18 PSU frat brothers charged with manslaughter...
- Thread starter tboyer
- Start date
I think our chapter was Nu Tau at Mansfield University. We had some pretty wild parties. I'm ancient, so we are talking circa 1969-72. MSU was about 19 miles from the NY border and legal drinking age was 18 there at the time. As a result, most of our big events were held in Elmira or Corning.....and there was a bar right on the border called Green Shingles. Looking back, it is amazing all my friends survived. Never lost a TKE brother, but students died in car accidents returning from drinking in NY.
As I stated earlier in the thread, I have no answers. Its very tragic.
You sound like a politician. A kid is dead and his supposed brothers did nothing to help him and let him die. So you blame the investigators??? SMH
Good point. This isn't about SPM or any other politician. At least, it shouldn't be.
I don't have enough exposure to what campuses are today....however things were pretty interesting in the late 60s and early 70s.
If there was ever an appropriate use of that emoji ...
As with many things in criminal law, the consequences and even, often, the criminality of actions depend greatly on the damage or result of the actions. Drive drunk and get busted, but don't hurt anyone or cause any damage, and your penalty is going to be a lot less than if you caused an accident that killed someone. Your act in driving drunk, and your intent to not cause any harm is the same in both cases -- it is what resulted from your criminal act that leads to the widely different penalties.
Here, the frat and presumably many if not all of its members broke the law by buying alchohol and supplying it to persons under the age of 21. They did that knowingly. Pennsylvania also makes participation in hazing a misdeamnor. Many if not all of the members knew that as well as it is covered extensively in PSU Greek proceedings. Having elected to knowingly commit at least 2 misdeamnors the members then opened themselves up to all sorts of potential criminal reprocussions. Had nothing happened other than some guys got drunk, there would be no criminal reprocussions. Had someone called the police and the party was busted, the criminal reprocussions likely would be limited to minor-in-possession and maybe hazing and furnishing alchohol to minors chargeds. But, a pledge died. Now, the acts which previously would be fairly minor, are now serious because the damage is catastrophic -- a kid died. Now, members are charged with negligent homicide, a class A misdemeanor, and aggravated assualt, a felony.
Some kids are going to be more involved than others accordingly there will be different plea-bargain and sentencing options. Kids with prior offenses, including MIPs are going to see harsher sentences as well. And, yes, a conviction of negligent homicide, even though it is a misdeamnor, is going to have serious life-long reprocussions. Not many employers will want to bring on someone with a negligent homicide conviction. The potential liability that imposes on an employer makes that decision easy. There has to be a job candidate who was not responsible for killing someone while in college.
Here, the frat and presumably many if not all of its members broke the law by buying alchohol and supplying it to persons under the age of 21. They did that knowingly. Pennsylvania also makes participation in hazing a misdeamnor. Many if not all of the members knew that as well as it is covered extensively in PSU Greek proceedings. Having elected to knowingly commit at least 2 misdeamnors the members then opened themselves up to all sorts of potential criminal reprocussions. Had nothing happened other than some guys got drunk, there would be no criminal reprocussions. Had someone called the police and the party was busted, the criminal reprocussions likely would be limited to minor-in-possession and maybe hazing and furnishing alchohol to minors chargeds. But, a pledge died. Now, the acts which previously would be fairly minor, are now serious because the damage is catastrophic -- a kid died. Now, members are charged with negligent homicide, a class A misdemeanor, and aggravated assualt, a felony.
Some kids are going to be more involved than others accordingly there will be different plea-bargain and sentencing options. Kids with prior offenses, including MIPs are going to see harsher sentences as well. And, yes, a conviction of negligent homicide, even though it is a misdeamnor, is going to have serious life-long reprocussions. Not many employers will want to bring on someone with a negligent homicide conviction. The potential liability that imposes on an employer makes that decision easy. There has to be a job candidate who was not responsible for killing someone while in college.
Last edited:
The same people who could die at a tailgate probably dodged plenty of bullets years ago when they were students. It is horrible that someone had to die but maybe the Greek system will take the hazing rituals seriously now.
I think you are minimizing the degree of peer pressure he was under to participate. Sure he could of walked out or refused to participate but his bid would have been rescinded and he would not become a member of the frat.
You should all listen to President Barron's comments. Other than trying to educate, PSU has only one tool in their bag....take away recognition. ALL of the frats are private entities on private property. PSU cannot police them. They can require education and rules of frat to be filed, but that's all. If they violate the rules they submit to PSU to be recognized, they should be gone.
I confess that I dodged a few or more than a few in my lifetime.
According to testimony and video it's worse than this. At least one brother thought they should call 911. He was assaulted and told he didn't know what he was talking about by other brothers and the house VP.
The problem with your ignorant theory is that the school and local law enforcement patrol the lots and provide emergency medical services. The frat actively prevented that from occurring. EDIT: IF the frat is having a sanctioned alcoholic event there is actually a procedure they agreed to for a third party independent vendor to control the alcohol intake.
They were able to construct a clear timeline of events from the video surveillance, corroborated by the eyewitness testimony of many people, including that from some who where charged. The sequence you refer to, concerning the young man Kordel Davis and his plea to fellow brothers for help, is compelling. And Davis was the brother who testified that during an event in December 2016 he had fallen down and was bleeding profusely enough from the head that some brothers took him to Urgent Care, although they did not call 911.
Last edited:
We all probably have, but this was someone's son and it could have been anyone's child. We have all seen students and adults staggering back from games but this is serious stuff. I have friends who went to PSU with me and dodged more than a few bullets and now I see the same behavior from their kids. I am not advocating prohibition but controlling the hazing rituals would be a start. I realize that off campus parties can be worse(people falling off balconies) but the allure of the Greek system(let's face it is the parties) so it has to start somewhere.
Agree. Seeing those parents was heart breaking. I think and hope most of us can agree that hazing should be done away with.
And then PSU has ZERO control over the private organization on private property.
it is hard for me to read about these tragic deaths, knowing full well that "there but for the grace of God go I . . ."
happy to be sober now for over 16 years. but jeez, I've fallen down my share of stairs when drinking. I've passed out weird places. I was always left to "sleep it off"
not defending or justifying anyone's actions, just sayin . . .
If your friends and neighbor's are also robbing banks, yes.
The University isn't "going after" frats that had nothing to do with it. They're putting rules in place to try to prevent this from happening again, while balancing the social aspects of the fraternities. The fraternity in question had its recognition removed. No other "innocent" fraternity was subject to the same punishment. So, they are not being treated the same as the offending fraternity.
It seems to boil down to this: those upset at the university and now the DA seem to think that excessive drinking and hazing is fine, and boys will be boys, and everyone did it back in the day and we turned out OK, so why punish these poor boys who did nothing wrong other than get completely wasted, help one of their pledges get completely wasted, and refuse to get said pledge help when he injured himself. Oh yeah, the pledge died due to both their actions and/or inactions. But that shouldn't ruin these boys futures.
The DUI example is a good one. A DUI charge is less severe than if you kill someone while DUI. You choose to drive while intoxicated, you're rolling the dice. These boys rolled the dice and lost.
And I'm calling them "boys" but let's be real... they're adults. You can argue our drinking laws that consider them underage don't make sense, but they're legal adults who made bad choices.
If fraternities are ONLY about parties and getting wasted, then what's the point? I never understood the party culture, and I think it was a hell of a lot more prevalent when I went to school than it is now. I enjoy having a few drinks and relaxing. But I've only been really wasted a few times in my life and have no desire to repeat that. The experience was not worth the fallout the next day. If that makes me a prude, so be it. These people that feel it's an "integral part of the college experience" to get wasted every weekend... I just don't get it. How did that prepare you for your career, add to your knowledge, and to be a productive member of society? Isn't that the point of college?
No. It would protect everyone. IF the kid lived there would not be any manslaughter charges and the most serious charges would have been prevented.
The worst case scenario is they would have had the same charges. THe best case scenario is they would have had no charges. It could have been somewhere in between but there was no downside in this case.
I hear you loud and clear. There is that understanding we acquire through our own life experience that tempers our judgement of others. This was a tragic event. It is now a legal matter.
And the same people were angry when restrictions were put in place to limit the amount of unhealthy drinking that occurs at University-chartered fraternities. Honestly the people who look at the University response as an unfair punishment are the reason that response is necessary, and why the Greek system might ultimately be doomed. When you can't make the connections and understand why the destructive behavior that occurs every weekend was the cause of a death, that's the real problem. They're not motivated to police themselves when they don't think it's a big deal.
No it wouldn't protect "everyone" in the situation. It very clearly only protects the underage person who makes the call:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.063.008.000..HTM
This refers to subsection (a):
The people who were of age would still be charged with furnishing, and would likely still be liable for the injuries caused to Piazza (laymans view).
The Green Shingles Inn is still there! At least it was when they opened the new I-99 expansion to the state line a few years back ... i am pretty sure it's still open
There don't seem to be very many "adults" commenting on this situation. I am absolutely amazed at the callous views shown here.
This situation is reprehensible. The frat brothers are in more trouble now than if they got the kid some help and were fined for providing alcohol. I don't blame the parents for being angry at all. Everybody shares responsibility for the drinking, the kid included but the failure to get him some help when it was clear that at least one person felt he needed medical attention is disgusting.
If Tim Bream was in the house st the time and is an advisor to the frat--is it. It his job to check on the party occasionally to Mae sure everything is copacetic??
I realize he's not in trouble right now but if I were Sandy Barbour I would be less than pleased with him in this situation provided there isn't more to his story.
If Tim Bream was in the house st the time and is an advisor to the frat--is it. It his job to check on the party occasionally to Mae sure everything is copacetic??
I realize he's not in trouble right now but if I were Sandy Barbour I would be less than pleased with him in this situation provided there isn't more to his story.
Kappa Sig I believe and he still hung around campus when he was in town (as of 2006).
[QUOTE="...
If you could bring back the Founding Fathers today, I would bet they would agree it is cruel and unusual punishment to essentially take away a kid's educational future and their intended career for the crime of drinking beer before they turn 21 -- or smoking a joint with their friends. But that is what we do in the United States every single day.[/QUOTE]
One of the Founding Fathers, a guy from Philly if I recall correctly, once said, "Experience teaches a dear school but a fool will learn in no other".
The sad fact that everybody's doing "it" and, in the specific case of weekend social binge drinking, has pretty much always done it -- does not make "it" in any way good, or right, or sensible.
In this case it appears some life-inexperienced young fools may be about to attend a very dear school. So be it. Depending upon the outcome, maybe others will take notice and learn. Hopefully they do, but there's no way to ever know that answer with certainty and history doesn't provide much in the way of grounds for optimism.
If you could bring back the Founding Fathers today, I would bet they would agree it is cruel and unusual punishment to essentially take away a kid's educational future and their intended career for the crime of drinking beer before they turn 21 -- or smoking a joint with their friends. But that is what we do in the United States every single day.[/QUOTE]
One of the Founding Fathers, a guy from Philly if I recall correctly, once said, "Experience teaches a dear school but a fool will learn in no other".
The sad fact that everybody's doing "it" and, in the specific case of weekend social binge drinking, has pretty much always done it -- does not make "it" in any way good, or right, or sensible.
In this case it appears some life-inexperienced young fools may be about to attend a very dear school. So be it. Depending upon the outcome, maybe others will take notice and learn. Hopefully they do, but there's no way to ever know that answer with certainty and history doesn't provide much in the way of grounds for optimism.
Last edited:
Your point is flawed and you are obviously missing the point. NOT calling 911 did not protect ANYONE. As is they are charged with manslaughter, furnishing alcohol, hazing and hundred other charges . If they called 911 the kid might have lived. Give us the downside! Tell us the upside of NOT calling 911. They were STILL charged AND by not calling the kid died which ADDED MORE SERIOUS charges.
If you read the GJP, it's a little more nuanced than that.
That explanation of "not ignoring" reminds of this explanation of settling down from goodfellas...
WHAT THE Fu#$$%^^! These idiots killed someone. Would make them drink alcohol and walk down Pollock Road naked. Having jto drink shots every 5 steps until they puke or die. They wanted this kid to become a BROTHER: bullshit. You DO NOT Kill your brother. Ask Cain!
No other actor would quite have the same effect as DeNiro saying, "It's good to settle down."
Unfortunately, when you have an overzealous local police force and District Attorney's Office that plays hardball with low-level alcohol offenses, college kids are going to do a cost-benefit analysis. Call 911 and risk getting your house and brothers in legal trouble, or ride it out and assume the kid will be fine like most situations. Sadly, this case involved vastly different circumstances (fall down steps, visible sternum bruising, unresponsiveness to stimuli, etc), but more of an effort should be made to encourage reporting with some sort of amnesty in mind. They have an immunity law for those that report drug overdoses, it should be extended to include alcohol poisoning.
Great point made here. On another front with the same issues the prescription drug industry used to be governed by the FDA (as I remember) and now has the DEA, a police force, governing them. The difference is a science based organization which has an understanding of the operation and use of the drugs vs a police force that uses a sledge hammer to drive the direction and compliance of the industry and the end users. As someone who is directly impacted by this change I can state it is abysmal when you have this set up, no grasp of the drugs but ultimate power to control use thus penalizing patients and causing grief and suffering.
Forcing police action on areas where it is not justified or well informed at best is a recipe for disaster and destroyed lives.
I think it is time to reevaluate our approach to college age drinking as a society. The prohibition model is not working. Driving it underground contributes to tragedies like this. Is there any evidence that cracking down on underage drinking among college students has reduced binge drinking or fatalities and assaults associated with binge drinking?
Just to be clear this was not a simple case of underage drinking gone wrong. The elements of hazing and wanton disregard for the well being of Tim Piazza once he was injured elevate this into a criminal case.
Similar threads
