Is this evidence of a larger problem? [lawsuits and personal responsibility]

[Whambulance]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=146648260

I'd like to hear that it's just my imagination but I feel like I've been hearing a lot of stories lately reflecting a real lack of accountability by citizens across the country (U.S.).

Whether its one group being victimized by another, homeowners being victimized by the housing market or the 99% being victimized by the 1%, I'm seeing a real lack of accountability these days. Please convince me I'm wrong.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

This quote:

"You cannot sell 4.9 million 12-ounce cans of beer and wash your hands like Pontius Pilate, and say we've got nothing to do with it being smuggled," said Tom White, the tribe's Omaha-based attorney.

Cracked me up. Just because the companies sell it, doesn't mean you have to buy it.

[Whambulance]

This quote:



Cracked me up. Just because the companies sell it, doesn't mean you have to buy it.


I know right?

[Marley23]

Expanded the thread title to clarify the topic.

[blindboyard]

Except all alcohol is banned on the reservation specifically to combat addiction. I don't see crack dealers getting a pass because of the personal responsibility of their customers.

[elbows]

Citizens are beginning to embrace it so fully, after watching government and politicians make it so popular.

Newt cheated on his wives out of misplaced patriotism, haven't you heard?

All of like 3 people, went to jail for the Enron fiasco.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Except all alcohol is banned on the reservation specifically to combat addiction. I don't see crack dealers getting a pass because of the personal responsibility of their customers.

Crack isn't a legal product anywhere. If I'm reading correctly, the beer companies are selling a legal product, to legal adults, in a place they're allowed by law to sell it.

If they don't like it, they can change the law. I don't think the lawsuit as it stands has any merit.

[Whambulance]

Except all alcohol is banned on the reservation specifically to combat addiction. I don't see crack dealers getting a pass because of the personal responsibility of their customers.

This is a pretty good example of the ideology that I am confused about. Its almost become avant-garde to blame a larger more established organization operating completely within the law than to blame the 'beer dealers' who are in the direct business of exploiting the tribe.

Of course this point is secondary to the members of the tribe actually not ingesting a product that they know to be killing them.

[Grey]

I'm a little confused as to why they're going after the brew companies but I can understand going after the local beer stores. The larger companies have nothing to do with the distribution of beer into specific counties.

But the local beer stores seem to be complicit in supplying smugglers. The way the story reads The illegal sale and trade in alcohol in Whiteclay is open, notorious and well documented by news reports, legislative hearings, movies, public protests and law enforcement activities," the lawsuit states. " All of the above have resulted in the publication of the facts of the illegal trade in alcohol and its devastating effects on the Lakota people, especially its children, both born and unborn." the context for the ban is widely known, the legality of alcohol on the reserve is widely known and the consequences are widely know. It seems reasonable to go after suppliers instead of the distributors. Or at least to make the attempt and see what the law says.

Regardless though, it sounds like the reserve wont improve even if they do win the $500 million. The underlying issues driving the alcoholism wont be addressed.

[Spoons]

I'm a little confused as to why they're going after the brew companies....Deeper pockets, due to the ability to carry a larger amount of liability insurance than Joe's Beer 'n Booze does. It is unlikely that they'll get $500 million out of Joe's insurer, but they might get it from Annheuser Busch's. Or at least a larger settlement than they would from Joe's.

[Grey]

Oh I understand that, I just wasn't thinking like a lawyer. ;)

[brickbacon]

I'd like to hear that it's just my imagination but I feel like I've been hearing a lot of stories lately reflecting a real lack of accountability by citizens across the country (U.S.).

Do you care to point to a time when you feel as though people were more accountable? Just because people are using the legal system more often to address grievances, and stories of protest get more airtime, doesn't mean people are less responsible.

[Zeriel]

I agree the lawsuit is stupid, but as Spoons says it doesn't indicate anything other than an attempt to sue the richest party rather than the most responsible one in what's clearly already a violation of territorial laws.

Presuming we accept the reservation is permitted to ban alcohol and the smuggling thereof, and presuming the beer stores on the border ARE selling greater amounts per time period than is permitted by Nebraska law, the only problem is a mistargeting of the lawsuit.

What all this has to do with personal responsibility/accountability I have no idea.

[Robb]

If I use my crystal ball to look into the mind of the lawyer who filed this lawsuit, I expect he thinks this case is about responsibility. I expect he believes that the businesses targeted their alcohol sales to a location where alcohol is prohibited, yet is still afflicted by high rates of alcoholism. Therefore, they facilitate smuggling in order to profit. I bet he believes the lawsuit is about personal responsibility, but his focus is the personal responsibility of the businesseshe sued.

[TriPolar]

The local store owners are lucky they aren't facing criminial conspiracy (http://clatl.com/atlanta/forgotten-man/Content?oid=1239461)charges, as noted in this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14757136&postcount=11) yesterday. All ridiculous in my opinion, but not out of the ordinary in this country.

[Whambulance]

Do you care to point to a time when you feel as though people were more accountable? Just because people are using the legal system more often to address grievances, and stories of protest get more airtime, doesn't mean people are less responsible.

Sure. Of course I don't have any empirical evidence but I'd say the WWII generation had a much better grasp of personal responsibility and accountability.

For instance my grand parents would have never dreamed of blaming a beer company for their drinking problem, suing a bank for not being able to pay monthly notes they agreed to pay or arguing the notion that their neighbors should pay for their health insurance when they are unable. I think that they would have gotten a second job or worked longer hours.

[Acid Lamp]

Sure. Of course I don't have any empirical evidence but I'd say the WWII generation had a much better grasp of personal responsibility and accountability.

For instance my grand parents would have never dreamed of blaming a beer company for their drinking problem, suing a bank for not being able to pay monthly notes they agreed to pay or arguing the notion that their neighbors should pay for their health insurance when they are unable. I think that they would have gotten a second job or worked longer hours.

Bootstrappy, aren't you? It must be nice to live in such a simple, clear-cut world. What part of the US do you live in where employment is so good that there are extra, decent paying jobs just laying about to be taken up?

You do have a point though. We don't take as much responsibility for our own actions as we used to. It isn't because of a lack of moral fiber though, it is because we've relaxed out laws so much that you can now sue anyone for just about anything. We made it a profitable industry. On top of that, we deregulated so many other industries that we've made cheating, greed, and occasional outright criminal activity profitable. If you have enough money you can buy your way out of most anything. If you want to fix this, start with the legal and insurance industries and lobby for real, comprehensive reform. Lobby for law that is broader and favors a "spirit of the law" model over nit-picky obscurities that create endless loopholes. Lobby for effective, well implemented corporate regulation that prevents endless consumer lawsuits due to negligence.

[Consensus]

Power and influence cultivates deniability, ignorance and corruption and this is happening in an increasing complex and fluid manner. But with more debate and knowlegde in the open it has to in order to sustain itself.

[Condescending Robot]

Nuisance suits, deep-pocket targeting, and people who make their living as professional plaintiffs are a problem. Especially since the cost is borne by the entire society--it's unlikely that you, as any given person, will be the target of a frivolous lawsuit, but you have to drink beer out of a plastic cup because of one person who threw a bottle at someone's head, you have to pay extra for health care because doctors order unnecessary tests to guard against lawsuits, you have to work with dingbats because firing people is virtually impossible. Unfortunately, anytime someone tries to do something about it the trial lawyer associations start blitzing the media with scare stories about how if tort reform passes you won't be able to sue if your doctor cuts off the wrong leg. And with both parties dominated by lawyers there's not that much impetus to change things.

[Whambulance]

I wonder what the tribes life expectancy would be if they had an extra $500,000,000 to spend on beer.

[Magiver]

This quote:



Cracked me up. Just because the companies sell it, doesn't mean you have to buy it. Except that the companies aren't selling it on the reservation unless there is a company store.

If someone has a liquor license they can purchase a product from a distributor. Short of that would require a industrial beer police with the power to kick doors down and that's not the job of the beer companies. It's the job of local law enforcement.

the key word in the article is "bootleggers" and it should be dismissed as fast as it hits a judges desk.

[crowmanyclouds]

... The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court of Nebraska also targets four beer stores in Whiteclay, a Nebraska town near the reservation's border that, despite having only about a dozen residents, sold nearly 5 million cans of beer in 2010. ...
... The vast majority of Whiteclay's beer store customers have no legal place to consume alcohol since it's banned on Pine Ridge, which is just north, state law prohibits drinking outside the stores and the nearest town that allows alcohol is more than 20 miles south ...What possible clue could those poor, innocent, Nebraska beer stores have that they were doing anything wrong? :rolleyes:

CMC fnord!

[sitchensis]

Sure. Of course I don't have any empirical evidence but I'd say the WWII generation had a much better grasp of personal responsibility and accountability.

For instance my grand parents would have never dreamed of blaming a beer company for their drinking problem, suing a bank for not being able to pay monthly notes they agreed to pay or arguing the notion that their neighbors should pay for their health insurance when they are unable. I think that they would have gotten a second job or worked longer hours.

The 1% during WWII paid a 91% marginal tax rate, it is now 33%. You are right when you say they were responsible, they were, they just didn’t pass that on to their children. Now we have a whole generation of the most selfish people in the world, baby boomers, who will continue to repeatedly screw the entire country, until they die.

[Odesio]

What possible clue could those poor, innocent, Nebraska beer stores have that they were doing anything wrong? :rolleyes:


On the other hand, could they have gotten in trouble for refusing to sell to Native Americans?

[Magiver]

The 1% during WWII paid a 91% marginal tax rate, it is now 33%. You are right when you say they were responsible, they were, they just didn’t pass that on to their children. Now we have a whole generation of the most selfish people in the world, baby boomers, who will continue to repeatedly screw the entire country, until they die. Wouldn't being responsible involve taking care of yourself and bringing only the number of children you can afford to raise into the world? That seems like the responsible thing to me.

But if you think other people should pay for this because they have excess money then I volunteer all your excess money to the cause. And unlike a politician, I won't charge you for the decree. Go forth and spend your own money.

[sitchensis]

Wouldn't being responsible involve taking care of yourself and bringing only the number of children you can afford to raise into the world? That seems like the responsible thing to me.

But if you think other people should pay for this because they have excess money then I volunteer all your excess money to the cause. And unlike a politician, I won't charge you for the decree. Go forth and spend your own money.

I’m not sure what you are getting at, to a baby boomer, a marginal rate of 91% is perfectly fine, as long as it’s their parents who are paying it. I mean, a rate of 91% wouldn’t really affect any boomers until they became older and started making good money, like sometime in the 1980’s, when the tax rate mysteriously dropped to 28%.

[magellan01]

I’m not sure what you are getting at, to a baby boomer, a marginal rate of 91% is perfectly fine, as long as it’s their parents who are paying it. I mean, a rate of 91% wouldn’t really affect any boomers until they became older and started making good money, like sometime in the 1980’s, when the tax rate mysteriously dropped to 28%.

Huh? Where do you get the idea that baby boomers think/thought a rate of 91% was fine?

[Justin_Bailey]

Does this tribe have casinos and tax-free cigarettes? Because you know, sometimes the laws are different on the other side. Thus is the nature of sovereign states.

[Magiver]

I’m not sure what you are getting at, to a baby boomer, a marginal rate of 91% is perfectly fine, as long as it’s their parents who are paying it. I mean, a rate of 91% wouldn’t really affect any boomers until they became older and started making good money, like sometime in the 1980’s, when the tax rate mysteriously dropped to 28%.If you go back and look at the various tax rates of the last century you'll find that it's damn near impossible to make a decent comparison of numbers. in 1944 there were a zillion brackets (ok maybe 44) so the upper rate doesn't span much of a bracket. After that, there are the deductions that affect the number greatly. So it sounds like wealthy people in 1944 paid a lot of taxes but in reality they didn't.

I think it's more relevant to point out today the politicians who skirt their tax responsibilities. Geitner, the man in charge of collecting taxes has to this day not paid all of his back taxes. John Kerry, whose wealthy wife hides her money in tax free bonds, tried to save half a million in taxes by docking his yacht in another state. Sen. Claire McCaskill had $287,000 in unpaid taxes on an airplane. Charles Rangel didn't report income from rental of beach front property in the Dominican Republic.

I'm sure there are a lot more but I only mention a few names to show that the wealthy politicians who suggest more taxes seem to have a problem paying them. Higher taxes seem like a great idea when somebody else pays them. And if you go back to 1944 you'll see that everybody paid taxes. That is not the case today. Not only do we not collect payroll taxes from the poor, we pay them in the form of Earned Income Credit money. Quite the shift from 1944.

So I guess my point is that the wealthy are hardly skating on their tax responsibilities given the reduction of tax brackets from 44 to 6. The marginal rates reflect that reduction of brackets.

[Lumpy]

I'm reminded of the lawsuit the city of Chicago filed against gun stores in neighboring suburbs, claiming that they had to know that most of their customers were Chicago residents.

I suppose it all comes down to the question of how much are social problems due to individual choice and how much due to systematic influences. Strict personal moralism isn't a helpful strategy but then you go to the other end of the spectrum, where supposedly everything's due to environment.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

On the other hand, could they have gotten in trouble for refusing to sell to Native Americans?Almost certainly. The store owners are probably quite limited in what they're allowed to do, even if they have a pretty good idea what's going on.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sure. Of course I don't have any empirical evidence but I'd say the WWII generation had a much better grasp of personal responsibility and accountability.

For instance my grand parents would have never dreamed of blaming a beer company for their drinking problem, suing a bank for not being able to pay monthly notes they agreed to pay or arguing the notion that their neighbors should pay for their health insurance when they are unable. I think that they would have gotten a second job or worked longer hours.
Your grandparents notwithstanding, your thesis is bunk. People have been suing (http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/560524cooper.html) corporations (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dramshop+Acts) for harm caused in part by their own problems at least since well before "the WWII generation".

[jtgain]

So the stores that are in the business of selling alcohol should be liable for selling alcohol to adults over age 21?

The defense bar joked that this would start after the tobacco lawsuits. I guess they were right.

[Zeriel]

So the stores that are in the business of selling alcohol should be liable for selling alcohol to adults over age 21?

The defense bar joked that this would start after the tobacco lawsuits. I guess they were right.

There's a potential case to be made that certain quantities of sale in low population areas could be a start to an investigation for conspiracy to smuggle, given the well-known and longstanding ban on alcohol on the nearby reservation.

[sisu]

So prohibition doesn't work, who would have thunk?

[Really Not All That Bright]

There's a potential case to be made that certain quantities of sale in low population areas could be a start to an investigation for conspiracy to smuggle, given the well-known and longstanding ban on alcohol on the nearby reservation.
I think this lawsuit could potentially have merit dependent on two very specific facts: whether the store owners/operators were aware that their goods were being smuggled onto the reservation, and whether there was anything they could have done to prevent it.

Certainly owning an establishment in a high risk area alone could not be the basis for liability. To hold otherwise would effectively allow the reservation to control the use of neighboring land.

[Zeriel]

Certainly owning an establishment in a high risk area alone could not be the basis for liability. To hold otherwise would effectively allow the reservation to control the use of neighboring land.

Absolutely--the bare fact of sale amounts per population can only be considered as a starting point for an actual investigation.

[jtgain]

There's a potential case to be made that certain quantities of sale in low population areas could be a start to an investigation for conspiracy to smuggle, given the well-known and longstanding ban on alcohol on the nearby reservation.

But that is always going to happen in any border area with restrictive alcohol laws. If you own a liquor store at the border of a dry county, you know damned good and well that you are selling a bunch of booze to people who live in the dry county.

So what do you do? Have a policy of checking licenses and refusing to sell to residents of the dry county? Why? The law is territorial. It doesn't apply to residents of the dry county in your county. Just like the reservation laws don't apply to Indians standing in your store.

This type of legal standard puts the burden on the wrong people. The sellers of the booze have no responsibility once it leaves the store (assuming the purchaser was 21, not intoxicated, etc.). That responsibility belongs to the purchaser.

Or should we just say that Native Americans/Indians are just a bunch of damn drunks and make it illegal to sell to them? Of course that would cause some civil rights problems.

What exactly should these stores do to escape liability?

[Zeriel]

I said start an investigation, if suspicious quantities are being moved.

If said investigation turns up normal customers buying normal amounts of beer, all good.

If said investigation turns up shady customers buying larger-than-legal amounts of beer out the back door/warehouse door, then that's another thing.

[Lumpy]

I said start an investigation, if suspicious quantities are being moved.

If said investigation turns up normal customers buying normal amounts of beer, all good.

If said investigation turns up shady customers buying larger-than-legal amounts of beer out the back door/warehouse door, then that's another thing.What if it's simply every drunk on the reservation coming in to buy their own beer?

[Magiver]

I think this lawsuit could potentially have merit dependent on two very specific facts: whether the store owners/operators were aware that their goods were being smuggled onto the reservation, and whether there was anything they could have done to prevent it.

Certainly owning an establishment in a high risk area alone could not be the basis for liability. To hold otherwise would effectively allow the reservation to control the use of neighboring land.That doesn't make sense. It's not illegal to consume alcohol which makes the sale not only legal but it would be discriminatory to withhold it.

This isn't aimed at stores, it's aimed at a product and the producers of the product.

[jtgain]

I said start an investigation, if suspicious quantities are being moved.

If said investigation turns up normal customers buying normal amounts of beer, all good.

If said investigation turns up shady customers buying larger-than-legal amounts of beer out the back door/warehouse door, then that's another thing.

Is anyone alleging that these stores are selling to front men who are taking cases of whiskey and peddling it on the street corners of the reservation? I'm not being snarky; I just didn't get that impression.

The impression I got was that these stores are so close to the reservation that customers are driving there, buying a bottle or two and then taking it home.

I think that in the first case, you definitely have a civil if not a criminal case. In the second, which I think is the real dispute, I don't see one.

[Grey]

Pineridge reservation Population - 28,700 (per Wikipedia)
Whiteclay Population - 14 (per Wikipedia Pine Ridge)
Beer sold - 5 million 12 oz cans (1.77 Million Liters)

It's fairly obvious that the store(s) in Whiteclay knowingly sold 1.8 Million liters of beer to the residents of the reservation and not the local population. Given local knowledge and understanding of the context of the ban does this constitute enabling an obviously criminal activity? I’m not sure but it doesn't strike me as a wildly unreasonable legal avenue to take if you have few options.

A better question would be how the hell do you fix the underlying social issues that drive the alcoholism in the first place. I personally don’t think maintaining a reservation system is the answer but that’s a bigger question than “are we all irresponsible cry babies now days?”

[Zeriel]

Is anyone alleging that these stores are selling to front men who are taking cases of whiskey and peddling it on the street corners of the reservation? I'm not being snarky; I just didn't get that impression.

The impression I got was that these stores are so close to the reservation that customers are driving there, buying a bottle or two and then taking it home.

I think that in the first case, you definitely have a civil if not a criminal case. In the second, which I think is the real dispute, I don't see one.

I don't really think we have enough information one way or another to make an actual assessment, personally. I think we have more than enough information to warrant someone looking into it, given the numbers Grey posted.

Given the numbers Grey posted, seems like it'd be damn cost effective for the reservation to post a car inspection checkpoint on that road, though.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That doesn't make sense. It's not illegal to consume alcohol which makes the sale not only legal but it would be discriminatory to withhold it.

This isn't aimed at stores, it's aimed at a product and the producers of the product.
What "isn't aimed at stores"?

[Justin_Bailey]

I don't really think we have enough information one way or another to make an actual assessment, personally. I think we have more than enough information to warrant someone looking into it, given the numbers Grey posted.

Assuming all of the beer sold at the stores is only sold to citizens of the reservation, that's only three beers per person per week. That's not exactly an epidemic.

[Zeriel]

Assuming all of the beer sold at the stores is only sold to citizens of the reservation, that's only three beers per person per week. That's not exactly an epidemic.

I was thinking more about the poor souls in Whiteclay, who must (since it's illegal to bring beer onto the reservation) be drinking something like 6,900 beers per week each to keep up with those numbers. :p

In all seriousness--if the store owner is selling a case or two to some random guy every week or so, that's fine. If they're moving it out the back door in pallets (as in, obviously not just some guy buying beer, but rather a smuggling-esque scenario) that's probably not.

[Cheesesteak]

But that is always going to happen in any border area with restrictive alcohol laws.

So what do you do? Have a policy of checking licenses and refusing to sell to residents of the dry county? Why? Diplomacy. Respect. It's why, even though the law may say that it's OK to fire up my chainsaw at 6am Sunday morning, I don't do it.

If you want to have good relations with your neighbors, helping their residents to break the law in large numbers isn't a great way to accomplish it. Especially when the law being broken contributes to the miserable standard of living within the reservation.

[TheMightyAtlas]

Diplomacy. Respect. It's why, even though the law may say that it's OK to fire up my chainsaw at 6am Sunday morning, I don't do it.

If you want to have good relations with your neighbors, helping their residents to break the law in large numbers isn't a great way to accomplish it. Especially when the law being broken contributes to the miserable standard of living within the reservation.

Is it legal in Canada to refuse to sell something to someone based on their membership in some ethnic group?

If a white guy comes in, you sell him a case of beer, or two or three or four cases. If an Indian guy comes him, he has to prove he is not a resident of a reservation that prohibits alcohol consumption or he only gets a six pack a day.

I imagine if either one came in falling down drunk, you might refuse to sell to them, but regardless of their race/ethnicity/nationality.

I don't think this would be legal in the US, but we do sometimes recognize that Canada is a separate countries, so maybe it is legal up there. Any Canadopers want to help.

It's probably not legal for you to fire up your chainsaw at 6am, unless there is some kind of emergency. In most jurisdictions I have lived in at least (again in the US, maybe the Canadians are more individualistic in their outlook)

[Whambulance]

Your grandparents notwithstanding, your thesis is bunk. People have been suing (http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/560524cooper.html) corporations (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Dramshop+Acts) for harm caused in part by their own problems at least since well before "the WWII generation".

I get your point, but I'd like to see the per capita numbers on that though .. now versus then.

[Odesio]

But that is always going to happen in any border area with restrictive alcohol laws. If you own a liquor store at the border of a dry county, you know damned good and well that you are selling a bunch of booze to people who live in the dry county.


There's a difference between a dry county and the Indian reservation. In most dry counties, it is only illegal to purchase or sell alcohol while possessing and drinking it are okay. If I buy alcohol in a wet county and drive the stuff to my home in a dry county and drink it I am acting within the bounds of the law. In contrast, it is completely illegal to possess and drink alcohol on the reservation in question. Complicating matters is that Indian Reservations have a certain level of autonomy. There may be treaties or laws in respects to commerce that I'm not aware of. Then again, maybe not. If there was an actual crime being committed I don't know if they'd bother with a civil suit.