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: 356
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
Sad situation for everyone.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
I was drinking in bars when I was 15. I had no interest in frat life in college, and if I had been this would have never worked on me.
"Have Brain, Will Travel
ten years ago this would of been manslaughter and the guilty would of done time. Their is no law anymore. ______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
Live Comfortably. Drink Responsibly. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
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.
“This is the reason why kids are still dying from hazing in the year 2013,” Julie Griffin said. “Everybody wants to blame the kids.” Did the parents tell their son to stay away from the Greeks?? Because they KNEW what was involved as far as the initiation BS. Granted, their son was 18 and an adult with free will, but parental guidance still counts for something when he's turned loose on a university campus with older students who put peer pressure on the pledge to "keep up" with some nebulous "tradition" that's all about drinking to excess. Plenty of blame to go around.....
#2. To: Lod (#1)
#3. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
#4. To: Turtle, Tatz, 4 (#2)
from southern comfort's website -
#5. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
#6. To: Tatarewicz (#0)
(Edited)
Griffin's parents, Tim and Julie Griffin, left the courtroom grim-faced after the verdict.
-Alex Kurtagic
#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.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#8. To: Lod (#7)
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. I don't know of any panalenic houses that are on campus; all down here are definitely off-campus.
#9. To: purplerose (#5)
All states. Drinking age is 21 in all states. Lousyanna was the last hold out that gave it up in the 80s I think.... Whats worse is that the case should not be appealable... The fuck ups get away with negligent homicide. I think they wanted to push it too far. It wasn't the first time stupid kids do stupid shit like this... They should of had some OD kits ready, They should not of waited 9 minutes to dial 911..... They should not of pushed the TEENAGER to binge drinking. A tragedy for sure. My heart goes out to the grieving parents. 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.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#10. To: titorite (#9) (Edited)
Let me tell you something, titorite. In all states, there are no statute of limitations concerning murder investigations. And where this involves frat kids with secret pledges that involve rituals (one of which results in a students death) surely smells like murder to me. All those frat kids involved with that ritual need to charged with murder and serving time in state penitentiary. And that judge should have been removed from the case a long time ago.
#11. To: purplerose (#10)
Why are you blaming the judge? Didn't the jury make the decision?
#12. To: purplerose (#8)
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. There are universities that house students on campus.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#13. To: abraxas (#12)
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. Correct, thanks. 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.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#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.
#15. To: purplerose (#14)
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? Since when is offering alcohol to a minor legal?
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#16. To: abraxas (#15) (Edited)
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. 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.
#17. To: abraxas (#12)
Thank you. Once again we are on the same page. The kid was old enough to be responsible for his own actions. If he drank himself to death then the responsible party is him. There appears to have been no physical coercion involved. It is sad, and unfortunate, but it was a decision the kid made himself. If he did not know better, and his parents did not teach him better, then he died of terminal stupidity. I nominate him for a Darwin.
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#18. To: purplerose, abraxas (#16)
So, is it your argument that the University is responsible for the behavior of this kid? In what way? Are they supposed to have "No-Knock" Sobriety Tests? There are limits to what a University can do short of locking up the little darlings. Is the University also responsible for Sorority Girls getting knocked up?
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#19. To: purplerose (#16)
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? You noted that these frat members are also underage? Is that true?
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#20. To: Original_Intent (#18) (Edited)
So, is it your argument that the University is responsible for the behavior of this kid? Yes, by their own codes and regulations and also because the kid is a minor. In what way? Same as answer above Are they supposed to have "No-Knock" Sobriety Tests? I have seen this happen at some colleges. The State Police will actually pull over the driver, and have them do a sobriety test! Is the University also responsible for Sorority Girls getting knocked up? Where there is forcible entry of the dorm and the student is raped, and robbery occurs, I would say yes. And I have heard of so many cases of this happening. Also applies where with the student is under 18 years of age and "knocked up" by a student 18 or over. That is statutory rape and the University may be held liable. There are students attending college who are age 14 y.o. of age. They are minors and it is the job of the University to protect minors.
#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.
#22. To: purplerose (#21)
Just because someone owns a property does not make them liable for activity that goes on there, at all.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#23. To: Lod (#22)
That is wrong. I knew of a person who rented to students across from a school campus. If anything went wrong in that house, the property owner was liable. And because of that, the owner would implement house rules inside that home. And those house rules applied to all students. No noise or partying and they all had to take turns cleaning the house. In fact the owner would even put up a schedule for what days one tenant was to clean house followed by the next tenant. If those tenants did not abide by those house rules, they were evicted.
#24. To: purplerose (#23)
Perhaps in moonbeam state. I have no knowledge what goes there.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
#25. To: purplerose, abraxas (#20)
So, do you expect then that they are responsible for the kid's behavior 24 hours a day? And how would you propose they do that. Freshmen consuming alcohol is already against the law and if it takes place off of the Campus how do you propose the University police that? You are not making sense. You are absolving these young adults of responsibility for their own behavior and in essence arguing that they need to be under 24 hour per day supervision by the University and that the University, not the individual, is responsible for their behavior. Are High Schools then responsible for teenage "Keggers"? The State Police are not part of the University. My question was not directed at sobriety checkpoints which is an entirely different issue. My question was, and is, do you expect the University to hold "No Knock" raids and sobriety tests at residences off campus (or on for that matter - universities are not exempt from the fourth amendment), and if so under what legal authority would they do that? We are talking about what the University is responsible for and may legally do. We are also talking about individual responsibility. An 18 year old is, in most places, considered an adult, may vote, may enlist in the military without parental permission, may seek employment without parental permission, engage in legally binding contracts, etc., .... At some point in an individual's life they become responsible for their own actions. A University may prohibit an activity but has no legal authority beyond the Campus other than by Civil Suit, or suspension or expulsion from the university. So, are you then proposing granting universities the legal power of loco parentis over all students at all times? Under what law and how exactly do you propose to enforce such an unconstitutional and illegal edict? So, is it your argument that the University is responsible for the behavior of this kid? Yes, by their own codes and regulations and also because the kid is a minor.
My Question: Are they supposed to have "No-Knock" Sobriety Tests? A. I have seen this happen at some colleges. The State Police will actually pull over the driver, and have them do a sobriety test!
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha
Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil. ~ Unk (Paraphrase of Clarke's 3rd Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.")
#26. To: purplerose (#21)
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. But the University should know that drinking laws and especially where it concerns their jurisdiction to intervene.
" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11
"Life's tough, and even tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne
#27. To: abraxas (#26)
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. 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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest