8 men fined after friend drinks himself to death
 

China court: Pals made man drink too much, must pay $25,000 to parents

Now, is that right? Should I have to suffer the consequences for what I convinced a friend to do?

Wait, the story says that the men didn't have to pay the 25 grand, just 35,192 yuan (which works out to ~$4,393).:eyebrow:

But they were still found "guilty" of making their friend drink too much. He means, because they persuaded their friend to do something, should they be responsible for the result?

Probably a textbook law school discussion. They did pressure him, but at 20 years old, he is considered old enough to make his own decisions. He had a choice whether or not to drink - if they had forced him at gunpoint (what's the term for that), it would have been a different story.

Also curious if this is considered manslaughter or murder (or not at all). If there had been negligence, like the friends saw he was deathly ill and did not take him to a hospital, wouldn't it count as some degree or murder or manslaughter?

It does not have to be any of the above. This is CHINA. They write their own laws, or the Communist Party does. Don't expect it to have all that much resemblance to our legal code. Not everybody thinks fairness and honesty is the way to go. If this had happened in a Muslim country, they would have SHOT all of the men instead, you know.

But my question wasn't the legality, it was the morality. Did they deserve the fine? Four thousand bucks is a lotta money, especially when your daily paycheck is measurable on one hand.

Well, how moral was it for the Chinese government to throw 9 million people out of their homes and farmlands to build that dam? Laws are unfortunately pegged to the sense of morality of whoever is in charge. And divided 8 ways it might have looked more reasonable to the municipal authorities.

I think he's saying, forget laws, forget in what country this is happening. Whose fault is it?

I'm having a tough time deciding. Ultimately, the guy who died, it was his choice to drink in the first place. He put himself in that situation. But if his 8 friends ganged up on him while he was drunk, they are at fault for pressuring him while he was impaired.

I dunno.

Is 20 a legal drinking age there? If the 8 were older relatives getting an inexperienced young guy plastered, perhaps for the first time, they have an obligation to guide him.Evidently they were also three sheets to the wind, not to notice he was suffocating.

While he is ultimately responsible for his actions, they also have a responsibility to watch out for someone they are teaching the ways of the world. :grouphug:

Sorta sounds like hazing to me.

Uh, folks. Drinking didn't kill him ... aspirating his vomitus did. Even if the drunk relatives positioned him properly, he could have rolled on his back.

Nothing in the article says anything about his alcohol level. It would be interesting to know his actual level of impairment.

Also, the responsible party (in the way that U.S. law reasons such things) would be whoever served him alcohol, not the friends or relatives who took it upon themselves to chant "chug, chug, chug."

In the US you can sue the bar that sells you too many drinks if you go out and kill yourself driving after drinking them... so the US law is pretty clear on this kinda' BS.
Personally, I think it is stupid. You are an adult, your actions are your own.

An innocent third party killed by the drunk can sue the bar. Big difference. A bar that continues serving one so obviously drunk is negligent - participated in killing other third parties. The drunk does not sue. The drunk is not a victim.

How is the bar supposed to know that they are driving? Mind reading? Chrystal ball? Tarot? Trust them to tell the truth?
The ABC that sells them "too much" should be in the same boat then.

A man can be drunk and not appear to be drunk. Prove that in court and the bar is not guilty. But a bar may not serve an obviously intoxicated person whether a drunk is driving or not. If the person does anything fatal to others, driving or not, then the bar that served an obviously intoxicated person is at fault. The party that can sue is the victim. In the China case, who is the victim?

Exactly, or the person can be drunk before they get to the bar... in all cases, the logic of blaming the bar or the friends is faulty.

How do you "make" someone drink too much? Sit on them and pour it down their throat? If they did that, then yes...the friends are at fault. However, although urging an intoxicated individual to have another drink may be irresponsible, it is ultimately up to the drinker to say no, I've had enough.

A bartender has a different responsibility. He is the source of the alcohol and sells for profit. So rather than attempt to make another sale at the expense of an innocent who may get in the way of the drunk customer, he needs to slow or stop the customer's consumption before they reach dangerous levels.

Stormie

To use Tarot to decide whether someone is too impaired to drive or not seems an abuse. I'd go more for mind-meld a la Spock.

Mind-meld would cause some impairment in the tender. We could simply screen the alcohol out of his body when we beam him home.

If you kill yourself, how can you sue?;) My emphasis.

OK, then looking at the event in a purely objective fashion, it was the man's PARENTS who are to blame. They raised him to think he could walk on water, that anything he wanted would be instantly provided, and that he was the center of the universe. He was probably the result of selective birth control, i.e., aborting female fetuses until they got a male, he was probably spoiled by all the relatives on both sides of the family because there are much fewer grandchildren under Chinese policies nowdays, and if any member of his family told him to stop drinking they might have been insulted or even struck by this "Little Emperor", as the Chinese are woefully calling the male children who turn on them. They did not teach him responsibility for his behavior, he paid the price, and now the PARENTS are looking for somebody to blame. Do not weep for those 8 men who lost the stageplay that is called a lawsuit in that country (didn't you see the Richard Gere movie about the legal process in China?). None of those boys will pay anything, THEIR PARENTS, who worship them, will pony up for the disasters caused by THEIR Little Emperors.

sorry, quoting spexx:
Your estate - i.e., to whomever your assets are willed, or your next closest kin - can sue.

Ok, sure, if the guy was drinking excessively by his own will, you could argue this way. If this were the case, his friends might have said, "hey, we tried to stop him, but he snuck off in the other room and kept pounding shots." THen you *might* be able to say it was the parents' fault for not teaching him about the dangers of overconsuming alcohol.

But the ruling suggests the friends were in fact coercing him to continue drinking. If he was three sheets to the wind and ready to pass out but his friends kept insisting he drink, they were exerting pressure while he was impaired, i.e. unable to make good judgments. He himself was likely unsure of how much he had already had, as well as unaware of the consequences of consuming more. And when have you ever seen a drunk turn down another drink??

Laws aside, the friends also had a moral interest in protecting his well being. Regardless of knowing "how much he could handle," they should have stopped him from drinking when he began showing signs of extreme intoxication.

And whether he was drinking at someone's house or at a public bar makes no difference: both are considered as providing a venue for the consumption of alcohol. The property/business owner *can* be found liable for incidents resulting from behavior that occured on their property. This is why it's dangerous for parents to allow underagers to drink in their private homes - they're providing a venue AND breaking the law. Because a bar is a commercial business, laws make it easier to sue for liability. I know bars in NYC (unfortunately from personal experience) that won't hesitate to kick you out if you show the slightest sign of intoxication - rough-housing, laughing too loud, unable to count change.

This could have a chilling effect on the "chug, chug, chug" chant.

"drink a bit! drink a bit! drink a bit!" just doesnt have the same ring to it...

How many 20-year-old males that you know do not think they are invincible, immortal, and essentially indestructable? Well, in the cities of mainland China like Beijing, where the State only permits one child per family, you are dealing with EIGHT Little Emperors out of control. Nobody is documenting the impaired condition of these so-called friends themselves, they are just the scapegoats. In many Oriental countries, it is considered the RIGHT of the man to get blind stupid drunk any time he feels like it and the family and women cater to him in the process. Slang got to thoroughly enjoy this cultural dynamic while he was in the Philippines. The Chinese judge who slapped these boys with the fine is not going to go home that night and lecture his OWN SON about drinking responsibly and morality.

I've been so drunk I almost died, many times, and I don't blame anybody but me.

What about the Asian Flush that is supposed to guard these people from this sort of thing? *ponder, ponder*

My freshman year in college, a frat got kicked off campus when a pledge died of alcohol poisoning at a party. In that situation, though, a frat is probably more analogous to a bar than a group of friends.

And you would be right to only blame yourself. That is your perspective. Meanwhile, those who encouraged you to drink would be right to only blame themselves. Again, the world is chock full of perspectives. Even though you rightly consider yourself 100% responsible does not affect them. They must only blame themselves; take their own 100% blame for encouraging you to almost kill yourself.

There is not a 100% blame to be divided up among the guilty. Each person's responsibility is from his own perspective - and applied by those (the law) that apply punishment based only on each person's perspective.

A most powerful force - often stronger than the law - is peer pressure. So powerful that peer pressure is essential for quality in business. Peer pressure can kill just as easily as the actor. Irresponsible use of peer pressure can result in deadly force. There is no excuse for irresponsible use of peer pressure.

Meanwhile you are 100% responsible for drinking too much regardless of peer pressure. Nothing is fair about being responsible.

If your friend Johnny told you you to drink more, would you?

Is it a question or is it 10 people demanding that you not 'put a bummer on the party'? That detail is essential long before anyone can answer the question.

If he was buying. :blush:

Because it was a family celebration, I figured there was probably an age spread, among the eight. Rereading the link doesn't clarify.

Wow... the liquor store that sells anything other than those little "airplane" bottles are fucked then.

None. But I still don't see your point. Do you mean just because the guy who died is 20 years old (and perhaps his friends, too), his friends are automatically released from any responsibility for what happened? Let's say the eight guys were in fact huddled around him, chiding him for wanting to pass out and insisting that he keep drinking. You're saying this would not have been a factor in his death? Even if his parents had cautioned him about overdrinking, you don't think peer pressure and impairment might have affected his decision making? That it was simply a poor upbringing that caused this tragic accident? Can I go rob a bank and blame my parents because they didn't give me any money? And what if he and the other guys weren't the only children in their families? Does this entirely alter your Little Emperor theory?

Then, in my own opinion, he is not a good father. What I hope he does teach his son is one of the mainstays of Chinese culture, ren ai, the concept of benevolence and humanity. This includes helping others who can't help themselves.

ren ai went out with Mao.

there's still hope, my friend.

To me the question of whether the friends should be responsible or not can only be answered by them. If they feel guilt over his death, then chances are they feel there is something they could have done to stop this tragedy. If in fact they believe they could have done something and didn't, then that lays a certain burden of guilt on the friends. Personally, I don't think fining them is going to punish them in any way. They'll carry this with them for the rest of their lives. Let that be enough.

I know I'd feel responsible if I were drinking with a friend who subsequently died from causes brought on by that drinking session. Wouldn't you?

Maybe, but if they were also drinking heavily they may just chalk it up to his bad luck. That could be a viable rationalization, if they were too drunk to realize he was in trouble, then certainly too drunk to realize he was overdoing it. :confused:

Yeah...that could be true too. It's always very difficult to come to any real conclusion when all you have to rely on for facts is the media, and as we all know, the media is not always 100% correct. I still think they'd be feeling guilty though...unless they were totally and completely morally bankrupt.