FC: Beta Theta Pi hearing marathon (to be continued)

[PSU_Nut]

So...if another pledge were at some point to stand up and testify that he wasn't forced to drink, then what?

Wouldn't matter. Pa law says that consumption of alcohol as part of initiation to a social group even if done voluntarily is still considered hazing and criminal. In addition it is still a crime to provide alcohol to a minor weather or not they voluntarily drank it.

 

[chrisrn1965]

So...if another pledge were at some point to stand up and testify that he wasn't forced to drink, then what?

It was hazing so no. A pledge can say he was "not forced" to participate in the hazing but the nature of hazing is that failure to participate will result in loss of group membership. The law takes that social pressure into account. If the context was strictly a social gathering that is different.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

It was hazing so no. A pledge can say he was "not forced" to participate in the hazing but the nature of hazing is that failure to participate will result in loss of group membership. The law takes that social pressure into account. If the context was strictly a social gathering that is different.

Good posts chrisrn- assume you have a medical background from the tenor of some of your posts.

A nice change of pace from:

Save teh Frat Bros!!!!

 

[baircub1!]

It's a sad situation all around and no one is blameless in this disgusting event.

The fact of the matter is that Tim Piazza didn't deserve to die. Someone should have called 911, no question. The "brothers" deserve to go to court and be punished accordingly by the legal process.

However, another fact is that if Tim Piazza didn't fall or was otherwise uninjured, he too would have been perpetuating this disgusting behavior. At the end of the day, no one forced him to join a frat, no one forced him to join this frat, no one forced him to drink to that level of excess, and no one forced him to participate in hazing rituals. All of those things were conscious choices by Tim Piazza.

I belonged to a Fraternity at Penn State and acknowledge we did some very very stupid things.

Early on wanted to join but my parents said " no".,, had to at least finish my sophomore year.

2nd Trimester I was on Academeic and Disclupinary probation... My father got a call from the Dean and he he took the 5.5 mile drive from Connecticut and out me in the car where I had to withdraw from school for the 3 rd trimester.

He also had a job lin d up for me working on the loading docks... Brutal.

I finished out my education at PSU on the Deans list.

Only sharing because... Kids do some really stupid things especially in College .

But my parents also were not naive.... And I thank god for the actions they took.

Such a very tragic , tragic death... But I'm not one who always feels a need to blame everyone else for personal mistakes made. My .02...

 

[MtNittany]

Save teh Frat Bros!!!!

Save the state from publicity hound prosecutors!!!!

 

[Pardlion]

The spleen injury was still significant to his overall condition. When the brain is under increased pressure as his was maintaining an adequate blood pressure is critical in terms of allowing the brain to remain perfused with blood. The blood loss and shock from the spleen injury would accelerated the damage to his brain regardless of when he suffered the intracranial hemorrhage. I am not aware if the ME made any determination of whether the first fall or one of the subsequent falls was responsible for the majority of his traumatic brain injury. The most likely scenario is that it was a cumulative effect of multiple blows to the brain suffered through his falls.

Interesting medical information necessarily based on a lot of conjecture. If you're right, this is complicated for a jury to understand. More importantly, there would have been virtually no way for the frat boys to have known this--what you are describing sounds like someone who became "punch drunk" which would look the same as being "drunk".

 

[Pardlion]

So...if another pledge were at some point to stand up and testify that he wasn't forced to drink, then what?

This question is complicated by the fact that there were sororities/girls at this event. Who has ever heard of a hazing event with witnesses invited?

 

[Vermilion]

From what I read in The Presentment, the "hazing event" didn't last very long as the sorority was there around 10:00, so I guess it was 30 minutes long? Really don't know though...

 

[no1lion99]

All previous reports made it seem like he fell appeared dead and no one called the for help until the next morning. However the video says he keeps getting up for hours after subsequent falls. Only when he doesn't move for 40 min do they call 911. Media made it seem like he was lifeless for hours and no one did anything. PAs got a PHD in how to taint a jury pool these kids don't stand a chance.

You clearly had not followed this closely. No media reports made it seem like what you explain above.

 

[voltz99]

Wouldn't matter. Pa law says that consumption of alcohol as part of initiation to a social group even if done voluntarily is still considered hazing and criminal. In addition it is still a crime to provide alcohol to a minor weather or not they voluntarily drank it.

It would matter because if the other pledges did not drink then the consumption was not part of the initiation.

 

[voltz99]

It was hazing so no. A pledge can say he was "not forced" to participate in the hazing but the nature of hazing is that failure to participate will result in loss of group membership. The law takes that social pressure into account. If the context was strictly a social gathering that is different.

Until all the previous pledges that did not participate and did not lose membership testify which shoots down the argument.

Any of the previous thousand( guestimate) members of Beta ever die during pledging?

 

[Pardlion]

I have sympathy for his family due to their tremendous loss but I am not sympathetic to the scorched earth approach they and their attorney are taking towards blaming Penn State for this tragedy. PSU and the national fraternity already had policies against this type of behavior. Those primarily responsible are the Beta brothers.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure that "scorched earth" is the right term. I think that this family is trying to take away the defendants' ability to have a fair trial. I don't like this at all. And, I would not be at all surprised if some of this messaging is coordinated with the prosecutor via the family's lawyer.

 

[chrisrn1965]

Interesting medical information necessarily based on a lot of conjecture. If you're right, this is complicated for a jury to understand. More importantly, there would have been virtually no way for the frat boys to have known this--what you are describing sounds like someone who became "punch drunk" which would look the same as being "drunk".

It actually will not be complicated for the prosecution to make this case. The issue legally is not really that the frat boys failed to call 911 it is that the hazing ritual involved consumption of excessive alcohol. The prosecution's case is simple:

It is illegal to haze and provide alcohol to a minor.
This alcohol consumption contributed to his multiple falls
The falls were the cause of his death.

Even if you do not agree with it, the law is that someone dies as a result of illegal conduct the individuals who engaged in said conduct can be charged with involuntary manslaughter regardless of whether they anticipated or understood the risk involved. in addition, I do not see how they cannot be found at minimum guilty of hazing and serving alcohol to minors based on the video and texts.

 

[Pardlion]

It actually will not be complicated for the prosecution to make this case. The issue legally is not really that the frat boys failed to call 911 it is that the hazing ritual involved consumption of excessive alcohol. The prosecution's case is simple:

It is illegal to haze and provide alcohol to a minor.
This alcohol consumption contributed to his multiple falls
The falls were the cause of his death.

Even if you do not agree with it, the law is that someone dies as a result of illegal conduct the individuals who engaged in said conduct can be charged with involuntary manslaughter regardless of whether they anticipated or understood the risk involved. in addition, I do not see how they cannot be found at minimum guilty of hazing and serving alcohol to minors based on the video and texts.

It's not that simple. There are elements of intent and causation that have to be proved. In some cases that will be pretty easy, but there is also some overcharging going on here, and it will be difficult to prevail in the manslaughter charges for some of the defendants.

Of course they are going to be convicted of the hazing and underage charges, no one here is disputing or even discussing that. I do have problems with the hazing statute, though.

 

[chrisrn1965]

It's not that simple. There are elements of intent and causation that have to be proved. In some cases that will be pretty easy, but there is also some overcharging going on here, and it will be difficult to prevail in the manslaughter charges for some of the defendants.

Of course they are going to be convicted of the hazing and underage charges, no one here is disputing or even discussing that. I do have problems with the hazing statute, though.

I do not think that the prosecution needs to prove intent for involuntary manslaughter. That is the involuntary part. If someone dies from an illegal or negligent act they can be charged with involuntary manslaughter and intent is not relevant.

 

[bjf1991]

§ 2504. Involuntary manslaughter.

(a) General rule.--A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person.

________________

That's the summation of the Statute in PA.
Obviously, folks who are more interested and who are actually willing to move beyond buzzwords, can also dig deeper into the precedents and parameters of the charge.




Even from a cursory review, there would appear to be one (and, likely, only one) requirement of the charge that many of the accused can emphasize in order to avoid conviction on the IM charge.
And it's certainly not the stuff that rocket surgeons like Voltzie like to blather about.


If they (the defendants) highlight this aspect - - - - and are still convicted - - - - it will open up yet another Pandora's Box in the PA Judiciary.
Given recent history........who knows?





Regardless of the level of liability one wants to assign to the "Beta" brothers (and I'm willing to listen to all sides on that one......)

In a broader sense, issues like "Beta" are certainly not why statutes like the IM statute were written........ but the statute is so unspecific and so poorly written that decades after the fact it is now ripe for politically motivated folks to bastardize it in whatever way they want to.

Just another example of the dangers of electing truly "stupid" F-tards like this to a governing, legislation-writing body.
(NOTE: Obviously, these specific F-tards are not the ones who composed that particular statute. But they are the leaders of the CURRENT F-tard Brigade down in Harrisburg.....and two epically "stupid" humans.)


Merry Christmas!!

 

[Pardlion]

§ 2504. Involuntary manslaughter.

(a) General rule.--A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person.

________________

That's the summation of the Statute in PA.
Obviously, folks who are more interested and who are actually willing to move beyond buzzwords, can also dig deeper into the precedents and parameters of the charge.




Even from a cursory review, there would appear to be one (and, likely, only one) requirement of the charge that many of the accused can emphasize in order to avoid conviction on the IM charge.
And it's certainly not the stuff that rocket surgeons like Voltzie like to blather about.


If they (the defendants) highlight this aspect - - - - and are still convicted - - - - it will open up yet another Pandora's Box in the PA Judiciary.
Given recent history........who knows?

The intent is the reckless/grossly negligent standard. Causation is the "direct result" language. Different defendants will have different arguments on these issues.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I do not think that the prosecution needs to prove intent for involuntary manslaughter. That is the involuntary part. If someone dies from an illegal or negligent act they can be charged with involuntary manslaughter and intent is not relevant.

Tim Piazza's single biggest fall (the one which reportedly caused a ruptured spleen and collapsed lung, and perhaps some head trauma) apparently occurred when he tripped over two women seated at the top of the stairs. IMO, that raises what lawyers call "intervening cause" as an issue in this trial. I would think it complicates somewhat the prosecution's burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants "caused" Tim Piazza's death.

 

[bjf1991]

Tim Piazza's single biggest fall (the one which reportedly caused a ruptured spleen and collapsed lung, and perhaps some head trauma) apparently occurred when he tripped over two women seated at the top of the stairs. IMO, that raises what lawyers call "intervening cause" as an issue in this trial. I would think it complicates somewhat the prosecution's burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants "caused" Tim Piazza's death.

Yep. Part of what I was referring to earlier.

And then for each individual defendant.....there are probably a half-dozen (or more) similar issues to be raised (different ones for each individual).


IIRC, the charges also include charges against "BETA" as an entity.
Charging "BETA", or Penn State (about the only actor that WASN'T charged...... thank you SPM ) would be much more logical from that standpoint........though I am not sure how the "Penalty" application process might work.


BTW Bear, not sure if it works the same way in Cali:
But here in PA there is no allowance for a defense (at least not to the IM)based upon "The Victim F-ed up himself, and contributed to his own demise"......despite what a lot of folks have talked about.

 

[The Song Remains the Same]

Tim Piazza's single biggest fall (the one which reportedly caused a ruptured spleen and collapsed lung, and perhaps some head trauma) apparently occurred when he tripped over two women seated at the top of the stairs. IMO, that raises what lawyers call "intervening cause" as an issue in this trial. I would think it complicates somewhat the prosecution's burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants "caused" Tim Piazza's death.

*I'm sure the 2 girls called 911, right?

 

[Pardlion]

*I'm sure the 2 girls called 911, right?

Or, maybe they texted or took a selfie?

 

[LafayetteBear]

BTW Bear, not sure if it works the same way in Cali: But here in PA there is no allowance for a defense (at least not to the IM) based upon "The Victim F-ed up himself, and contributed to his own demise"......despite what a lot of folks have talked about.

Barry: Some of the posters here have noted the doctrine of "comparative fault," under which a defendant in a civil case can point to the plaintiff's own actions as contributing to his injury, thereby mitigating the defendant's responsibility to some extent. I do not know what the law in Pennsylvania is, but I have to believe that comparative fault has no bearing in a criminal case in any state.

But the doctrine of intervening cause applies in both the civil and criminal context, so I imagine it will play some part in the Beta.prosecution. While it would perhaps play no part as a defense to Piazza being provided with alcohol, it presumably would play a part in the context of his falling down the stairs, which is what apparently precipitated his injuries. Both his intoxication AND his tripping over those two girls and falling contributed to his injuries and eventual demise, no?.

 

[bjf1991]

Barry: Some of the posters here have noted the doctrine of "comparative fault," under which a defendant in a civil case can point to the plaintiff's own actions as contributing to his injury, thereby mitigating the defendant's responsibility to some extent. I do not know what the law in Pennsylvania is, but I have to believe that comparative fault has no bearing in a criminal case in any state.

But the doctrine of intervening cause applies in both the civil and criminal context, so I imagine it will play some part in the Beta.prosecution. While it would perhaps play no part as a defense to Piazza being provided with alcohol, it presumably would play a part in the context of his falling down the stairs, which is what apparently precipitated his injuries. Both his intoxication AND his tripping over those two girls and falling contributed to his injuries and eventual demise, no?.

Yep

And a lot more factors to come - I would think - in many of the cases (though I'm not nearly interested enough to look at all the individual cases...... since aside from those particular kids and their loved ones, I doubt that those cases "mean much" to anyone, in the big picture)

 

[Vermilion]

Wow, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty

http://www.abc23.com/News/NewsDetails.asp?NewsID=22855