[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

How Trump won the Amish vote in Pennsylvania

FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets

Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway: What you need to know

LEAK: First Behind-The-Scenes Photos Of Kamala After Getting DESTROYED By Trump | Guzzling Wine!🍷

Scott Ritter Says: Netanyahu's PAINFUL Stumble Pushes Tel Aviv Into Its WORST NIGHTMARE

These Are Trump's X-Men | Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Houthis (Yemen) Breached THAAD. Israel Given a Dud Defense!!

Yuma County Arizona Doubles Its Outstanding Votes Overnight They're Stealing the Race from Kari Lake

Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria

Trump and RFK created websites for the people to voice their opinion on people the government is hiring

Woke Georgia DA Deborah Gonzalez pummeled in re-election bid after refusing Laken Riley murder case

Trump has a choice: Obliterate Palestine or end the war

Rod Blagojevich: Kamala’s Corruption, & the Real Cause of the Democrat Party’s Spiral Into Insanity

Israel's Defense Shattered by Hezbollah's New Iranian Super Missiles | Prof. Mohammad Marandi

Trump Wins Arizona in Clean Sweep of Swing States in US Election

TikTok Harlots Pledge in Droves: No More Pussy For MAGA Fascists!

Colonel Douglas Macgregor:: Honoring Veteran's Day

Low-Wage Nations?

Trump to pull US out of Paris climate agreement NYT

Pixar And Disney Animator Bolhem Bouchiba Sentenced To 25 Years In Prison

Six C-17s, C-130s deploy US military assets to Northeastern Syria

SNL cast members unveil new "hot jacked" Trump character in MAGA-friendly cold open

Here's Why These Geopolitical And Financial Chokepoints Need Your Attention...

Former Army Chief Moshe Ya'alon Calls for Civil Disobedience to Protest Netanyahu Government

The Deep State against Trump

A Post Mortem Autopsy: From A Diddy Party to a Pity Party

Whoopie Goldberg Blames Inflation on Grocery Store Owners, Calls Them Pigs

Sean ‘Diddy’ Comb’s Attorneys Seek $50M Bail Package,

Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley Will NOT Be Invited To be Part of Trump’s Second Administration!

Americans Spend Big On Christmas Cheer... And Mums


Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles

Title: Former Frat Members Not Liable in Pledge's Death
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 16, 2013
Author: Randall Chase
Post Date: 2013-11-16 02:39:22 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 304
Comments: 27

NBC

A jury on Friday concluded that two former members of a University of Delaware fraternity were not liable for the alcohol-poisoning death of an 18-year-old pledge in 2008 during a ritual.

Ruling in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of Brett Griffin of Kendall Park, N.J., jurors said former chapter president of the Delta Lambda chapter of Sigma Alpha Mu, Jason Aaron, and former pledge master, Matthew Siracusa, were not responsible.

The fraternity and other members previously reached settlements in the case, but attorneys for Aaron, 25, and Siracusa, 26, argued that they were not liable because they did not participate in any hazing of Griffin, and that no one had forced him to drink.

Related Stories

■UDel Wrongful Death Trial Underway

■Alcohol Poisoning Investigated in Univ. of Del. Student's Death

■Former Girlfriend Warned: Frats are Bad

■Autopsy Comes Back for Univ. of Del. Student's Death

■Family Sues UDel Fraternity Over Son's Death Griffin died with a blood-alcohol level of .341, more than four times the threshold for drunken driving, hours after a fraternity ritual in which he and other pledges were introduced to their “big brothers” and their “family drink.” For Griffin, that was a bottle of Southern Comfort.

Aaron wept after the jury declared that he did not haze Griffin or put him in a position of peril on the night he died.

The jury found that Siracusa, either alone or with others, had hazed Griffin, but that the hazing was not the proximate cause of Griffin's death or any pain or suffering he experienced.

Griffin's parents, Tim and Julie Griffin, left the courtroom grim-faced after the verdict.

“This is the reason why kids are still dying from hazing in the year 2013,” Julie Griffin said. “Everybody wants to blame the kids.”

Aaron's attorney, David Malatesta, said he was pleased that the jury saw through the plaintiffs' arguments.

“This was an unfortunate accident, like we said from the beginning, and no one's fault” Malatesta said.

While relieved at the verdict, Siracusa acknowledged that drinking among college students is a problem.

“The amount of excess there is, it's out of control,” he said.

Siracusa said he regrets Griffin's death and hopes his parents can find closure, but that he doesn't know what he could have done differently.

“Yeah, we did some dumb stuff during pledging, but nothing ever to hurt anybody,” Siracusa said. “.... Never ever did we make anybody drink... No one was ever in pain or hurting.”

Doug Fierberg, an attorney for the Griffins, declined to comment.

Fierberg argued during the trial that Brett Griffin's death was the result of illegal hazing that included lining up pledges in the basement of the fraternity house and forcing them to eat and drink substances that made them vomit. It concluded with a booze-soaked party that the fraternity was prohibited from having because of a previous alcohol violation.

In his closing argument Thursday, Fierberg reminded jurors that shortly before Griffin died, he told a friend in a text message that he was going “mentally insane” because of pledging.

Both Aaron and Siracusa testified that fraternity members knew when planning the party to celebrate the introduction of Griffin and other pledges to their big brothers that the fraternity was banned from having social events because of a previous violation of university rules regarding alcohol during fraternity rush. But Aaron and Siracusa said they did not participate in any alleged hazing of Griffin.

Jurors were told that Griffin consumed what amounted to at least an entire bottle of Southern Comfort before passing out in an upstairs room alongside other pledges who also were in drunken stupors.

Siracusa testified that he wasn't at the party and instead spent the night with friends at a nearby bar.

Aaron attended the party but said he never saw Griffin in any distress, even though the chapter vice president had texted Griffin's big brother, Michael Bassett, just before midnight saying Griffin and other pledges were “all dead right now.”

Fierberg told jurors that fraternity members waited nine minutes to call 911 after another brother texted Bassett that Griffin, who had been propped on his side on a couch with a bucket or trash can in which to vomit, was “foaming out of his mouth.”


Poster Comment:

Frat brats in wrong school. Should be in kindergarten learning safe living and social behavior.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#5. To: Tatarewicz (#0)

First of all, in most States, the legal age to be drinking is 21. If State law in Delaware has such a statute on legal age drinking and the judge overlooked this, he erred in judgment and this matter seriously needs to be appealed to a higher court.

The University is suable in State court for both criminal and civil wrongdoing. The fact that the judge got those fraternity guys off the hook, is wrong. Those guys and that University should have been criminally charged with making accessible alcohol to an underage student. And this probably took place on the school campus grounds which means university officials cannot claim personal nor official immunity while this incident took place under their noses. All of them may be held personally (separately but equally liable). This case desperately needs to be appealed to the appellate courts and remanded back to the trial courts for further direction on handling this case. This really stinks bad.

purplerose  posted on  2013-11-16   17:52:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: purplerose (#5)

I don't know of any panalenic houses that are on campus; all down here are definitely off-campus.

This is just a tragic, too stupid for words, situation for all.

Lod  posted on  2013-11-16   18:13:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Lod (#7)

I don't know of any panalenic houses that are on campus; all down here are definitely off-campus.

There are universities that house students on campus. And University on-campus housing laws are not immune from the laws of the State they reside in especially where it applies to underage drinking laws.

This is way beyond tragic, stupid or ignorance of the law. I sense the judge is covering up for a crime having taking place. In this case, the judge was made aware that a crime that took place but chose to turn a blind eye due to his/her reverence to the fraternities bullshit pledge (a pledge that actually encourages obstruction of justice in a criminal investigation proceeding). This makes the judge guilty of misprision of a felony and he should go to jail too.

purplerose  posted on  2013-11-16   18:21:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: purplerose (#8)

There are universities that house students on campus.

laws of the State they reside in especially where it applies to underage drinking laws

he judge was made aware that a crime that took place

Yes, but ALL frat and sorority houses are OFF campus because they party a lot and engage in underage drinking.

Yes, the youths know that it is illegal to drink underage, but this has not reduced the practice one iota in decades.

What crime? The underage drinking?

Murder does not apply in this case at all. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The kid did his own drinking to death. Nobody premeditated his death. There was no malice and no intent to kill which is a prerequisite for murder. Had he survived he would have continued to binge drink for his duration in the fraternity and maybe even beyond.

He was 18, an age when humans often feel ten foot tall and bullet proof only to find that they are human and have human limitations. Unfortunately, some have to die to come to this realization.

abraxas  posted on  2013-11-17   18:24:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: abraxas (#12) (Edited)

I'm talking about the law. Since when is offering alcohol to a minor legal? If bartenders in a regular tavern are subject to fines and possible jail time for offering alcohol to a minor, then the law should also apply to frat members and the University. They are not above the law!

Yes, the youths know that it is illegal to drink underage, but this has not reduced the practice one iota in decades.

That is not the issue here. Those frat members were aware this student was underaged and so did the University. The University officials turned the other cheek while condoning the frats ritual and which resulted in this students death.

What crime? The underage drinking? Correct!

Murder does not apply in this case at all. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yes it does. And those University officials as well as those frat members should be held to the fullest extent of the law. They should all be serving time in prison.

purplerose  posted on  2013-11-17   18:40:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: purplerose (#14)

Since when is offering alcohol to a minor legal?

Those frat members were aware this student was underaged and so did the University.

The University officials turned the other cheek while condoning the frats ritual and which resulted in this students death.

Yes it does. And those University officials as well as those frat members should be held to the fullest extent of the law. They should all be serving time in prison.

Who offered? It is obvious that the prosecution could not prove that it was the defendants who provided the alcohol. And, even if they did, they are guilty of contributing to a minor not murder. Can you prove that the defendants purchased the alcohol?

Most of the frat members are also underage. As I clearly stated, the frat house is not on University property and therefore the University has NO responsibility.

These "kids" are 18 and over. The University is not responsible to hold the hand of every student each night and tuck them into bed after giving them a sobriety test. The University is responsible to provide them with an education, not nanny state what they do OFF campus.

Set your emotions aside for a moment and read the definition of murder please. The other frat members and the University are NOT responsible for what an 18 year old ingests to the point of self destruction. Other than contributing to the delinquency of a minor after having proven who purchased the alcohol, there is no crime.

At what age are humans responsible for what you put in their own body?

abraxas  posted on  2013-11-17   18:51:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: abraxas (#15) (Edited)

Most of the frat members are also underage. As I clearly stated, the frat house is not on University property and therefore the University has NO responsibility.

These "kids" are 18 and over. The University is not responsible to hold the hand of every student each night and tuck them into bed after giving them a sobriety test. The University is responsible to provide them with an education, not nanny state what they do OFF campus.

You noted that these frat members are also underage? Is that true?

Then you state these frat members are 18 and over. You contradicted yourself.

My emotions are well-grounded as I read of these cases with cold logic and reasoning. No emotion of mine is involved here at all. I clearly see the main issue.

Perhaps, the prosecution team is hiding other facts here. For example, how far is the fraternity house from the campus? In most cases, the University does have jurisdiction within a certain radius area of the community concerning doing University business. Further to note, just because the fraternity housing is off campus does not mean the University does not have jurisdiction over it. It may be off campus but that does not leave the University campus police or University officials as "off limits" or barred when having to conduct official business such as intervene when fights break out. There are University codes of ethics and regulations that do apply to frat members.

purplerose  posted on  2013-11-17   19:30:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: purplerose (#16)

You noted that these frat members are also underage? Is that true?

Then you state these frat members are 18 and over. You contradicted yourself.

For example, how far is the fraternity house from the campus?

In most cases, the University does have jurisdiction within a certain radius area of the community concerning doing University business.

just because the fraternity housing is off campus does not mean the University does not have jurisdiction over it.

Not really, just do the math. Frat houses are filled with 18-22 year old males. Testosterone filled, ten foot tall and bullet proof young men who know the legal age of drinking but DO NOT CARE TO COMPLY.

Generally, the houses are within a few blocks of the university--OFF CAMPUS. There is no jurisdiction a few blocks around the neighborhood and there should not be any notion that the University is responsible beyond the campus at all.

It is irrelevant how far the frat house is from campus. How many blocks beyond the legal campus boundary should the university nanny state?

No, that is not "most cases" at all. The campus ticket writing unit can venture into a neighborhood to issue unlawful parking tickets, but that's it. Beyond the campus is PRIVATE business and homes, not nanny state patrol area.

Yes, it does. I own a home a few blocks from a university. Private property rules apply. Frat houses are not an extension of universities, hence they are not on campus and are always on private property. When they party, it is local police that come to arrest and keep the peace.

Why do you think the University is responsible to patrol private property beyond campus? At what age are people responsible for what they ingest to the point of death?

abraxas  posted on  2013-11-17   19:49:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: abraxas (#19) (Edited)

I must have missed this one.

Not really, just do the math. Frat houses are filled with 18-22 year old males. Testosterone filled, ten foot tall and bullet proof young men who know the legal age of drinking but DO NOT CARE TO COMPLY.

But the University should know that drinking laws and especially where it concerns their jurisdiction to intervene.

Generally, the houses are within a few blocks of the university--OFF CAMPUS. There is no jurisdiction a few blocks around the neighborhood and there should not be any notion that the University is responsible beyond the campus at all.

Not so, as I knew of a campus frat house that was right across the campus street which was within the 100 mile radius of the University and also for the campus police to legally intervene.

It is irrelevant how far the frat house is from campus. How many blocks beyond the legal campus boundary should the university nanny state?

Again, you contradict yourself where I quote you here as stating the following: Generally, the houses are within a few blocks of the university--OFF CAMPUS. There is no jurisdiction a few blocks around the neighborhood and there should not be any notion that the University is responsible beyond the campus at all

Frat houses are not an extension of universities, hence they are not on campus and are always on private property. When they party, it is local police that come to arrest and keep the peace.

That depends on who owns the property.

purplerose  posted on  2013-11-17   21:19:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: purplerose (#21)

But the University should know that drinking laws and especially where it concerns their jurisdiction to intervene.

That depends on who owns the property.

Yes, the university knows the drinking laws and they enforce them ON CAMPUS. Their jurisdiction is ON CAMPUS and not off campus, which is where the frat houses are located.

Universities do not have any jurisdiction beyond campus. Why would they want that liability? They don't. One foot off the campus is local police or sheriff and campus police have no obligation or inclination to intervene on private property. Seriously, you believe that college campuses want the responsibility for crime and patrolling beyond the campus? Even on campus crimes are kept hush hush so as not to bring any poor press to the money making ability of bringing students to campus.

Hence, frat houses are private property, OFF CAMPUS. Private property and no liability for the educational institution.

abraxas  posted on  2013-11-17   23:51:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: abraxas (#26)

Yes, the university knows the drinking laws and they enforce them ON CAMPUS. Their jurisdiction is ON CAMPUS and not off campus, which is where the frat houses are located.

Universities do not have any jurisdiction beyond campus.

Sorry I have to disagree. I know from personal knowledge that university state police do have jurisdiction. I'm not talking about those parking ticket patrol guys. I'm talking about State Police. They do have jurisdiction especially if you are a student living within the 100 mile radius area. One state that has this jurisdiction is California.

purplerose  posted on  2013-11-18   14:27:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 27.

        There are no replies to Comment # 27.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]