From the Department of Obvious Statistics...

[TFOGGER]

http://kval.com/news/offbeat/indoor-air-at-american-university-off-campus-house-party-tests-positive-for-alcohol


BETHESDA, Md. (WJLA) — There was so much booze being consumed at a college fraternity party, Montgomery County Police say the air inside of the building tested positive for alcohol.The scene – a modest split-level red brick home along the 5500 block of Massachusetts Avenue in Bethesdam Md. The date – a Tuesday night in mid-November. The sales pitch – an event marketed on Facebook as “Tequila Tuesday Hoy a las 22:00.” The guest list – around 70 people, predominantly American University students.

At some point during the evening, aggravated residents called police to report the party jams thumping their way through the family-centric neighborhood of upper-class homes. A trio of dispatched patrol officers pulled up to the home and knocked on the front door. Partygoers peered through windows, but walked away. Moments later, a few of the hosts answered the door and allowed officers inside.
According to court documents, police observed windows covered with insulation and trash bags, beer cans and liquor bottles littered throughout the house and a noticeably sticky basement floor, coated with spilled alcohol. Eight individuals locked themselves in a bathroom, while another person jumped out of a second story window in an effort to avoid being cited by police. The ambient air inside of the home registered a .01 on at least one police department-issued breathalyzer, court documents state.



Officers set up a number of stations outside of the home, breathalyzing partygoers, 17, 18, 19 and 20 years old, as they left the home. A number of students reportedly vowed to never attend a frat party again.

Meanwhile, police spoke with the six people who allegedly confessed to living at the house: Jeffrey Becker, Ashton Acosta, Anthony Santana, Kevin Alkinburg, Matthew Berger and Tristan Ralph, all 20 years old. All six have since been charged with 126 counts each of allowing underage possession of alcohol and furnishing alcohol to a minor. The defendants reportedly refused to tell police how they obtained enough alcohol to fuel a party of such size.
According to investigators, all six tenants are members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s AU Chapter, which labels itself online as “the true gentlemen.” Police further explain that Alkinburg, Berger and Ralph hold positions on the frat’s 2017 executive board.
An email and phone call to a spokesperson at Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s national headquarters in Evanston, Illinois, went unreturned Tuesday.
American University confirms Becker, Acosta, Santana, Alkinburg, Berger and Ralph are all enrolled at the private university. According to AU’s publicly accessible fraternity and sorority life conduct status, SAE has been cited with three violations this school year. In turn, AU has implemented four active sanctions against the fraternity: disciplinary probation, social probation, risk management plan and notification to headquarter office.
Becker, Acosta, Santana, Alkinburg, Berger and Ralph each face up to $315,000 in fines pertaining to their stack of criminal charges. A sentence of that magnitude, however, is extremely unlikely.

[sniper7]

Sounds like a heck of a party!

[Skip]

Well, a true gentleman does indeed serve his guests cocktails.

If you're old enough to vote, go to college, and register for the selective service, I think you're probably old enough to drink.

[mattiooo]

It all sounds like a standard frat party to me. What am I missing?

[electronman1729]

I feel like I missed out in college.

[Gman]

As long as the house wasn't driving, what's the big deal?

[Ronin13]

126 counts so that they all are forced to plead guilty lest they risk life imprisonment while losing all assets towards trial. Breath in deeply that smell of cow shit -- it's called freedom, people.

Not everyone is innocent.

[Skip]

126 counts so that they all are forced to plead guilty lest they risk life imprisonment while losing all assets towards trial. Breath in deeply that smell of cow shit -- it's called freedom, people.

Freedom is indeed scary.

I may know of some 20 year-olds who had a house party involving some kegs of beer back in the late 90s. Think the statute of limitations has run out on that?

[Great-Kazoo]

Sigma Alpha Epsilon’

Ah SAE Same Assholes Everywhere.

They were notorious @ CSU for things only parents money could buy them out of.

[hatidua]

-must have been an incredibly slow day in the news room.

[Bailey Guns]

-- it's called freedom, people.

Yeah...because it's so hard to follow some pretty basic rules. And the rules aren't secret...everyone knows them. Freedom also requires responsibility and accountability.

[Bailey Guns]

Ahh, rights should be deprived to those who we presume guilty. Gotcha.

Wow...you got that far from a simple statement that not everyone is innocent. Amazing.

[Skip]

Yeah...because it's so hard to follow some pretty basic rules. And the rules aren't secret...everyone knows them. Freedom also requires responsibility and accountability.

It’s not a basic rule. It’s a fairly senseless and arbitrary one. A basic rule is “don’t steal.” The penalty for which isn’t even $300K (steal that much and they’ll send you to Congress).

We threw M16s at 18 year olds and told them to charge a hill. But a 20 year old can’t drink a beer? Or buy a pistol?

These nanny state rules do the exact opposite of creating responsibility. People stay children until they hit mid 20s. ACA says 26! How many millennials will celebrate their 40th birthday in mom’s basement?

[Bailey Guns]

That's not the point. Even 18 year old individuals who've been given a gun by Uncle Sam have to follow some pretty basic rules which include don't drink if you're underage. Don't follow the rules? Expect to suffer consequences. You can say they're "nanny state" rules all you want...and I won't always disagree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that probably every single state in the Union has minimum drinking ages. You may agree or you may disagree. Colorado has various "contributing to the delinquency" laws and it's pretty easy to commit a felony by giving an underage person alcohol. But the state also tells people what will happen if they do it. Why should it be a surprise when the state follows thru with the threat?

ETA: BTW..."nanny state" rules are not supposed to create responsible people. The intent, right or wrong, is to establish order in society. Children should learn about responsibility from their parents. I'd argue that not making people accountable for their actions, like underage drinking, is far more harmful than these basic rules...and, yes, don't drink if you're underage is as basic as it gets.

[KevDen2005]

I used to party my ass off at AU man. Those libtards really know how to throw some parties.

And I'm not even that impressed that the ambient air was a .01....that's well below the legal limit.

[Bailey Guns]

I understand what you're saying. And believe me, I spent enough time working in the "justice system" to know how screwed up it is. I couldn't wait to get out.

My only thing is the 6 individuals who hosted this thing apparently put a lot of thought into advertising and promoting it and had to know: 1) They were going to be breaking a LOT of laws by allowing underage drinking in their shared home, 2) There would be severe consequences when things went bad.

They went bad. There were consequences. I get what you're saying about a screwed up system. On the other hand, this is the type of stupidity, frequently on display in our society, that leads to a system where there is far too much work for the prosecution side of the system to handle without forcing plea deals. I guess what it boils down to is this is not the battle I'd chose to fight to in order to fix the system.

Also, all too often these types of parties end up with a participant dead from the results of drinking too much. Then people bitch at the "system" that didn't do anything.

[Skip]

That's not the point. Even 18 year old individuals who've been given a gun by Uncle Sam have to follow some pretty basic rules which include don't drink if you're underage. Don't follow the rules? Expect to suffer consequences. You can say they're "nanny state" rules all you want...and I won't always disagree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that probably every single state in the Union has minimum drinking ages. You may agree or you may disagree. Colorado has various "contributing to the delinquency" laws and it's pretty easy to commit a felony by giving an underage person alcohol. But the state also tells people what will happen if they do it. Why should it be a surprise when the state follows thru with the threat?

ETA: BTW..."nanny state" rules are not supposed to create responsible people. The intent, right or wrong, is to establish order in society. Children should learn about responsibility from their parents. I'd argue that not making people accountable for their actions, like underage drinking, is far more harmful than these basic rules...and, yes, don't drink if you're underage is as basic as it gets.

"Underage" is exactly the problem.

How can I contribute to the delinquency of a legal adult? It's nonsensical! These are 18+ year olds. I'm not saying it's okay to serve kids, it's the law that says 18 is adult. That's the line in the sand. I'm not debating my own standard but the standard imposed by gov in conflict with the laws. "Underage" is a interesting way of trying to resolve that conflict on certain matters but not others (senseless).

When these rules are arbitrary and senseless (victimless crimes) it encourages disobedience. The math is easy... "why shouldn't I do this, it hurts no one? As long as I don't get caught, who cares?"

Because gov is a god above man that must be obeyed without reason? We have religion for that. But the rules are the rules! And then why can't the government obey their own rules? (I won't bore you with examples)

Most gun laws fall into the same flawed thinking and it's why they are ineffective. A person uninterested in a mass murder possessing a 30 round magazine means nothing. Thus how many "rebuild kits" are currently available?

A person interested in mass murder will break all lesser laws created by the nannies.

Order is decreased in both scenarios. We will never have a police state capable of enforcing all laws all the time. Thus order relies on the voluntary compliance of an overwhelming majority of people.

We increase that compliance by making laws/rules that are morally and logically consistent, and applying them equally. Creating morally/logically false tests ("underage") to attempt and make inconsistent laws consistent isn't working.

Another example... SBRs. BATF says you can own a pistol. BATF says you can own a rifle. BATF says you cannot own a rifle with a barrel less than 16" unless you get a stamp and makes it a felony. Such a weapon is actually less capable than a rifle and less concealable than a pistol (shhhh, don't tell the cool kids). What harm is prevented with the SBR rules? What does the stamp do other than creating a barrier for people who have no intention of creating harm?

Enter the Sig "Brace" for "pistols." BATF says "okay but it's how you use it" only to later say "actually, we don't care." Now people are shouldering SBRs (uh, I mean pistols) without stamps. The horror!

99.9999999999999999999999999% of those people will never commit a crime or hurt anyone with their stampless SBRs/pistols.

One senseless law ignored and effectively trampled along with the credibility of BATF who creates the rules. Other ones (assault, murder, etc...) fully respected.

[Gman]

The federal government is too involved in our daily lives. They've overstepped their Constitutional authority. "Oh, but the states regulate legal drinking age", you may say. Again, the federal government has destroyed state sovereignty. When the federal government takes funds from the citizens of states, it then uses those funds as a cudgel to get compliance from the state governments. The feds assert that if you don't raise your legal drinking age to 21, you won't get federal highway funding. What's a state to do?

I've lived through this drinking age example. I was in college when the drinking age in TX was 19. Then when I was 20 1/2, the federal mandate pushed the state limit to 21. I was a responsible adult for 1.5 years, and then I wasn't for 6 months. That's about as arbitrary as it gets. I didn't drink before I was legal at 19. Do you think I stopped for the 6 months that I was not legal? Hell no. I broke the law for 6 months as I rebelled against the flawed logic and stupidity of the whole situation.

I believe the only age limits in the US Constitution are 35 to be President or Vice President, 30 to be a Senator, and 25 to be a Representative. If the age of majority is 18, and you're considered an adult and can sign contracts and represent your own affairs, stop playing games with other arbitrary limits, particularly at the federal level. Let the citizens in states decide what's best for themselves.

The biggest issue regarding these arbitrary limits is math. You have new adults/voters at 18 that are vastly outweighed by those that are older and not affected by the impacts of their decisions. This follows my logic that legislators should be unable to create legislation that doesn't apply to them.

[Skip]

[snip]

This follows my logic that legislators should be unable to create legislation that doesn't apply to them.

[Beer]

This is a strong case for term limits. Two term and you're out limits this unequal application of the law. Means the special people join the rest of us to live with the consequences of their actions.

Not sure I'm 100% settled on the issue of term limits but I see the merits.

The age thing is interesting when you think more about it. They could completely eliminate gun ownership without seizing a single firearm. Second Amendment stays on paper with a patchwork of local/state/Fed laws that prohibit based on age/date (phase out). Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to age unless you're old (apparently).