One of the questions I’ve had about the tragedy that took Danny Dahlquist’s life revolves around underage drinking. According to today’s paper, “Toxicology testing revealed Dahlquist’s blood-alcohol content was 0.155 percent, almost twice the state’s legal threshold for drunkenness.” Dahlquist was 19 years old.
Who gave him the alcohol?
David Crady, 19, Nicholas Mentgen, 21, Ryan Johnson, 22, and Daniel Cox, 20, are currently charged with residential arson, two counts of aggravated arson and one count of possession of an explosive or incendiary device. But two of those men are old enough to purchase alcohol and two of them are underage. Published reports indicate that all of them were drinking. So, did the older two provide the alcohol for the three (including Dahlquist) underage drinkers? If not, who did?
It’s important to know for a couple of reasons. One is that it’s a Class 4 felony. According to 235 ILCS 5/6?16:
(iii) No person, after purchasing or otherwise obtaining alcoholic liquor, shall sell, give, or deliver such alcoholic liquor to another person under the age of 21 years, except in the performance of a religious ceremony or service. […] Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of item (iii) of this paragraph of this subsection (a) is guilty of a Class 4 felony if a death occurs as the result of the violation.
Another reason is that by not charging the person who provided the alcohol, it sends a message that underage drinking is not very serious or worthy of prosecution. Yet if Dahlquist had not been drunk, he may have been able to escape. If his friends hadn’t been drinking, they might have had the sense to think twice about setting Dahlquist’s room on fire with roman candles.
To me, the underage drinking problem (and delivery of alcohol to someone underage) is a huge contributing factor to this tragedy and should be prosecuted.
Here is something you don’t hear a lot.
Anon E. Mouse sez: I agree with C.J. Summers opinion on this subject.
right on, as usual. The drinking was the root of the problem. The responsible party(ies) should be called to account.
The coroner’s jury found the death to be accidental.
Then Don Jackson’s head assploded.
I agree, this is a no-brainer, surely..someone is looking into this.
There has been way too much protection of under age drinkers on and around Bradley campus. Just a few years ago, a student died of alchol poisoning. Yet immediately following that incident, neighbors would call the police and complain of underage drinking parties, the police would meander to the party. Kids would then pile out the back door and low and behold when the police check ID’s, no under aged drinkers. I know this is more than a Peoria issue, but the city should expect more from this “perfect” neighbor, Bradley U.
But if the law would be at the age you can die for this country there is no problem then and no felony for this providing drinks.
Let’s pile more tragedy onto an already traumatic situation. Here are 5 guys (best friends) whose lives have been changed forever. Did alcohol have a role in Danny’s death, I’m sure it did. But prosecuting the other 4 for underage drinking, or delivery of alcohol would seem unreasonable and unnecessary. Their memories of that night and the loss of their friend/roommate/teammate will be more than enough punishment for their stupidity.
Maybe they bought it themselves (easy to get served around Peoria). Perhaps I grew up in different era but we drank all the time in both High school and College. Back then some states were 18 and some were 19 and others were 21. Finding out where they got the booze solves nothing, what about where they got the fireworks, also nothing solved. There is no way I am buying that this was an alcohol driven accident. Kids do stupid stuff and most of the time nobody dies. Good kids, bad break, horrible tragedy.
You can’t convince me alcohol had nothing to do with it. At .155 percent blood-alcohol level, according to Virginia Tech as reported on Wikipedia, the following would be impaired:
You think that didn’t have an effect on his ability to save himself? If his friends were equally impaired, you think that didn’t have an effect on their ability to try to save him? I do. And I think it’s relevant to ask from where they got the booze. Even if the underage boys did buy it themselves, the store from which they bought it should have its liquor license revoked.
I really get tired of every lawyer and do-gooder always trying to spread the blame for accidents out to the ridiculous. People do dumb things, they do them with or without alcohol and they do them at 15 and at 50. People are to blame for their accidents, why must we always try and shift blame onto someone else. We as a society are increasingly looking to blame everyone but ourselves for everything. It was the guy that sold the beer, it was the guy that made the beer, it was the ad agency that made the beer so damn appealing, it was just the beer. No, it was the person that that made the mistake, pure and simple. They f**ked up and bad stuff happened, done deal. Desperately searching for someone else to blame under the silly auspices that you may save someone else from f**king up is just a cop out. People are going to do dumb things and people will get hurt and die, its a tragedy to be sure, but please stop trying to find twelve people to blame and 15 laws to pass to protect us from ourselves.
“stop trying to find … 15 laws to pass”
The law is already on the books; I’m only suggesting it be enforced, and prosecuted when broken. I did not suggest adding any laws, nor did I try to blame the person who sold the alcohol for the tragedy. The kids are responsible for their own actions. But the person who sold the liquor should be responsible for his, too.
The fireworks are also illegal. I imagine a few laws were fractured getting them here. State lines were crossed, a chain of possession of illegal explosives would need to be investigated, the whole thing can get as ridiculous as can be imagined.
Well, Raoul, it’s likely that one of the kids bought the fireworks in a state where they’re legal, then broke the law by bringing them into Illinois. I wouldn’t mind that kid being charged for that, too, since that was also a contributing factor.
My guess is that the older boy(s) bought the alcohol for the younger ones, hence the only people who would be charged here would be the boys themselves. The older ones should be held accountable for giving alcohol to the younger ones. I only brought up the possibility of charging the person who sold the alcohol when you mentioned the underage boys might have gotten it themselves directly from the store.