some of the booze was paid for by BR’s body guard, an off-duty state trooper. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read more: [Witnesses</a> to Roethlisberger incident detail heavy drinking](<a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10112/1052419-455.stm#ixzz0lxg8uPBp]Witnesses”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10112/1052419-455.stm#ixzz0lxg8uPBp)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would that have been issued from the University of Chucks, or University of Maggies?</p>