Pub Crawler's Death Should End Those No-So-Fun Events
A UWM senior was found dead last week in Milwaukee following a pub crawl - - successor to the sickly-predictive March "Shamrock Stumble," - - after a fall and a post-mortem BAC of 0.24.
That's three times the definition of legal intoxication in Wisconsin.
The organizers of the crawl say they are devastated, and that precautions had been taken, but the risks are obviously inherent in the invitation to drink and keep on drinking, no?
If not, why the arrangements for security, monitoring and a hydration station, according to the organizers?
Apparently printing a taxi service name and phone number on each crawler's official event T-shirt doesn't read well when you're at 0.24.
C'mon.
Let's hope they don't organize another one.
No more parents, or siblings or friends should get that call.
The city doesn't need this kind of media.
It's no-win all round, proving that there are indeed times when the worst imagined situation can happen - - especially after an Octoberfest event where people still like calling their community Brew City.
In the state that leads the nation in binge drinking, drunk driving and other alcohol abuse statistics.
8 comments:
From the Journal Sentinel:
"...a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee student who fell to his death Sunday on Milwaukee's east side had a blood-alcohol level three times greater than the legal limit...[the]blood-alcohol level was 0.24, according to the medical examiner's office. A blood-alcohol level of 0.08 is considered evidence of intoxication in Wisconsin."
There are several things wrong with this reporting:
1. It is not against the law to be drunk. It's illegal to drive while drunk, as measured by specified BAC.
2. He could have had a dozen beers while playing pinochle at the kitchen table all night and been in some physical jeopardy, but NO legal trouble. One can wish that he had lurched his way to bed and awakened to resolve that he'd never do THAT again.
Some legal liability here is on the servers, and--to a considerable extent--the fools who sanction/sponsor /promote/profit from this bacchanalia. He likely crawled from bar to bar all night collecting some of the BAC in each. Individual bartenders who served him can claim to have contributed almost nothing to his ultimate and fatal level of intoxication.
The sponsors claim to have been concerned about safety. They are liars and fools.
Young Fieck is dead, gone in his youth to a sorry and pitiable end. The paper used the irrelevant recitation of the Blood Alcohol Content in the context of what's considered the limit for the driver of an automobile. The reporter could have and should have been more accurate and more useful by identifying the last five or six alcohol servers who plied Ryan Fieck with drinks and took his money. Those drinks--with each transaction--pushed this young man closer to his death.
Fieck was--by his own choice--out of control early in the evening. He took a huge risk and paid a heavy price. BUT, he should have been refused the drinks he ordered once he was clearly out-of-control. That, in fact, is the law.
The sponsors of the drinking event should be identified, shamed, pilloried and banned from advertising/announcing such events in the Journal Sentinel and any other responsible publication.
Considerable legal culpability lies with the servers and their employers. The reporter should re-construct the "crawl" and the progression of this young man's death march, name the establishments that contributed to the death.
I read the BAC as a measuring stick to inform readers about the probable level of intoxication.
"There are several things wrong with this reporting: "
There is one thing wrong with your analysis. Just because things are legal doesn't mean they should be done.
I am posting an extension of Jim Bouman's comments that got chopped by Blogger's space limitations:
From the Journal Sentinel:
"...a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee student who fell to his death Sunday on Milwaukee's east side had a blood-alcohol level three times greater than the legal limit...[the] blood-alcohol level was 0.24, according to the medical examiner's office. A blood-alcohol level of 0.08 is considered evidence of intoxication in Wisconsin."
There are several things wrong with this reporting:
1. It is not against the law to be drunk; it is unwise and dangerous, but not illegal.
2. It IS illegal to drive while drunk, as measured by specified BAC limits.
3. There is no implication that driving an automobile was involved in any of what happened.
4. Other things were clearly illegal.
The dead student could have had a dozen beers while playing pinochle all night at the kitchen table, and been in some physical jeopardy, but NO legal trouble. We might wish that he had done this rather than go pub crawling. In that case, he would have lurched his way to bed and awakened to, perhaps, resolve that he'd never do THAT again.
Young Fieck is dead, gone in his youth and his bad judgment, to a sorry and pitiable end. The paper used the irrelevant recitation of the BAC in the context of what's considered the limit for the driver of an automobile. The reporter should have followed a thread more germane to the facts by identifying the last five or six alcohol servers who plied the walking, not driving, Ryan Fieck with drinks, all the while taking his money. Those drinks--with each transaction--eased this young man down the road to his death. After five or six drinks he would have been clearly out of control. And, once he was out of control, responsibility shifted to those whose job includes exercising judgment on his behalf.
Personal responsibility as well as legal liability attaches, here, to the servers, and--to a greater extent--the jerks/fools who sanction/sponsor /promote/profit from this bacchanalia. He likely crawled from bar to bar all night collecting some of the aggregate BAC in each. Because young Fieck sat in a series of bars, individual bartenders who served him might claim to have contributed almost nothing to his ultimate fatal level of intoxication. That's what pushes the even greater responsibility to the promoters.
The sponsors of the drinking event claim to have been concerned and vigilant about safety. They are liars and fools. They should be identified, shamed, pilloried and forever banned from advertising in the Journal Sentinel and any other responsible publication.
My suggestion: the reporter should re-construct the "crawl" and the progression of this young man's death march, naming the establishments that helped him on his way. And the paper should identify the weepy and sanctimonious promoters of this drunkfest and confront them with their role in his death. That's a job for the editorial page.
-
Jim Bouman
I am posting an extension of Jim Bouman's comments that got chopped by Blogger's space limitations:
From the Journal Sentinel:
"...a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee student who fell to his death Sunday on Milwaukee's east side had a blood-alcohol level three times greater than the legal limit...[the] blood-alcohol level was 0.24, according to the medical examiner's office. A blood-alcohol level of 0.08 is considered evidence of intoxication in Wisconsin."
There are several things wrong with this reporting:
1. It is not against the law to be drunk; it is unwise and dangerous, but not illegal.
2. It IS illegal to drive while drunk, as measured by specified BAC limits.
3. There is no implication that driving an automobile was involved in any of what happened.
4. Other things were clearly illegal.
The dead student could have had a dozen beers while playing pinochle all night at the kitchen table, and been in some physical jeopardy, but NO legal trouble. We might wish that he had done this rather than go pub crawling. In that case, he would have lurched his way to bed and awakened to, perhaps, resolve that he'd never do THAT again.
Young Fieck is dead, gone in his youth and his bad judgment, to a sorry and pitiable end. The paper used the irrelevant recitation of the BAC in the context of what's considered the limit for the driver of an automobile. The reporter should have followed a thread more germane to the facts by identifying the last five or six alcohol servers who plied the walking, not driving, Ryan Fieck with drinks, all the while taking his money. Those drinks--with each transaction--eased this young man down the road to his death. After five or six drinks he would have been clearly out of control. And, once he was out of control, responsibility shifted to those whose job includes exercising judgment on his behalf.
Personal responsibility as well as legal liability attaches, here, to the servers, and--to a greater extent--the jerks/fools who sanction/sponsor /promote/profit from this bacchanalia. He likely crawled from bar to bar all night collecting some of the aggregate BAC in each. Because young Fieck sat in a series of bars, individual bartenders who served him might claim to have contributed almost nothing to his ultimate fatal level of intoxication. That's what pushes the even greater responsibility to the promoters.
The sponsors of the drinking event claim to have been concerned and vigilant about safety. They are liars and fools. They should be identified, shamed, pilloried and forever banned from advertising in the Journal Sentinel and any other responsible publication.
My suggestion: the reporter should re-construct the "crawl" and the progression of this young man's death march, naming the establishments that helped him on his way. And the paper should identify the weepy and sanctimonious promoters of this drunkfest and confront them with their role in his death. That's a job for the editorial page.
-
Jim Bouman
I am posting an extension of Jim Bouman's comments that got chopped towards the end by Blogger's space limitations:
Those drinks--with each transaction--eased this young man down the road to his death. After five or six drinks he would have been clearly out of control. And, once he was out of control, responsibility shifted to those whose job includes exercising judgment on his behalf.
Personal responsibility as well as legal liability attaches, here, to the servers, and--to a greater extent--the jerks/fools who sanction/sponsor /promote/profit from this bacchanalia. He likely crawled from bar to bar all night collecting some of the aggregate BAC in each. Because young Fieck sat in a series of bars, individual bartenders who served him might claim to have contributed almost nothing to his ultimate fatal level of intoxication. That's what pushes the even greater responsibility to the promoters.
The sponsors of the drinking event claim to have been concerned and vigilant about safety. They are liars and fools. They should be identified, shamed, pilloried and forever banned from advertising in the Journal Sentinel and any other responsible publication.
My suggestion: the reporter should re-construct the "crawl" and the progression of this young man's death march, naming the establishments that helped him on his way. And the paper should identify the weepy and sanctimonious promoters of this drunkfest and confront them with their role in his death. That's a job for the editorial page.
-
Jim Bouman
Isn't a person drinking themselves to death just a form of natural selection?
If they are too stupid to know when to stop and they have not yet procreated, is not the gene pool better off?
To the last Anon; Your comment is posted only to let others see how low a person can be.
Post a Comment