It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Last year Nicole Nadra Baukus drove her pickup truck the wrong way down Interstate 45 in Montgomery County outside Houston and killed two teenagers, Nicole Adams and Travis Ryan Saunders. During the trial she claimed that a guy at the bar slipped drugs into her drink before changing her story and admitting she'd downed more than 20 drinks at a local bar before getting behind the wheel. A jury just sentenced her to 38 years in prison.
Now, prosecutors and the TABC are turning their attention to the man who supplied her with at least some of that booze.
Duran is now facing criminal charges for buying Baukus drinks. Most times, drink-supplying prosecutions are carried out under the state's "dram shop laws," which make bars and servers liable for selling alcohol to clearly drunk people. Because Duran wasn't a bartender, Diepraam says Montgomery County is going after him based on the "law of parties," which holds a person criminally responsible for aiding or abetting a murderer.
This raises an obvious question: Why don't they just use the Dram Shop Laws that already exist for this type of case and prosecute the bartender, not the poor sucker who was participating in an age-old mating ritual?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I say good on this. 20 drinks is absolutely and obscenely drunk. (They rate 15-20 shots out of a 1/5th or 1.75 bottle for bartending as I was looking up) I think anyone responsible for getting someone into that condition shares in what they do if they just walk away and leave the person in that condition. A lawsuit already got the bar, so good for them in getting the guy who it sounds helped get her THAT bad entirely by design.
The moral of this story, IMO? Don't get someone drunk as a skunk then walk off.edit on 7-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Well we don't know how she looked or was acting, we don't know how many drinks he gave her or if he was aware of her state, and we do know that she ditched him after taking his drinks.
Naww, this is stupid...
I've known people to drink an entire 750ml bottle of bourbon and act completely sober. Yet under this law, if someone were to give them a beer and they were then to drive and kill someone, the same thing could apply.
I can see the bar scene now.
"Excuse me miss, I find you particularly attractive and have intentions to seduce you with my pleasant manner. But before I engage in this activity with you and seek your consent, I will need you to blow into this breathylizer. A legal precaution you see, in case you're already intoxicated in which case I will have to refrain from buying you any drinks in a casual manner."
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I say good on this. 20 drinks is absolutely and obscenely drunk. (They rate 15-20 shots out of a 1/5th or 1.75 bottle for bartending as I was looking up) I think anyone responsible for getting someone into that condition shares in what they do if they just walk away and leave the person in that condition. A lawsuit already got the bar, so good for them in getting the guy who it sounds helped get her THAT bad entirely by design.
The moral of this story, IMO? Don't get someone drunk as a skunk then walk off.edit on 7-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
That bar, the On the Rox Sports Bar and Grill, agreed to settle the case and paid $1 million to David Francisco Porras and the estates of the victims.
A woman who drinks twenty drinks and can still walk.....Is that even possible?