Rep. Zepnick Gets It Right On Tavern License Revocation
State Rep. Josh Zepnick, (D-Milwaukee), makes the right suggestion when calling for license revocations from two bartenders and a Franklin tavern where a "blitzed" patron drank heavily, then killed two pedestrians nearby on Christmas Day, 2007.
Update: Franklin, tavern agree ti 90-day closing.
Some history, here.
Records cited by the Journal Sentinel alleged "the bartenders continued serving alcohol to [the defendant] - including at least nine 12-ounce beers and nine shots of alcohol over 6.5 hours – even after they knew he was intoxicated."
More information, and the criminal complaint, here.
Like all licensed businesses, a tavern exists only because local officials approve.
Tavern operations are a privilege, not a right.
Other taverns have had their licenses withdrawn or not renewed following public safety threats and incidents, such as shootings or repeated police calls, and in this case, two people died in part because of the tavern's behavior.
I say "in part" because, yes, the driver 'chose' (while blitzed - - the bartender's term) to drink and drive, and for that the driver is paying with a life sentence in prison.
Little compensation for the family of the couple run down and killed, I imagine.
But the driver had been repeatedly served in the tavern, and for that act of business irresponsibility, it's fair punishment to forfeit the license.
Again, it's of little use to the victims' family, though society is served.
Perhaps other taverns will take note as the state slowly moves towards greater recognition of its alcohol troubles.
Solutions include greater education, tougher law enforcement, and where applicable, sanctions for those who help people into (and profit from) unambiguous intoxication, esepcially when there are fatal consequences.
10 comments:
aThis is all so pathetic. We have to save ourselves from ourselve. Save each other from each other,,, I didnt know we had a guarantee that life is totally safe and without incident and accident.
Maybe we should not allow any business,parks or establishments that serve or might have liquor a parking lot. LOOK the municipality is to blame for allowing the means for patrons the access and means to a vehicle of death.....lol.
You want to sue someone ,,,want someone to blame,,,tghier you go ,,,have at it...rofl.
Oh by the way...stop people from killing each other with vehicle of death. Lawyers would stave,municipality would loose a means of revenue and police would need to layoff. MAN I 'am on to something,gosh l might become a liberal,,,,naw l can't sell my soul and become a nazi...lol
To Anon: This was not an accident.
Negligence in the selling of a controlled substance contributed to the deaths of two people.
What about one's responsibilities?
Don't actions have consequences?
Look, people die ,,,some sooner than others ,,,but we all have onething in common,,,DEATH it catches us all. Do we live in a perfect world no,will the world ever be perfect no. Will people make mistakes, as long as mans on this eath he will. I can list many controlled substances,,,just walk into any drug store or a heatlh food store. Any highly trained professional, Doctor,Dentist,Nurse,Cop etc...etc...etc messes up.
Its part of human nature and odds, lifes a gamble, Some people will DIE sooner.
Its a risk we all take everyday when we wake up,,if we wake up,,some die in their sleep too. We have a choice we can cower in our closets and worry ourselves sick on what might be or grab life by the horns and live it.
enough said about that ...I can go on for hours...you get my point.
Yes we all have responsibilities that cause us consequences. Everything you do has consequences and I am not even going there.
Its a matter of the Law what happens to people who use poor judgement. Under dram shop liability laws, a party injured by an intoxicated person can sue establishments contributing to that person’s intoxication. The possibilities for passing the buck are endless.The LAWS vary state to state. Whether dram shop liability actually succeeds in increasing responsibility among establishments serving alcohol is by no means clear.
When we set out to change behavior we need to consider how we go about it and to what extent. Look how BIBLE thumping Christian are looked upon in the abortion arena etc,,,etc,,,etc.
To Anonymous;
Stick to the facts. This wasn't an accident.
The patron was served 18 drinks. The bartenders should have cut him off way earlier.
When the patron left the tavern, he was "blitzed" by the bartender's own words.
Once he left the tavern, he was a unguided missile.
If a licensed gun store owner sold a customer 18 rounds for a deer rifle knowing the customer would fire them down the street outside the store, and the customer proceeded to hit and kill two people, wouldn't the gun store owner bear some responsibility for the deaths?
And wouldn't taking away his license to sell guns and ammunition make sense, given that a lack of judgement played a role in two deaths?
Anon,
Talk to my neighbor whose daughter and her friend, underage drinkers, already intoxicated, were further served by an establishment whose personnel knew the girls were already intoxicated and were underage (didn't send them out the door immediately.) These girls crashed their car and both died, leaving the bar after legal closing hours. The establishment suffered no consequences.
I think that that someone there should have been at least partially held responsible for breaking the law and serving minors.
But I await your impeccable logic and continue to be amazed that you have not yet begun your own blog after reading some of the many lucid pronunciations that you have favored us readers with.
I do so very much like your idea of requiring establishments that serve liquor to provide sober (your right, nothing is absolutely safe) transportation home for their patrons. Bringing that idea to my state rep and senator today.
Let's say anything over two mixed drinks gets you a free ride home.
To Anonymous;
Stick to the facts. This wasn't an accident.
READ THE definition of the word "ACCIDENT"
1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE *met by accident rather than by design*
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious *a cerebrovascular accident* c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought.
he struck and killed West Allis residents Gary Kitchen and Barbara Kitchen with his van Dec. 25, 2007.
SURE IT WAS AN ACCIDENT,,,try looking something up before you look like an idiot....lol
Eddie Lynn Keck 49, told police he downed as many as six beers and three shots before the crash.(Jan. 4, 2008) article date
Franklin police say Eddie Lynn Keck, 50, drank nine 12-ounce beers and nine shots of liquor at the Buckhorn(dec 30 2008) article date
OK WHICH IS IT 6 BEERS AND 3 SHOTS or 9 BEERS AND 9 SHOTS,,, also was KECK 49 at the time of the ACCIDENT or 50? Really good reporting ...typical reporters dont check facts and are incorrect a majority of the time,but what the hell the people reading the article will not know the differance.
bartenders who served Keck, one of whom told police he continued to serve him though Keck was "pretty well-blitzed" when the employee arrived for work.
THE BARTENDER, WE KNOW ALOT ABOUT HIM TOO ...YEA RIGHT,,,LOL. THE BARTENDER KNOWS BLITZED WHEN HE SEES BLITZED,HE IS AN EXPERT,,,THE COPS SHOULD HIRE HIM,,,WHY DO YOU NEED A BREATHALYZER OR BLOOD SAMPLES WHEN YOU KNOW BLITZED. HOW LONG HAS HE WORKED THERE,HOW LONG HAS HE BEEN A BARTENDER,HOW OLD IS HE? HE CAME IN ON HIS SHIFT AND KECK WAS ALREADY THERE...WE HAVE ALL THE INFO WE NEED LETS THROW THE BOOK AT HIM.....THATS RIGHT THE COPS HAVE THAT INFO AND YOUR GOING TO MAKE YOUR CASE ON LIMITED INFORMATION....LOL.
That will hinge in large part on the testimony of the bartenders, because police were unable to get a blood sample from Keck until 15 to 18 hours after the crash.
OH NO THE COPS DIDNT GET A BLOOD TEST UNTILL 15 TO 18 HOUR LATER...AGAIN WHICH IS IT 15 OR 18 ...MAKES A DIFFERANCE YOU KNOW ON BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL....LETS GET THE ROPE WE HAVE ENOUGH FACTS ... LOL
Blanchard said the law would "have more teeth" if intoxicated were more clearly defined and penalties were graduated to reflect the seriousness of the circumstances
WELL BLANCHARD IS ANOTHER MORON,,,TRYING TO SWAY PUBLIC OPINION,,,IF ONLY THE LAW WOULD.....GUESS WHAT I AM NOT POSTING ALL THE WHOLE LAW SECTION WAY TO MUCH,,,READ IT FOR YOURSELF..I POSTED IT HERE. THER IS PLENTY OF LAW THERE. I GUESS THESE GUYS JUST WANT IT HANDED TO THEM TO MAKE THEIR JOBS SO MUCH EASIER...EARN YOUR SALARY... DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
Now I could have looked harder for more information on this topic,but I am just going by the fact or lack of, that are provided. ENOUGH FACTS YET,,,LOL
gun store owner not even going there your analogy is apples and oranges. I mean one is premeditated and the other is not ...ITS AN ACCIDENT....LOL
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=WI:Default&d=stats&jd=346.63
Anony
Have to disagree with you on the facts. According to the definition you so kindly posted, nothing about this incident was, "unforeseen," and the raft of statistics about property damage and personal injury caused by OWI, be it a boat, an auto snow-machine or motorcycle, the very reasons OWI laws were justifiably written, says so. Accidents are "unexpected events," while the expected results of OWI are damage to various extents.
Your comment, "When we set out to change behavior we need to consider how we go about it and to what extent," is logical in and of itself but simply misses the point of the post. Assigning some certain responsibility for this particular incident of OWI, is the point of the post. Granted, changing behavior is a subsequent hoped for result in these cases.
While I am progressively liberal in my political views and don't wish to deny anyone's point of view, the part of your comments to quote you again, "This is all so pathetic," really appears to be apt analysis on your own general manners when expressing yourself, here. Referring to others as idiots and shouting your often-times disjointed stream of consciousness rants does nothing to serve your credibility, make you more understandable or prove that your view is correct. Though you are obviously intelligent and do some reading, if this was my blog, a lot of your posts would have gone straight to the trash can. Thought that needed to be said.
Have to disagree with you on the facts. According to the definition you so kindly posted, nothing about this incident was, "unforeseen,"
LOL oh man,,,everyone involved in this ACCIDENT had a crystal ball and could foresee the future. Thats why the bartenders kept serving KECK,knowing he was to run this couple over. KECK got in his van,knowing the Kicthen's would be waiting in the street for him. Mr and Mrs Kicthen waited in the road for Keck to run them down.
Your absurd lunacy is beyond me and other readers,,,,I am speaking for people other than myself now....lol
Assigning some certain responsibility for this particular incident of OWI, is the point of the post.
Responsibility ...lol You mean you want to blame someone including the DRUNK,you want them to pay, get even with them. This is why there are CIVIL courts and a MARKET place, and rights to PICKET on PUBLIC property. You can show your dissatisfaction.
While I am progressively liberal in my political views and don't wish to deny anyone's point of view. if this was my blog, a lot of your posts would have gone straight to the trash can.
Now dadofone shows what he is really all about and made of....roflmao.But he doesn't want to deny anyone's point of view. That also falls into the, This is all so pathetic....rofl.
Really appears to be apt analysis on your own general manners when expressing yourself, here. You talk about credibility....lol.
I think most can make their own minds up,all WE do here is play devil's advocate. Blogs are great,James Rowen so far seems an alright guy...hasn't posted everything I have comment on.....lol. I think he looks at things objectively and sees what purpose is serves....enough of this I REALLY HATE TYPING.....lol. OH by the way...L can do much better I just have to bring myself down to your level.....roflmao
Well, it's farly obvious we have all shirked our responsibilities. We know bars serve alcohol, and we know drunks go into bars to get drunk.
I certainly hope the poster of this story has staked out his local bars, and made sure anyone going in doesn't come out drunk and run anyone down.
It's his job now that he knows if he doesn't do it, people will die. As he said, we have all the stats and facts we need.
I don't expect to see him posting much anymore, he has a lot of local bars to keep an eye on.
If he can't do it, maybe we need prohibition again. I always liked the stories of Bonnie and Clyde, and Obama could keep an eye on the new prohibition mafia that developes in Chicago.
If that isn't part of the posters doctrine on society, why doesn't he push for breathalizers for all people wanting to order a drink at a bar ?
See, that way, anyone who is appraoching the legal limit - .o8 or .10 could legally be refused a drink. We'd probably need a licensed nurse to be able to clean and replace the breathalizer mouthpiece, as sanitation lawsuits could otherwise result, foiling the plan to keep people and bartenders in line.
I wonder if the lead poster would pay a few million for breathalizers for every bar in his state ?
Yes, even he would have to blow before being served, his mommie, too. Before every drink ordered, because the more you drink the more you approach the legal limit that makes driving a murderous crime.
In fact since we know death will occur, we need to charge every drunk appraocing their vehicle with manslaughter. As the lead poster said, we all know what danger the bartender caused, he needs to be charged with murder too.
Let's just hook the bar breathalizers up to the police station and court system, and when a bar blows it, the police can arrive with the murder arrest warrant.
This of course will save lives, and that's what it's all about, right ? It might destroy the bar owners and bartenders life, but who cares, they are killers.
Thanks for opening my eyes, you're a genius!
To the last Anon;
Thanks for writing.
Post a Comment