During the night of the You Gotta Be A Dope Fraternity Party, many laws were broken, which stemmed from the unconscious drunkenness of the party guests , while fraternity brothers knew about alcohol hidden in drinks. Serving alcohol in this manner violates several laws in the New York Penal Code. The first law endangers the welfare of a child. As many guests were under the age of seventeen and Penal Code 260.10 states "a person is guilty of endangering the welfare of a child when: 1. He knowingly acts in a manner likely to harm the physical, mental or moral well-being of a child under seventeen years of age. Serving alcohol to minors exposes them to physical and moral risks. Also by serving alcohol to minors, the fraternity brothers were unlawfully dealing with a child in the first degree, as penal code 260.20, paragraph two, states: “A person is guilty of unlawfully dealing with a child when… she gives or sells or causes to be given or sold. any alcoholic beverage… to a person under the age of twenty-one. They are also morally culpable for the night's many illegal acts, as they intoxicated many and failed to inform them of the alcohol. The first crime, which was the result of intoxication, was the second degree rape of David. Jeffery by Mary Mondoona. Paragraph 2 of Statute 130.30 states that a person is guilty of second degree rape if "he or she has sexual intercourse with a person who is incapable of consent due to mental disability or incapacity." Given that they were both under seventeen and over thirteen, with Mary being sixteen and David being only a day past the age of 16, the rape charges are middle of paper ..... .ng sober.The final act in question in terms of legality, of the night, was Jeremy Derek's serious wounding of three students with an automatic firearm during a marksmanship demonstration. It could be said that this is second degree assault due to reckless actions resulting in serious injury with a deadly weapon. The problem with this conviction is that he did not know the firearm was automatic and expected and believed it to be a sniper's rifle. This again shows that Jeremy had no intention or Mens Rea to hurt people. Staples v. United States is a good precedent to show that the type of gun the owner believes he or she owns is sufficient to prevent conviction by law due to the illegal nature of a gun. Jeremy can also claim that the gun dealer mislabeled and falsely advertised the gun, and that if he had been sold the correct gun, he would not have hurt anyone..