FKNA, I fear you have not followed my line of reasoning closely enough. I understand that you feel the adult in the house with the gun is accountable for the disaster with the child. Because the adult has the mental capacity to understand that a loaded gun+ an uneducated child can = disaster.
I agree with all of that.
My point is that a person that chooses to drink and drive into oncoming traffic obviosly does not have the mental capacity to understand the outcome of their actions.
As I mentioned before, alcohol has the unique ability to CHANGE ones outlook so that they become impared to the point that they CANNOT make reponsible decisions, which is completely different from a lipstick or a pen that falls on the floor.
A person that shows that they are a responsible person will not drink and drive because alcohol [not the person] CAN impare ones faculties enough to cause tragic results.
As far as accountability goes...
Scenario A
A retard goes into a bank and shoots people to get money but he doesn't know how to tie his shoes.
Scenario B
A child left alone in the living room while Mom puts away the groceries unlocks the door and falls to his death on the stairs outside.
Scenario C
An educated business man gets drunk at a Christmas party at work and kills a pedestrian on his way home.

As I see it, the retard, the child and the business man are all accountable for their mistakes. They used forethought and had the capacity to understand what they were doing.

If the retard was drunk, the child went thru an unlocked door or the business man was given spiked punch, then someone else [the person who sold the retard the booze or the maker of the booze if the seller of the booze was convinced that the retard was of sound mind, the mother who didn't lock the door and the person who gave the business man the punch or if that person didn't know the punch was spiked then the person that spiked the punch] should be held accountable.

I do not feel the alcohol maker should be held accountable for the business mans mistakes since it would have to be assumed that the educated business man would know better than to drink and drive. I also do not feel the alcohol manufacturer should be held accountable in the case of the retard if the container of alcohol had warnings that the retard could understand. I do not feel the mother should be held accountable for having her child locked into the house with her while she unloaded the groceries in the next room. I do not feel the lipstick manufacturer should be held accountable for the damage caused by the woman putting it on while driving. And the same goes for the pen manufacturer because the pen fell on the floor.
I hope you can see that I am in FULL agreement with a person [even a mentally impared person] being held accountable for their decisions as long as those decisions have not been skewed by outside forces that they were unable to comprehend. If someone or something influences a person in a way that causes that person to act as a result of that influence, then the one causing that influence becomes responsible.
One final example...
If I tell you to go rob a store and you do it because you don't know any better, then I am accountable for you robbing the store.
If I tell you to rob a store and then warn you that robbing stores is against the law and can result in injury, death and or imprisonment, then you are accountable.
Just put beer in the place of me in the last example and you will see where I'm coming from ;-)

 

Holyman, I do believe we are on the same page. I agree and have always agreed that alcohol and/or drugs will impair ones judgement. And when ones judgement is impaired by such mind altering chemicals, it's definitely a contributing factor. It just shouldn't be blamed for any resulting accidents. The person themselves are the ones that should be held accountable.

 

FKNA, Is there any situation under any circumstances that you would hold the alcohol manufacturer accountable for their product? What resposibility do they have to those that use their product?

 

Holyman, no there is no situation that I can think of where the alcohol manufacturer should be held accountable. In this country (with proper licensing) it is perfectly legal to make alcohol. The only thing I could think of on where they should be held accountable would probably be labeling. If the label their product 5% alcohol by volume but it actually is 20% alcohol by volume, then theoretically the manufacturer could be held accountable because the person drinking the alcohol could of, ummmm....let's say mix themselves ONE drink which they know NEVER get impaired because they are drinking so little and alcohol percentage is so low. But since the bottle they bought was mislabeled and something bad resulted, then yes the manufacturer could be held accountable. A good analogy in order to better understand my point would be: Let's say an over the counter drug manufacturer produces a drug, labels it as DOES NOT CAUSE DROWSINESS, but it does, the manufacturer knows it does, they just merely mislabeled the bottle. The consumer in good faith takes the drug, gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and has an accident because they unexpectedly became drowsy. Of course the manufacturer should be held accountable.

If one looks hard enough, the old adage holds true "there is an exception to every rule"

The scenario I presented is something off the wall and doubtful it would ever occur. The general rule of thumb in answering your question would be NO, the alcohol manufacturer cannot and should not be held accountable. It's is the CONSUMERS RESPONSIBILITY to use the alcohol in a responsible manner.

 

A 13 year old on a shooting rampage in school? I say FRY the punk. People should be tried as adults at a much younger age than 17. All of this "He's only 15. He doesn't know the meaning of life, yet" crap has got to stop. Fire up the chair, turn on the gas, rope the tree, whatever it takes.

 

FKNA, so I guess what you're saying is there is no accountability unless it is legally deemed that there is accountability.
I on the other hand feel that there is personal accountability beyond what is legal.
For example...
In about every neighborhood there is one kid that just can't seem to understand right from wrong. He's the kid that always starts the fights. He's the one that always gets caught taking stuff from someone else. He's the one always caught looking thru someone elses windows. He's the one always tying the neigborhood dogs tails together...etc.
I make sling shots as a hobby and this kid wants to buy one. I know from personal experience that this kid is dangerous locked in a padded room, let alone with even a basic weapon.
Even if it is legal for me to sell it to him I won't because I know him to be dangerous and or unstable.
That is a one on one sale where I would be able to make a good faith determination if I want to sell him one.
If I have a factory that makes sling shots that get sold at local hardware stores and the people that sell them may or may not have the same amount of personal integrity that I have, I would feel accountable [and may be legally so] if the item was not properly labeled to reflect the fact that someone could be injured by the inappropriate use of the product. I would find it necessary to lable it in such a way that anyone capable of using it was able to understand the results of inappropriate use.
This however is still not like alcohol which [unlike a sling shot] will with repeated consumption [use] CAUSE a person to act differently than they would without the presence of alcohol.
In 99% of all alcohol related problems, I don't feel the manufacturer should be held accountable with the exception of a case where a person has a naturally diminished ability to comprehend that consuming alcohol can alter ones perceptive abilities AND/OR their demeanor. In that remaining 1% catagory I feel that most sellers of alcohol should be able to determine if someone appears to not have the capacity to understand that alcohol can change a persons perception and demeanor.
I am not encouraging people to stereotype others on the basis of their appearance. I thing most 6 year olds would be able to say what happens when someone gets drunk. I also think that a person that was 21 years old [in ILL] and had the mentality of someone less than a 6 year old would be easy enough to spot. To avoid any legal problems from turning the person down who wants to purchase the alcohol, a simple statement by that person of their legal right to purchase and enjoy their favorite alcohol with the appropriate ID and money, would certainly suffice.
All of this brings me back to the original question...
If a person knows that consuming alcohol will change their demeanor and their perseptive powers if consumed long enough and then consumes that amount of alcohol and then they hurt themselves or others while they are under that influence, can it be said that they really understood the result of their actions?

Whatever the case, I agree with WildTurkey accountability goes far beyond just saying "I didn't know better..."

 

Holyman, I see where you are coming. I agree, there is [red]legal accountability[/red] and there's [red]moral accountability[/red]. It appears that all this time I have been talking more about the former and you the latter. But just because one is morally accountable doesn't mean they should be held legally accountable. Let these two be kept separate.

 

If people simply followed the "golden rule" this world would be a great place...

 

it ain't the gun and it ain't the atv. it all boils down to the person. you give a carpenter a hammer, nails, and some lumber and he'll build you a house. you give the same to a criminal and he'll kill you with the hammer and build you a nice pine box to take the dirt nap in. i'm a conservative pro-gun atv owner--and damn proud to be such.

texascat

 

Without moral accountability there is no basis for legal accountability. I feel everyone, including manufacturers who legally sell their products, should be held accountable for what they do.