By MAD Mama on 12-18-09
I appreciate the County Attorney holding the bartender and bar owner accountable for their roles in Trooper Haynes death. I hope that this sets a precedent to investigate other alcohol sellers and servers whose impaired patrons kill or maim on our highways. Don’t let anyone drink and drive!
By dsrobins on 12-18-09
It is good that the County Attorny has already charged one bartender for serving that drunken kid. Let’s hope he also charges the other one as well. In addition, the State Liquor Control Board should stop by the office of the bowling alley owner and tell him that if something like this happens one more time he can kiss his liquor license goodbye. Charging the bartenders is a good start, but this problem will not end until the bar owners lose their licences. Give them three strikes: one offense: license suspended for three months; two offenses: suspended for six months; third offense: license revoked. This is not a new idea, but it is one that will fix the problem.
By Sunman on 12-29-09
Excuse me? How is the bartender and bar owner liable here? It would be great dsrobins and MAD Mama if you did a little more critical thinking here and look at it objectively instead if supporting a witch hunt. You’re both assuming they were being negligent when they may not have been. Bottom line is, it was the kid who was responsible for drinking too much alcohol then getting in his vehicle and killing himself and that trooper. Period! End of story! This angry campaign to punish people and businesses who serve alcohol doesn’t fix the problem at all, it only destroys more lives and scares away tourists who support our economy. Anger and justification for punishing people who weren’t involved in the accident won’t bring our dear ones back from the dead. Obviously, it was a horrible tragedy losing a bright, young officer in the peak of his life to a drunk driver and the loved ones he leaves behind. I have compassion for that, but to act out in rage and to use the law to that effect doesn’t heal the pain of the loss nor bring about justice. Our laws were written to maintain decency and observe justice, not to support going on angry witch hunts to punish good people. Whether someone poured that kid drinks or he served himself, no matter what time of the day or night, he alone is responsible for his actions. The way to fix the problem is to educate people about this issue and what can happen when you drink and drive. The person who commits the crime is the one responsible. Hasn’t there been enough pain of loss as it is? Why bring about more of it?
By blood gulch on 12-29-09
I agree with Sunman- Unfortunately, this was a tragic life changing event for all involved. However, No one is to blame except the person who chose to drink and drive. To try to pin blame on a 3rd party is really trying to push it. How do you know that the bartender and the owner served alcohol to this person knowing that they were too intoxicated to drive? Where do you draw the line in saying who’s responsivble. Should the auto makers be held responsible as well because they manufactured a vehicle that this person drove, ultimately killing someone? How about the Auto Dealership that sold the car to the kid- They knew he could potentially cause an accident and kill someone. People need to be responsible for their own actions, and to stop trying to sue everyone and anything that may or may not have anything to do with an accident or crime. I support our laws, and justice to those who are responsible for crimes. I feel terrible about the lives ruined over this horrible event. I hope justice is served.
By Sunman on 12-29-09
It’s unfortunate how people use the law to ensure someone’s head rolls for what happened. By the logic the county and state are following they should go after every bartender and charge them for negligence for serving alcohol to someone who had been drinking and then drove their vehicle afterward, accident or not. If Vandersloot were still alive he would be in prison for a long stretch, and justifiably so, but since he’s not I think it’s time to let it go and put this tragedy behind us. I just hope the state troopers and wife who lost a good man and dear friend can find a way to forgive and let go of the pain and anger they’re holding on to. I would hope they drop the charges and let go of prosecuting others who had nothing to do with the tragedy.
By dsrobins on 12-29-09
It’s wrong to blame the two dead in this accident and say let’s forget about it. They are dead because two bartenders and the liquor license owner didn’t obey the rules and enforce the law. This is not a new issue in Montana. Bar owners have known for years that they should encourage moderation in drinking, but they don’t because they make more money encouraging drink up, have another, etc. If they get caught a couple of times, they simply fire the offending bartender, hire a new one and tell him/her keep pushing the booze over the bar. That’s what they do. The only, repeat only, way to end this is to take away the bar owner’s liquor license and shut his bar down. That will work, but Montana’s perennially corrupt Liquor Control Board is to subservient to the Tavern Owners’ Association to do it. It’s up to us, the voters to demand it, and the legislature and governor to carry our our demands.
By Sunman on 12-30-09
These men are dead because Vandersloot decided to drink too much alcohol, decided to drive and was not coherent enough to control his vehicle NOT because a bartender poured him drinks. Nobody was forcing him to drink and drive. That’s some extreme equating you’re doing there dsrobins and writing new laws is all well and good but doesn’t ultimately solve the problem. I would agree that bar ownership shouldn’t push drinks to make money and should think of the customer’s welfare, however, you’re talking about shutting down every bar in Montana. Laws imposed on bar ownership do not promote customer self-responsibility. Those same people will drink and drive regardless of whether they’re at a bar or not.
By blood gulch on 12-30-09
dsrobins- youve got to be kidding me! Your reeeaallly stretching it when you say “They are dead because two bartenders and the liquor license owner didn’t obey the rules and enforce the law”. - They are DEAD BECAUSE Vandersloot Killed them!! He was irresponsible, plain and simple. How do you know that the bartender and the owners “encourage” their patrons to “drink up”? Where is your proof of this? I’ve never been encouraged to drink- I don’t think anyone really cares if I drink or not. People need to be “encouraged” not to drink and drive. Education, and stiffer penalties to those that break the law will discourage drunk driving.
By MAD Mama on 12-30-09
Alcohol (and other drugs) impair judgement. Vandersloot was not capable of making a responsible decision because he was impaired by alcohol. If a healthcare provider administers a drug to a patient which causes impairment the healthcare provider must prevent the patient from driving. Why is it different for a bartender? Responsible drinkers plan ahead for safe transportation; responsible servers and sellers prevent the impaired drinker from driving. If you know someone is driving while impaired call law enforcement to pick them up before they kill someone—if you don’t stop them then you share the responsibility for that death. You will share this conviction when someone you love is killed by a drunk driver.
By Sunman on 12-31-09
Obviously a bartender should do everything they can to stop an impaired customer from driving, MAD Mama. I’m not opposed to harsher laws if it stops people from driving drunk. However, the conversation here is Vandersloot was very capable of making a responsible decision to not drink, limit his intake or not drive beforehand. Also, many people who drink regularly and a lot at that tend to have a high tolerance and appear fine. Since it was an after hours party for the employees, Vandersloot was probably pouring his own drinks and so nobody was watching his alcohol consumption. Short of keeping precise tabs on how much a customer had to drink, a customer displaying poor coordination, slurring his words or getting sick how can you tell if someone is impaired or not legal to drive? I think in this instance Vandersloot may have appeared okay and legal to drive and it was hard to tell how much he had to drink or whether he was impaired. Aside from that, this seems like an angry campaign to incite revenge for a fallen comrade which does no good in the bigger picture. These bartenders now can’t get a job (mostly because of the negative publicity of this) and move forward with their lives. They may have families to support and they may actually be good people who were trying to do the right thing. It’s just so easy for people reading this article to persecute them when they have no idea who or what they’re talking about.
By MAD Mama on 01-02-10
I would like to see an ignition interlock alcohol detection device installed on every vehicle. Then no one could drive under the influence of alcohol. Until that happens we must all take responsibility for keeping impaired drivers off the highways. This is not about revenge, it is about prevention.
By Nancy on 01-02-10
It is very tragic that this has happened; also it is equally tragic about the young girls in Missoula that lost their lives last week to a drunk driver who is STILL alive. But, I don’t think it is right to put all the blame on the bartender or owner of the bar, how do we know that this young man did not start drinking at home or go to another bar nearby first. Also, I had some pie at a local eatery, should I sue the waitress and restaurant owner because I have diabetes or get fat from the pie. I know the pie is bad for me and I know I have diabetes; I should not eat that pie, my decision not the waitress that served me..
By Sunman on 01-02-10
How does singling out a bartender and a bar owner for legal punishment help with prevention on the whole? By that logic then you would have to go after all bartenders and businesses that serve alcohol. It is about revenge for the state troopers who lost a fellow comrade and friend MAD Mama. Since Vandersloot is dead they have to find somebody to punish to avenge this tragic murder. Believe me, the county and state are taking this very seriously and there is a lot of anger and vengeance going on from their side. Unfortunately, this is not what the law is for. A healthy society does not seek retaliation and vengeance upon it’s own community members who are trying to make a living and support their families. When a traumatic event happens most human beings go through the stages of first denial, then anger, then grieving and finally reconciliation and emotional healing. The state troopers who were close to Haynes and his wife are still going through the anger phase right now and justifying their position using the law. Not a good idea.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.