16 arrested at party that had underage drinking | AccessNorthGa

This couple needs to be arrested and sentenced then they need to grow up alot.

Boy from somebody with 11 years in law enforcment, you seem to have forgotten that old "innocent until proven guilty"

DUB wrote:

Boy from somebody with 11 years in law enforcment, you seem to have forgotten that old "innocent until proven guilty"

They may be innocent but how many grownup adults would allow teenagers to drink in their home I would call the law myself if my son brought home kids to drink and have the bunch arrested that is called MORALS and being an adult.

your morals and my morals and everyone's morals are subject to self perspective. your morals lead you to believe that the parents are morally wrong, I believe that they were not.
Each of the children were between 17-19 years old, each old enough to go to jail as an adult, however not old enough to make adult decisions.
Is it moral to hold a person to a standard in one aspect, but not the same standard in another aspect.

yes they are 17-19 year old but someone had to sell or buy the booze right.

same ol same ol wrote:

yes they are 17-19 year old but someone had to sell or buy the booze right.

However the burden of proof is on the state to prove who provided the alcohol to the 17-19 year olds, not who bought it. The alcohol could have been brought by the 17-19 year olds, and then supplied to others. Purchase does not equal provide. The case of disorderly house is pretty straight forward, where the home owners knew or should have known what was transpiring at the house.

DUB wrote:

<quoted text>
However the burden of proof is on the state to prove who provided the alcohol to the 17-19 year olds, not who bought it. The alcohol could have been brought by the 17-19 year olds, and then supplied to others. Purchase does not equal provide. The case of disorderly house is pretty straight forward, where the home owners knew or should have known what was transpiring at the house.

Excuse me, this is for posting comments on you feel about specific topics. If we wanted you to quote the law, we could join a "law"forum. I also think the parents should be arrested.

I don't think the state would need to prove that the parents provided the alcohol. I also don't think the state has to prove that the parents were aware of the alcohol. The responsibility lies on the homeowners. Allowing this to take place on their property will be enough to get the Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor conviction.

This would be different if it were a couple of teens with a six pack. This sounds like a full blown party. The parents didn't properly supervise.

Innocence by omission ("We didn't know they had alcohol officer.") will not be a good enough argument.

It's obvious that the parents aren't very smart.

copsgirl wrote:

Excuse me, this is for posting comments on you feel about specific topics. If we wanted you to quote the law, we could join a "law"forum. I also think the parents should be arrested.

This is an open forum copsgirl. Dub's comments were on topic and he was giving his opinion, just as you have.

Chill-out.

copsgirl wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me, this is for posting comments on you feel about specific topics. If we wanted you to quote the law, we could join a "law"forum. I also think the parents should be arrested.

And if my aunt had ba!!s she could be my uncle. This forum is for discussion, opinion, and information. So I will qoute, inform, and offer opinions as I see fit.

Thanks Saint.

O.k. Let's see . I remember when you could go buy a pack of cigarettes at the age of 15. When you could buy beer at the age of 18. Thats all changed. You mean you take my 18 yr. old and send him to war and be killed but, it isn't legal do have a beer??? What is wrong with this picture???

Whathappened wrote:

O.k. Let's see . I remember when you could go buy a pack of cigarettes at the age of 15. When you could buy beer at the age of 18. Thats all changed. You mean you take my 18 yr. old and send him to war and be killed but, it isn't legal do have a beer??? What is wrong with this picture???

I agree there is a tad bit of hipocracy with this situation, however the blame lies most of all with the federal goverment. When most of the US had drinking ages of 18 or 19, the Feds gave states the option of raising the drinking age to 18 or lose federal funding for roadways. Of course as states could not afford to lose the money they raised the limits to 21. The only hold outs were Louisiana and Arizon. Louisiana eventually gave in and Arizona who had allowed active duty military to consume beer not grain alcohol, gave in in 1997 and raised the age to 21 for all.
The same thing happened when the feds wanted the DUI level dropped to .08 or lower nationwide. States had to change the laws to accomadate the Federal wishes to keep road money coming.
It was all about who controlled the money and what they wanted done.

should have read:

When most of the US had drinking ages of 18 or 19, the Feds gave states the option of raising the drinking age to 21 or lose federal funding for roadways.

Whathappened wrote:

O.k. Let's see . I remember when you could go buy a pack of cigarettes at the age of 15. When you could buy beer at the age of 18. Thats all changed. You mean you take my 18 yr. old and send him to war and be killed but, it isn't legal do have a beer??? What is wrong with this picture???

We have a volunteer military. If an 18-20 yo choses to enlist, then that's his or her decision. If we still had the draft, then maybe this would be a valid argument.

Saint Patrick wrote:

<quoted text>
We have a volunteer military. If an 18-20 yo choses to enlist, then that's his or her decision. If we still had the draft, then maybe this would be a valid argument.

What makes it a valid argument is the fact we allow young people the choice of military service, conceding the fact that they are able to make important decisions effecting their lives, yet are concieted enough to think that they are not able to make the decison to drink or not.
Its not a matter of volunteer, it's a matter of hipocracy which allows them to make decisons that benifit the goverment bu prohibit them from making decisons that benifit them.

DUB wrote:

What makes it a valid argument is the fact we allow young people the choice of military service, conceding the fact that they are able to make important decisions effecting their lives, yet are concieted enough to think that they are not able to make the decison to drink or not.
Its not a matter of volunteer, it's a matter of hipocracy which allows them to make decisons that benifit the goverment bu prohibit them from making decisons that benifit them.

DUB.....This is something that has been in place for over 20 years. When I enlisted in the Air Force in 1986, the drinking age was 21. I happened to be 22 at the time so it didn't affect me. These are the rules (laws).

If it matters enough to an enlistee that he/she is allowed to consume alcohol, then they should wait until they are of age. Otherwise, there is no argument. It may seem like hypocrisy, but these are the rules.

People choose to enter the military for numerous reasons. No one is forced.

NO no one is forced, however how can any one say that a 18 year old is mature enough to sign a contract to enlist, but too immature to decide if they want to drink. My argument is not to lower the drinking age but to have a clear distinction of what age is a person old enough to decide for themselves how they want to live their lives.

DUB wrote:

My argument is not to lower the drinking age but to have a clear distinction of what age is a person old enough to decide for themselves how they want to live their lives.

I can't argue with that DUB.