Is Drinking at a Prom Party Really News-Worthy?
The editor of the Knoxville News-Sentinel, our local news paper, is getting constructive feedback from blog commenters on a ridiculous article that was given prominent coverage entitled, "When little prom party blew up." The article was about a prom party that got "out of hand" with (gasp) drinking at a private residence:
Tam, a gunblogger in Knoxville, poked a bit of fun on her blog at the editor of the News-Sentinel for running the story:
I have to agree with Tam who goes on to say this about this little shindig:
Very uncool, and BTW Tam, I highly doubt that Jack Butturini beat up the newspaper editor in the third grade. I went to school with Jack and he was as kind-hearted and as honest as they come. I never saw him hurt anyone or say a cross word--my guess is that his version of the story is the correct one and the Sherriff's office overstepped their bounds with him, at least, in my opinion.
A West Knox County businessman, whose karate training touts building character in children, and his wife face charges they provided beer and liquor to 20 underage people at their daughter's after-prom party.
Jack and Katharine Butturini were charged May 6 with contributing to the delinquency of a minor after authorities broke up a party at the couple's waterfront Loudon County home.
"It was one of the largest parties I've ever seen," said Loudon County Sheriff's Office Deputy T.J. Scarbrough.
Court records show deputies cited seven people under the age of 18 on charges of underage consumption. The identities of the juveniles scheduled to appear May 22 in Loudon County Juvenile Court are not public record.
Deputies cited 13 others between 18 and the legal age of 21 to Loudon County General Sessions Court. When they appear May 23 in court, they also will be fingerprinted and photographed, Loudon County Sheriff Tim Guider said.
Tam, a gunblogger in Knoxville, poked a bit of fun on her blog at the editor of the News-Sentinel for running the story:
Standing in the checkout line at the grocery store last Saturday, I glanced down at the Knoxville News Sentinel in the rack by the register and was struck dumb. There at the top of the front page, above the fold, in the place usually reserved for things like War Was Declared!, Man Lands On Moon!, or Dewey Defeats Truman!, was something very much along the lines of Drunken Teen Prom Party In Suburbia. As news, this has to rate up there with Sun Rises In East. Yet somehow this shindig, and the criminal charges surrounding it, have been all over the local paper for the better part of the week.
I'm trying to figure out why this deserves so much ink. Maybe the accused suburbanite, Mr. Butturini, beat up the newspaper editor in the third grade or something.
I have to agree with Tam who goes on to say this about this little shindig:
Part of the thing that made me a bit incredulous at the whole Prom Party Shenanigans Scandal was the fact that there were criminal charges at all. I was unaware that it was against the law to allow a minor to drink at a private residence. Does this mean that if you allow your kid to have a glass of wine with dinner on special occasions, you're a bona fide criminal? Unreal (and also uncool.)
Very uncool, and BTW Tam, I highly doubt that Jack Butturini beat up the newspaper editor in the third grade. I went to school with Jack and he was as kind-hearted and as honest as they come. I never saw him hurt anyone or say a cross word--my guess is that his version of the story is the correct one and the Sherriff's office overstepped their bounds with him, at least, in my opinion.
posted by Helen at 12:41 PM
55 Comments:
News to me - I assumed under 21 was under 21, no matter where they were. I.e. that it's just as illegal for a 17-yr-old to drink a beer at home as it is out on the front lawn, at a bar, or behind the wheel of a car.
Otherwise...what's the point of having a drinking age if they can get plastered at home and then get behind the wheel?
"Does this mean that if you allow your kid to have a glass of wine with dinner on special occasions, you're a bona fide criminal?"
It depends on your state.
There's a map on this somewhere on the internet, but I can't find it right now.
This link has a text version:
http://www.youthrights.org/dastatelist.php
Search on "National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984", and search for your own state's laws.
America's puritanical drinking age and the government's interference with parenting aside, newspapers do seem to focus on gossip because that is what sells. This story is no more news than the "Sweet 15" inappropriateness last year. A hateful neighbor pestered the police until they showed up at a private residence where a bunch of teenagers had raided the family's liquor cabinet. The Butturini's are a very nice family who had only the best of intentions with this party. There is no way that the teenagers were out of control in the home of a family of black belts.
First, I believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18.
Second, the law should be constructed to allow a parent to give permission to their child to drink. This wouldn't be a general permission, but one giving a specific time and place.
The unfortunate reality is that these parents and the parents of the other kids were being responsible, not irresponsible.
The reality is that a chaparoned party is better than one that isn't. And those who think kids aren't going to drink are complete and utter fools.
"I was unaware that it was against the law to allow a minor to drink at a private residence. "
You gotta be kidding! Someone needs to do something besides blogging. Laws vary from state to state but I read/hear of someone getting arrested for the same thing every years around prom time. I would think any well informed person would know this was illegal.
As for being a major story, only if death and destruction results from the drinking.
This sounds related to a story I heard about shortly after moving here to Tennessee a few years back. Sorry, I don't have a link to the story.
The gist was: parents heard that teens were going to have a party, and decided it would be safer if they hosted/chaperoned it at their house, and had the kids stay there overnight. Better than having kids out drinking elsewhere and driving home, right? Said parents were arrested and jailed for (IIRC) contributing to delinquency, etc. Tennessee Atty Gnl., in an interview, talks about how terrible it is to provide alcohol for minors, yada yada, zero tolerance, yada yada, and that by acting as scofflaws, these parents were instilling in their kids the notion that some laws don't have to be obeyed.
This struck me as just an inane, perverse reading of the situation. Based on my experience, many years ago, I can attest that high school kids will find a way to have beer at a party, and will drive home, with little thought to the consequences. These parents, I thought, were more like heroes than criminals: they're responsible, they recognize the situation, they're doing their best to mitigate the dangers.
Definitely not a major story. Maybe if someone was hurt or if there were large numbers of kids involved...or if they were caught climbing out second story windows to get away...or something. I'm with dadvocate in his astonishment that someone would not know that underage people are still underage indoors.
But if it is a small reason for a newspaper headline, isn't it a small reason for a blog entry?
Anonymom:
"But if it is a small reason for a newspaper headline, isn't it a small reason for a blog entry?"
The fact that they are putting such a trivial story on the front page is worthy of a blog post. I might also blog about it if they put happy ponies or dancing clowns on the frontpage.
Only if the happy ponies are underage drunks and the dancing clowns are escaping out second story windows, though.
Any idea if the teens who were guests at this party had permission from their parents to be there and to drink? No matter how well supervised the drinking is, if my kid was at the party without my knowing it, I would not be happy with Butturini for letting him/her into the booze.
I suspect your acquantance with the man charged with holding the party is coloring your views, Helen.
Think it through. A kid leaving that party kills someone. See recent news reports in Florida, Illinois, etc etc. The party host/hostess is liable.
Many states are cracking down on such parties in advance of such tragedies. If they're not your kids drinking under your own roof, it's no so innocent as it sounds. Sure kids drink. Not blatently at parties thrown by wealthy parents. Sets a bad example when you wink at it when nobody gets out of hand, because these are immature kids drinking and you know the odds. Plus, something about respecting the law no matter who you are and if resisting the "everybody's doing it" defense. Even if you've got a nice PLUP insurance-wise, better not to tempt fate and the Dramshaft laws. Not your kids? Don't sponsor their drinking. Let them find it on their own, if that's your attitude, and don't encourage it on other people's children unless their parents are also present and assuming responsibility for their children's decisions.
Very much a news story btw. How many high school students and parents are contemplating these very issues right now regarding graduation parties?
Btw,
I think part of the trend in infantilizing children, boys especially as you have been writing on, lies beneath this idea of your parents being your friends and helping you maintain popularity through parties like this.
Parents should grow up and drink with people their own age.
Plus, isn't it a news story if a somewhat prominent figure uses bad judgment himself in encouraging kids to break the law?
This line "whose karate training touts building character in children" suggests his community connection.
Somehow the kids with "very uncool" parents often turn out the best. See homeschooling.
"You gotta be kidding! Someone needs to do something besides blogging.
The someone in question doesn't have kids, and hasn't hung out with folks under 21 since she herself was that age, so the question is rather moot for her. Hence her surprise when what seemed more like fodder for the PTA newsletter's gossip column was on the front page.
Best,
Tam
Bottom line: you're responsible for what goes on in your own home. Don't go to bed on prom night if kids are still up in your house.
Of course, the paper could have waited until one of the kids rammed at tree at 90+ mph at midnight while drunk and covered that....
(This happened in my town reccently...)
Clearly, the story got your attention and undoubtedly sold newspapers. Ergo, it is news. It also says good things about Knoxville, because in many cities Ktown's size, it wouldn't be news at all.
PS--The boy is still in a coma three weeks later. Part of the reason the accident happened is that his parents took away his old junk car fearing he would have an accident and instead gave him a brand-new sports car!!!
I agree with dadvocate, he had to have known the law about that. I disagree with the law, however, as most of the rest of the world doesn't seem to have the view or problem with under 21 drinking.
Part of the reason the accident happened is that his parents took away his old junk car fearing he would have an accident and instead gave him a brand-new sports car!!!
We can damage them in trying to protect them, help them out too much. No direct experience with consequences until the stakes are so great in making mistakes on their own. Richer parents can fund bigger mistakes.
BTW - I agree that the legal drinking age should be 18.
The summer I graduated from high school the drinking was 21 in my home state so 3 of my friends and I drove to New Orleans, the legal age was 18 in Louisianna then, and spent a few days drinking beer. And, we did it responsibly.
In Westchester County, NY there have recently been some tragic incidents related to teenagers drinking at house parties. At least one involved a teenager’s death. Therefore, these types of incidents are newsworthy around here.
A parent who doesn’t know the laws is acting irresponsibly. I check if adults will be home before I allow my teenage son to attend a party. As this case clearly shows, this is not enough when other parents take the attitude that “kids will be kids”.
13 of 20 persons charged can vote and join the military and die in a foreign land, but people get the vapors because they had some booze? Spare me.
The idea that this is some sort of shocking law breaking is over the top. I had parties at my house with my folks awareness of the dread underage drinking. Funny, none of us drove drunk or set fire to anything.
This was before the lawyers took over the country tho.
I was thinking of throwing an orgy for some of the local high school kids. Hell, they're going to have sex anyway, right? Might as well do it under the watchful eyes of a responsible adult.
Not just prom parties but all sorts of mundane misbehavior makes the news. My opinion? It's about making public examples of people in order to disuade particular kinds of behavior. It's not about news, it's about shaming. It's part of a culture war.
To which of the several dozen culture wars currently raging do you refer?
We better not be talking about Islamic fundamentalists here. I'm really sick of those guys...
Definitions:
"kids" = under 18
young adults = 18 to lower 20s
In the prom case, some kids are involved. I think the drinking age should be 18.
Curious on other's opinions on this line of thought:
Would the Duke LaCrosse players have had an easier time with their initial defense, or was the initial questioning hampered by concerns they would be charged with underage drinking?
Where do you draw the line?
Casual drug use ok too, for kids or young adults? Lots do it responsibly, why not in your living room after hours?
Work to change the laws if you don't like them. Don't pick and choose which ones to enforce.
That Sheriff did exactly the right thing with a puking teen on a public street who arrived by vehicle. The dad didn't know what was going on in his own house; the cop knew what was going on that night on all our streets though. By making lightly now, you're saying something about who's accountable for the driving accident to come. And it will come. These are young bodies experiencing alcohol for the first time -- hence the puking, and poor driving.
Parents let your kids grow up. Don't make excuses. They'll get to 18 or 21 soon enough tell them. No shortcuts.
Anonymous 3:39: I think this would have been a real story if someone had been hurt, but they weren't.
Although you've got to hand it to the newspapers, if we ignore suburban kids drinking alcohol in high school, by the time they go to college, they might decide to experiment with sex, maybe even without getting married first. (That'd be newsworthy for sure!)
9:09:
This isn't a story of teen kids drinking though.
This is a story of teen kids drinking, in a big party, at the home of a businessman who purports to mold character. Whether you buy his story or not, it's news.
If your kids was drinking at that home, it's different than drinking from the bed of your pickups in the woods. Probably better liquor, and "off the street" behind closed doors. Better for the homeowner's child yes; better for the other parent's children, no. Better that they run their risks in a park for an hour or two than to be protected from law enforcement all night long (until it's time to go and they're all tanked up, at maximum puking and driving speed). By "protecting" the kids from consequences of law breaking, by providing a nice private place complete with comfy chairs and cable tv and games no doubt, you encourage or give an incentive to the troubling behaviour of underage drinking. They drink longer, probably stronger stuff, and are outraged when "caught", particularly when there's so many well-meaning adults contend to play "what's the big deal??" all the way up to the first funeral date.
they might decide to experiment with sex, maybe even without getting married first.
Just tell them, um, not to let the afteraffects of their young partying fun spill into the public streets is all we're saying. Nekkid drunken fun has it's time and place, sure. But when you're so irresponsible as to get the Sheriff involved, well you're doing something wrong obviously.
Back in my day, you wanted to drink like an adult, you had to actually figure out a way to rent a room at the RedRoofInn and keep the party quiet enough, with the out-of-sight stuff taking place in the bathroom, for good measure.
Never worked, though. You get 30-50 people at a party, naturally it spills out of the room. But these weren't adult sponsored, or adult provided places. You had to work for it and take some responsiblility yourself. "You gotta fight for your right..." and all that. Why the amnesty for today's kids?
Now that I've read this in the original article, I can definitely tell why it is newsworthy.
"I thought the police were going to help us get it under control, but it was totally the opposite," she said.
Jack Butturini said his daughter told him she "didn't know these people." He said the interlopers probably came from three other nearby after-prom parties in the neighborhood.
It's news that character-buildin' Jack and his wife are really, really stupid people.
shush itto
They're helen's friends.
Everyone knows parents today provide a place for kids to drink via permission or lack of supervision; parents will be parents, why fight it? Look the other way and laught at the rubes who think this is a news story. Please. At least wait until the kids are smashed up, otherwise it's just a little puking in the street on the way to hitting the road. Kidstuff.
Here's a nice page about social host liability, whether you were allegedly sleeping while the 50 partygoers were downstairs, or sponsoring the party.
http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol/policy/hostliab.shtm
Why social host liability is important
Surveys of youth show that the most common sources of alcohol are the young person's own home or from persons over the age of 21 who purchase alcohol for them. (1, 2) Social host liability laws may deter parents and other adults from hosting underage parties and purchasing/providing alcohol for underage youth. (3)
Some adults believe underage drinking is just part of growing up and therefore think it is acceptable to give alcohol to underage people. Social host liability laws send a clear message to adults that providing alcohol to underage youth is not acceptable.
Many people do not realize that it may be illegal in their state to serve or provide alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons. Social host liability laws may act as a strong deterrent if providers believe that they will be sued if injury or death occurs as a result of the provision of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person. (3)
Without social house liability laws, it can be difficult to enforce laws against adults who provide alcohol to underage youth or intoxicated persons. Social host liability laws may act as a strong deterrent if providers believe that they will be sued if injury or death occurs as a result of the provision of alcohol to an underage or intoxicated person. (3)
Research shows social host liability laws are effective. In an analysis of all 50 states, social host laws were associated with reductions in drinking-driving and heavy drinking. (3)
Not sure if TN is behind the curve on this one but it sounds like it.
A tragic event in St. Paul, Minnesota on New Year's Eve 1997 led to increased social host liability in Minnesota. A 16-year-old boy, Kevin Brockway, died in a car crash after attending a friend's party where he drank alcohol provided by the host's father. A local coalition, Minnesota Join Together, effectively used this tragedy as an opportunity to increase public and legislative awareness of the need for greater criminal and civil penalties for social providers. The coalition used funds from a state incentive grant for a large media campaign around the social host issue. On May 24, 1999 the governor of Minnesota signed into law the "Brockway bill" that extended felony prosecution beyond sellers to include anyone who barters, furnishes or gives alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age who becomes intoxicated and as a result causes or suffers death or great bodily harm. Media attention around this bill kept legislative and public attention on the social host problem, and on April 19, 2000 the governor signed another bill that extends civil liability to adult social providers for damages caused as a result of intoxication by underage youth. (6)
Interesting stuff on the "social host liability" laws. I like that approach better than the 21-drinking-age approach. It moves the threshold for punishable action to (a) providing alcohol to 'youth', ie too young to be completely responsible for their own decisions so some liability is on the adult, who has decided to provided the alcohol. It moves punishable action to (b) providing alcohol to "obviously intoxicated persons", regardless whether the person is a minor or an adult. Different state laws, different prosecutors, different juries et al can then define how to apply "obviously intoxicated" for the local community.
And I think we'll continue to see Civil Disobedience as long as "adult" has an inconsistent definition. I personally do not practice civil disobedience in this case, since I was a tee-toteller in college and not risk my scholarships. But it was annoying to be completely on my own financially yet not trusted by society to have one wine cooler.
"Adult" should be 18, period, in my opinion.
Punishing an adult for providing alcohol to a 'youth' (someone who is NOT yet trusted by society to make decisions) is non-sensical when that same society trusts the 18-21 year old with nearly all other more serious legal decisions. I will gladly vote or write the politicians to change the drinking age law down to 18. I would like to see as many laws as possible so that 18 is consistently the standard for "adult" decisions. Meanwhile, a "minor" has both his/her rights/freedoms limited and his/her accountability limited; for drinking, for driving privileges, for marriage, for abortion, et cetera. Different states start allowing various privileges at 14/16/18 and depending on the topic and the local culture.
The number of comments shows this IS news: generates sales and water cooler talk.
There may be a debate on whether it is Front Page news. Maybe they had no lother local story for that day's front page.
I always find it embarrassing an awkward that at a military Dining Out, we have to have both an alcoholic and non-alcoholic grog bowl, because of the age laws. The Sgt Military Police guy who wore his bowtie crooked has to go to the non-alcohol bowl, even though he carries a big gun and guards the gate every day to protect the rest of us.
We should have a non-alcohol bowl, but a better reason is for those of us who choose not to drink or are the designated driver for our table. The age thing is goofy.
Following the wonderful standards of Open Carry Online, let's cite some actual law--in this case, from Washington State. RCW 66.44.270 reads in part:
"(3) Subsections (1) and (2)(a) of this section do not apply to liquor given or permitted to be given to a person under the age of twenty-one years by a parent or guardian and consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian. This subsection shall not authorize consumption or possession of liquor by a person under the age of twenty-one years on any premises licensed under chapter 66.24 RCW."
My non-lawyerly reading of this is: a parent can give permission to their under-21 children, but only in their presence, and not in commercial establishments. So, giving them a drink in your own home, or at a friends, or at your campsite at a state part, etc, are all just fine and legal as long as you're also present. I'm not saying anything for or against the law here, or the age limit in particular, but it is somewhat less draconian than folks here are portraying. What about posting the actual law in some of your state?
Alcohol is forbidden in our state parks and recreation areas. I always thought that was true everywhere, but maybe not.
If I let my children have a glass of wine and the sherrif drops by, I strongly doubt that he would arrest me. If the sherrif drops by to find a large group of kids--of whom only a couple are mine--drinking in my house, puking in my yard, I am quite sure I would be arrested. No matter whether I am a community leader or a nobody, I am quite sure it would be a news story. Perhaps it would be a bigger story if everyone knew my name and my reputation as a "leader"--in the same way that a preacher caught hiring prostitutes is a big story, but have no doubt that the "nobody" would end up in the news, too.
I think the public reminder that some parents are stupid that way is a good thing. It might make other parents more vigilant with their own kids.
Most of this thread got onto the general topic of 18-year drinking age and state laws.
Thank you to the commenter who reminded us of the original article. It sounds to me like the Butturini's need some benefit of the doubt here.
Some excerpts:
The warrants charging the couple allege Scarbrough "found about 50 underage subjects at this residence, that had been drinking alcohol beverages WHILE AT THE RESIDENCE." (captitals emphasis added)
Warrants are based on this evidence: "Several of the underage people had made statements that the alcoholic beverages was (sic) provided by the home owners," the warrants stated.
But wait, there's reasonable doubt:
"The Butturinis on Friday denied the allegations. They said they are the victims of an onslaught of party crashers..."
...
"They could have been drinking somewhere else, but I didn't give them anything to drink," Jack Butturini said.
...
Jack Butturini said his daughter told him she "didn't know these people." He said the interlopers probably came FROM THREE OTHER NEARBY AFTER-PROM PARTIES in the neighborhood.
xxxxxxxx
So is this news front page to warn or solicit news from these OTHER PARTIES? I expect follow-up stories.
Mom Katherine and daughter Katie may have thought they were doing a good deed by letting somewhat intoxicated kids stay at the house while trying to figure out what to do...eg how to get them home safely or to let them stay until they were more sober. Good deeds/intentions...
So, forensics advise needed: Can the vomit show that the Butturini's were innocent of providing the liquor for that particular charge? If so, or at least reasonable doubt can be offered, then the Butturini's need to be allowed innocence until proven guilty. If they plead "not guilty", there will definitely be follow-up stories, and more newspaper sales.
But if Mom Katherine was in the kitchen scrambling eggs, is it believable that she was completely unaware that there were 50 kids there? Or could she be unaware that there were 50 kids in the yard? Unless all 50 were passed out, I don't think so. And there is still the question of whether what a reasonable person would do when 50 party-crashers arrive. Would I offer all fifty a spot on the couch to sleep it off or would I call their parents? And would I take away their booze when they arrived so that I wouldn't get nailed for the booze they were carrying? Fifty party-crashers is a lot of people. I think it is clear that the Buttarini's lost control. Shouldn't they be held responsible for losing control of a quiet party?
Shouldn't the interlopers be held responsible for trespassing?
"Court records show deputies cited [Only] seven people under the age of 18 on charges of underage consumption."
The Butterini's "face charges they provided beer and liquor to [Only] 20 underage people at their daughter's after-prom party." i.e. 7 minors (under age 18) and 13 adults yet who are under the drinking age.
Of the 13 adults, "Records...show that 11 of the 13 people [who are] 18 and older charged with underage consumption attend Farragut High School. One citation [of the 13] was not available Friday at Loudon County General Sessions Court [so that person may or may not attend Farragut High School." That leaves one of 13 adults as definitely not attending Farragut High School; wonder if that person lives with his/her parents or is on his/her own.
Where does this 50 come in?
From the article: "The warrants charging the couple ALLEGE [Deputy] Scarbrough "found about 50 underage subjects at this residence, that had been drinking alcohol beverages while at the residence."
Court proceedings may debate "at the residence". The articles mentioned lots of cars. If people were hanging out by cars in the street, then they may not have been on the Butterini's property and therefore not under the Butterini's responsibility. Folks can arrive fast, going as a group from one house to another.
Court proceedings may debate the "50 underage" estimate, depending on how many were detained at exactly which positions relative to the property.
Court proceedings may debate "drinking alcohol beverages while AT the residence" versus showing up there already impaired, or showing up there and sneaking in your own stuff.
It's possible certain deputies don't like the idea of karate training, and took advantage of the situation to harass.
So more to come. In the interests of allowing a chance for the facts to come out, I suggest to not speculate here. I offer the above only as questions, and what debates about the facts may unfold. Let the answers come out over the days to come from the court proceedings and statements to the press.
Above asked: "What would a reasonable person would do when 50 party-crashers arrive."
That's a good question for continued general discussion.
Mom Katherine and daughter Katie may have thought they were doing a good deed by letting somewhat intoxicated kids stay at the house while trying to figure out what to do...eg how to get them home safely or to let them stay until they were more sober.
Except that one who slipped out, left the party and was found by the cop puking, after leaving their house. But then, maybe only 20 were let in to drink, and the others were just gathering outside hoping. Doubtful. It's usually an open door policy at these things. Dad underestimated what he was in for, thinking he'd provide for just 20 or so, and more came. Kids in numbers are shocking like that. That's why you only serve your own, and leave other parents' children to fend for themselves in finding booze. This guy should not try to keep protesting his "innocence", sounds like silly in suburbia. Yes, people eat that stuff up, so it's a front page features story, if not hard news. Lots of others parents could contemplate being in similar situations, except they're probably not so naive as the Butterurini's.
-------------
Above asked: "What would a reasonable person would do when 50 party-crashers arrive."
Well, he's not a physically weak man, and he sure knew what to do when the police originally came calling. They didn't get let in.
I have heard that minors who drink are more likely to turn into alcoholics. My dad offered me a beer when I was about 14, but I declined, mainly due to the conservative church I attended and my friends. I think I waited until I was 21 to try any. Most of the alcohol I have tried, I didn't like. Although I had a Smirnoff recently and it was decent. My grandfather was an alcoholic who committed suicide while my grandma was pregnant. This was before I was born. I think this happened when my dad was 20 and it was on my aunt's birthday.
The only reason I can see to count the minors (under 18) as separate from the young adults (18-23) is to make the point that 18-year-olds should be allowed to drink legally. Doesn't matter. The law applies to both groups. If you want to change the law, fine--but until then, it isn't legal for anyone under 21 to drink.
Does anybody know if Butturini has been involved in any local feuds - like over business matters, real estate, lawmaking, etc.? Re-reading the article, I have to say it's probably newsworthy if only due to the number of people involved. However, the first paragraph sounds a bit too snarky - like he really wanted to say "A well-known local rich bastard and total hypocrite was arrested..." Almost sounds like it's personal.
Bugs,
Prezackly.
This one hits close to home for me. Great post!!!
Chris
My Blog
Scene: public street near Butterini's house.
Deputy: Hey, there.
Underage drinker: [pretends to not hear him and tries to casually start leaving]
Deputy: Stop, I want to talk to you.
Underage drinker: [Drat, he means me.] Yes, officer. What can I do for you?
Deputy: Have you been drinking?
Underage drinker: Who me? [while trying not to sway too much maintaining his balance]
Deputy: You've been drinking, haven't you. Where'd you get the booze?
Underage drinker: Err...Ummm [stalling, as he recalls watching his friend by it with a fake id]
Deputy: I said where'd you get the booze? Did you get it here? You got it here didn't you? That house, there?
Underage drinker: [thinking, yeah, I'll agree with him; then maybe he'll let me go] Why, yes sir. That's where I got it.
Deputy: Stay with this other Deputy. He's got some more questions for you. [Hah, some breath tests and a citation. The little jerk ain't getting away with this. Now, about that house..]
Second Deputy begins interacting with underage drinker:
UD: [darn]
I said where'd you get the booze? Did you get it here? You got it here didn't you? That house, there?
Underage drinker: [thinking, yeah, I'll agree with him; then maybe he'll let me go] Why, yes sir. That's where I got it.
One car parked outside his house, with a puking kid, I might buy your story.
What Helen's friend is trying to pull off here (I was sleeping, she was making eggs -- there were 50 kids in our house drinking? No?? Kid outside our house puking??? Musta had to park over here for that damned party 3 blocks over... Or there was another one in my neighborhood too, yeah that's it.
Man up and don't drink with kids, Mr.B or at the least, try to buy your daughter's friends with alcohol, or looking the other way and providing the party spot. Rite of passage? Sure. For the kids. Let them work hard trying to figure out the how's and where's -- it's not like giving condoms to kids who are going to have sex. It's giving essentially poison to young bodies inexperienced in metabolizing it. You don't like the laws, work to change them, or take the "out" written in to them to provide liquor to YOUR kid. Because when you liquor up on of ours, or put one on the street to puke on my lawn, damage my property (remember Jim Webb??) or worse, hit my family with that deadly weapon you're driving, well then good people have to speak out and say asshats like Mr. B should grow up. He can visit another country if he wants to sponsor underaged drinking fests with pretty young things. Leave the kids alone. They'll get into enough trouble without this kind of monied "help".
What Helen's friend is trying to pull off here (I was sleeping, she was making eggs -- there were 50 kids in our house drinking? No?? Kid outside our house puking??? Musta had to park over here for that damned party 3 blocks over... Or there was another one in my neighborhood too, yeah that's it.)
really insults the intelligence of John Q Public. If it drew the cops' and neighbors' attention, if there were more than one carload of kids milling about outside his house that night talking and puking while coincidentally his daughter was up with 20-50 friends visiting, he can't play stupid. Or he can, but we can laugh at him and his friends trying to protect "the children" from consequences and wonder why we don't let kids grow up. Very newsworthy. heh.
I don't have time to read all the comments, so I'm sorry if this is a repeat: Why don't they lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the driving age to 18. This, and the strictly enforced very low blood alcohol content laws, keeps the teenagers off the streets and lets them learn how to drink responsibly before they can ever get behind a wheel. Worked for my kid.....
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
77p2p735聊天室735聊天室711成人711成人707網愛聊天室707網愛聊天室視訊聊天室69成人69成人666成人光666成人光530誘或成人網頁530誘或成人網頁5278cc免費影片5278cc免費影片5278影片網5278影片網視訊聊天室v6 04u成人4u成人358成人影城358成人影城3388影片區
Post a Comment
<< Home