Scott Urban, 22, stands before Judge Madous on Monday
This week it's a tie: the perp, Scott Urban, and the downtown bar that served him his last drink, obviously when he was already quite intoxicated, McMurphy's Uptown Tavern.
Even if he did have only "two cups of bud light" while at McMurphy's, with a BAC a few minutes later of .189% -- more than twice the legal limit -- he was pretty plastered when the bartender slid him those drinks.
McMurphy's Uptown Tavern, Blarney Blowout day 2012
Can't really understand why a bar owner wouldn't require his servers to be trained in when to serve, and when not to serve someone alcohol. Not sure why it's not a law actually. It's not foolproof of course, but it seems pretty negligent not to have this requirement. Richard Marsh.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
ReplyDeleteAnd this makes the third time now I have witnessed someone finger McMurphy's in just the past four months.
And I am only at the District Court once or twice a week.
Would be interesting if the Amherst Select Board (who are the town liquor commissioners) requested from the state an annual report of bars in town identified as having served a DUI their last drink.
Just plain stupid. Make it a law that all liquor servers have a license to sell and a requirement of that license is mandatory training. If the fools who drink can't do the right thing then put the responsibility in the hands of the people who give them the loaded guns.
ReplyDeleteFYI, it is not illegal (yet) to drink alcohol. How is the bar supposed to know this person was driving? Some people can hold their alcohol quite well, even at twice the legal limit (to operate a vehicle). I know a guy that can drink a 12 pack of beer and while I wouldn't get in the car with him, you'd probably never know he'd been drinking. Different heights, weights, tolerances, etc, all have bearing. I know some want more government, more regulation, more nanny state, but people should take responsibility for themselves. I am sure in this Orwellian State, after they inject microchips into everyone, that they will be able to electronically monitor alcohol consumption and prevent people from driving after too many. (Which EVERYONE reading this has done)
ReplyDelete50 years nitwits like you were citing their grandmother, who smoked 3 packs a day, but lived to be 102.
ReplyDeleteRichard, McMurphy's has to sell beer to intoxicated patrons -- Larry, the Selects likewise have to ignore the OUIs that occur as a result.
ReplyDeleteIt is what is necessary to maintain what exists, and too many politically powerful entities (including the town itself) have too much to loose for change to occur. It's really "all about the money."
Ever been in any of those uptown bars? Go in sometime and look around -- ask yourself if it is a place that you'd enjoy spending an evening (and no small amount of money) sober?
No.
They are poorly laid out dumps where you feel quite conspicuous if they are empty and quite uncomfortable if they aren't. Look at the other patrons -- are they people whom you'd have any interest in associating with?
You kinda have to be drunk to enjoy spending time in one of these places -- they are not venues where you'd enjoy being sober.
I came to this conclusion a quarter century ago, when I first arrived in Amherst. While the names out front have changed, the bars remain the same.
Well, not quite: the cartel that profits off all of this is now profiting more than it used to.
Property taxes in Amherst have more than doubled and properties have become speculative -- landlords have increased rents both because they can and to cover their increased expenses, often including having purchased the property (at an inflated price) from someone else.
And all of this is occurring in the midst of what is the Second Great Depression, what's the U-6 unemployment rate at now???
Hence the bar has to serve drunken patrons in order to pay the bills. Too many powerful interests are profiting off all this for either the town or state to really do anything about it. There may be occasional exceptions, and from time to time a bar closes, but it is almost immediately re-opened and essentially the same.
Only the names change -- the situation will not change -- it really is all about the money.
Walter -- what people need to realize is that these bars MUST serve drunks to pay the bills -- and that those bills pay all the social justice stuff that Amherst likes to waste money on.
ReplyDeleteAnd the golf course.
And Team Maria.
And well-compensated municipal employees.
And the rest.
There's a price to be paid for that, it is this.
Isn't the PBC considered inaccurate? Hence what was the official number on the big machine?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it was necessarily less -- it could be more -- but I kinda think you ought to have mentioned that this was a PBC and what the real number was or why we don't have one.
We do: .186% for the "chemical breath test" taken back at the station, which IS admissible in Court.
ReplyDeleteAnd perhaps why Mr. Urban wanted to cop a plea that very morning (which I have never seen happen).
Unfortunately with alcohol one can't simply rely on a person to know when to stop. We tried that and many innocent lives were lost. Licence bartenders who are dispensing powerful drugs to some who will soon loose sense of right and wrong. its the best solution to a for-profit business that really just wants to pour.
ReplyDeleteCan you shed some light on this memo in a separate article (or here - whatever - but I'm curious to hear your take).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gazettenet.com/home/13202588-95/amherst-town-meeting-member-john-fox-raises-questions-about-misrepresentations-by-planning-director-
Good luck understanding the article or the sequence of events.
ReplyDeleteMr. Merzbach is not the best.
Fox says one thing. Weiss corroborates.
Musante says the opposite.
The real problem you have is a downtown that was laid out in the 19th Century to meet the needs of the merchants of the 19th Century -- narrow but long rectangular buildings that are less than ideal for either restaurants or bars.
ReplyDelete"The real problem you have is a downtown that was laid out in the 19th Century to meet the needs of the merchants of the 19th Century -- narrow but long rectangular buildings that are less than ideal for either restaurants or bars."
ReplyDelete___________________
No, the real problem you have is a downtown that was laid out in the 19th Century to meet the needs of the merchants of the 19th Century, and a attitude today that does not want Amherst to ever get out of the 19th century.