Courtroom Observation

Courtroom Observation

CASE # 82A04-8876-CV285 / White -V- Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern

September 24, 2012

This case takes place in the state of Indiana. It involves the Defendants Patrick Gibbs and O'Malley's Tavern. John Daniel's (the Bartender) claims he did not observe Mr. Hard being highly intoxicated during his time spent at O'Malley's Tavern. In this case the Defendants attorneys argue there was no visible intoxication in Mr. Hard based on his physical actions. During Mr. Hard's time spent in the Tavern he fell to the ground when he tripped over a pool stick, however, the Bartender did not witness the fall, therefore claiming he wasn't a witness to Mr. Hard's level of drunkenness. It was reported that Mr. Hard had consumed up to eleven shots of whiskey and a beer or more, however only eleven were noted.

Mr. Hard was scorned because his ex-fiancé had married Mr. White. Mr. Hard believed his ex-fiancé should have been his wife instead. Due to his personal feelings of rejection, jealousy, anger and rage; Mr. Hard went to physically attack Mr. White. Mr. and Mrs. White decided to leave the Tavern and Mr. Hard decided to chase behind them. Due to Mr. Hard getting behind his vehicle under the influence of alcohol, he had no control of his vehicle and collided against the White's vehicle; causing the death of Mr. White.

The Defending Attorney's argue that John Daniels (the Bartender) has no legal responsibility in this case. The Defending Attorney's believe the reason why the Bartender shouldn't be held liable is because he had no visible signs of Mr. Hard's intoxication level. The Bartender claimed there was nothing out of the norm with Mr. Hard's actions. The Defendant's attorneys believe there is insufficient incident to support the claim against their client and ask the Courts to please grant the Defendant's motion of summary judgment.

The Plaintiff's Attorneys argue there was intent in Mr. Hard's actions to hurt Mr. White. Mr. Hard decided to chase Mr. and Mrs. White as they exited the Tavern. The Plaintiff's attorneys are claiming that Mr. Hard committed a criminal act and should be held responsible for his actions. The attorneys are asking the Courts not to grant the Defendants motion of summary judgment.

Did you agree with the appellant or the appellee? Why? I agree with the appellee.

I agree with the appellee because the attorneys of the appellee convinced me with their arguments that Mr. Hard was acting not only under the influence of alcohol, but also was acting under the emotions of resentment, anger and jealousy. Mr. and Mrs. White had made the choice to leave the Tavern in order to avoid any type of confrontation with Mr. Hard. However, Mr. Hard insists on following them outside the Tavern and intentionally chasing them with the intent to hurt Mr. White.

One of the Judges' argues that it is possible Mr. Hard not intention of killing Mr. White or hurting him for that matter because the woman he supposedly loved so much was in the car with Mr. White. However, I don't agree with the Judge and neither does the appellee because if Mr. Hard had no intentions of harming Mr. and Mrs. White he wouldn't have left behind them in the Tavern, chasing them down the street in his vehicle, all while being under the influence of alcohol. Clearly Mr. Hard had surpassed the State of Indiana's intoxication level, which is .08 by consuming eleven shots of whiskey and drinking one beer before leaving the Tavern and had every intention to cause damage to Mr. and Mrs. White.

How does the biblical worldview bear on the answer to the question(s) before the court?

Today the modern concept of social justice is skewed towards mercy without any responsibility. I believe Biblical justice requires the application of mercy. God's laws and principles are the same today, as they were yesterday and will be tomorrow and the same should apply to our Judicial System. Cases in the courts should not be based on circumstantial evidence, rather on the truth; therefore, by applying Biblical justice in all