Drink -- and play -- responsibly
Alcohol restrictions not included in new Rose Bowl tailgating guidelines
By André Coleman 07/28/2011
Just in time for the college football season, the Rose Bowl Operating Co. board of directors is expected next week to unveil new guidelines for pre-game tailgating, none of which likely include restrictions on alcohol possession or consumption in the stadium parking lot.
“I don’t expect any ban on alcohol. It will be more about conduct outside,” Rose Bowl General Manager Darryl Dunn told the Weekly, explaining that this new code of conduct is more a set of behavioral guidelines than actual rules.
“It is the dos and don’ts, so people can understand what they are allowed to do. A lot of it will be about common sense and being good citizens who are responsible for themselves,” Dunn said.
Development of the new tailgating guidelines comes shortly after a man accepted a plea bargain in relation to stabbing two men during an alcohol-fueled altercation in the Rose Bowl parking lot prior to last year’s USC-UCLA football game.
The move also comes two weeks after Los Angeles authorities charged three people in connection with the vicious beating of Bryan Stow, a San Francisco paramedic who remains in a virtual coma after suffering a beating at Dodger Stadium following the opening day game there against the San Francisco Giants. Authorities believe alcohol use played a role in that incident as well.
Both cases sparked regional concerns over stadium security and alcohol consumption before and during major sporting events.
In the Dec. 4 Rose Bowl incident, Anthony Cisneros, 23, pleaded no contest to stabbing Vimal Patel, 24, of Pasadena eight times, and Josh Dirling, 28, of Simi Valley once in the face prior to the game.
According to the plea agreement, Cisneros will serve 15 years in prison. Had he been found guilty, Cisneros could have been sentenced to life in prison. He remains in custody on $2 million bail and will return to court for sentencing on Aug. 29. His brother, 26-year-old Arthur, and sister, Akira, 24, both pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery charges, receiving one year in county jail and 300 hours of community service, respectively.
In the Dodger Stadium incident, Stow was beaten and kicked in the head after a confrontation with angry fans, presumably because Stow — who currently shows little sign of improvement — wore a Giants jersey to the game.
On July 21 — the same day that Cisneros accepted a plea bargain in a Pasadena courtroom — Los Angeles police arrested Louie Sanchez, 29, and Marvin Norwood, 30, both of Rialto. Dorene Sanchez, the 31-year-old sister of Louie Sanchez, was also arrested in connection with the Stow beating.
Those arrests exonerated another suspect in that case, Giovanni Ramirez, who was arrested in May but not charged with a crime. Ramirez, a parolee, was sent to prison for 10 months for allegedly violating his parole.
Stow’s family has filed a claim for damages against the city of Los Angeles, alleging the Dodgers intentionally scaled back security at the stadium to save money, thus endangering Stow’s safety.
In June, Dirling filed a $25 million claim for damages against the city of Pasadena, which states that the city “failed to provide adequate security in an area known to be used for tailgating activities on property used by the city of Pasadena for parking for Rose Bowl events … creating a dangerous condition on public property which caused or allowed the attack to happen.”
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT
It is established: "In June, Dirling filed a $25 million claim for damages against the city of Pasadena, which states that the city 'failed to provide adequate security in an area known to be used for tailgating activities on property used by the city of Pasadena for parking for Rose Bowl events … creating a dangerous condition on public property which caused or allowed the attack to happen'.”
Since Dirling wants the mostly non-participating majority of tax-paying Pasadenans to pony up millions of dollars for his (otherwise, also self-inflicted) pain-and-suffering regarding an attack that certainly would not have occurred had he been less confrontational among a much smaller segment of the co-alchohol-swilling general public, did any collateral alchohol consumption by Dirling himself in any way primarily initiate or otherwise functionally exacerbate that dick-swinging confrontation from which he ultimately suffered? To what degree does Dirling apparently also bear any responsibility for self-destructively inciting the brawl that he also collaterally helped to initiate by simply being there?
The public's alleged "failure to protect" seems to have prognosticatively been much more passive than Dirling's own responsiblity to foresee and sustain his own more collateral environment of self-protection. Caveat-Emptor* also applies to rental contracts, even if it is only small parcels for only a few hours.
By the way of how Andre describes this incident, I'd also like to know whether Dirling was in fact hurt on public property at a mostly public event (as it may-well be described for the game itself within the Rose Bowl's walls), or did it happen on more individually contracted parcels of land surrounding the Rose Bowl that is more distinctively rented out to each, tailgate-attending participant of whom attended this event along side of a distinctively more numerous, automobile-parking public?
DanD
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor