Site news: Even more people find me annoying
I annoyed some people with a line at the bottom of this post, which noted that a member of the Peoria Chiefs who tossed a baseball an oposing player and instead hit a fan could get 16 years in prison. The line I added was:
Which is longer than some college athletes get for killing their roommates with fire.
Sorry, critics. It’s true. The drunken Bradley s/soccer players students who killed their classmate/teammate/roommate served a few months each. And the loudest sentiment expressed so far is that all must be forgiven, it was an accident, and so forth. There was outrage that Bradley refused to let the killers re-enroll at BU. The often stated reason for this sentiment is they were “good kids,” a term usually applied to white teenagers from middle-class class families who’ve never gotten in trouble before.
And this, I believe, is why people are annoyed at that line, not because it didn’t apply. Obviously these are both cases of athletes acting badly and being made to face the legal consequences. My comparison of the two cases therefore is completely legitimate.
Still some people object. They say it’s unfair — to the former Bradley students. You know, the ones who actually DID kill someone. Not unfair to the pitcher, who didn’t kill anyone and yet might face a far longer jail term.
People never cease to amaze me.
October 31st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I can’t believe anyone would use “they are good kids” for those idiots.
I mean, I’ve tied one too many on before, and NEVER did it seem to me a good idea to throw burning stuff into a friend’s room. Not once.
Those kids are lucky it wasn’t MY child they killed.
October 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
/me is not justifying this claptrap with a response.
October 31st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Billy I agree with you.
I find it amazing that we hold 18 year olds in combat responsible for what they do, but yet let these college students off so lightly.
Amazingly some were annoyed when THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED BACK INTO BRADLEY.
October 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
swige: unless the victim had previously engaged in similar behavior which did not result in a tragic death, in which case, even if your child was killed, your outrage might have been tempered.
And just because the baseball player “could” face more jail time doesn’t mean he will. Lets not be pam adams here and suggest that the black baseball player is being treated worse than the white soccer players because they were “good kids” which is code for white.
If a person kills someone who is crossing the street because they were distracted by the hot coffee which spilled in their lap, should they be punished more harshly than the person who drives their car into a crowd and merely breaks a few legs, ribs and arms? If you focus only on the harm caused without also looking at the mindset that caused the harm, you are missing half the answer.
And Billy, if you focus so much on the harm caused, how do you think that the teenage cohorts of a paraplegic victim of a pool breakin should be treated? Should they have gone to jail even though they had no intentions of causing harm simply because of the harmful result of their criminal trespass?
October 31st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Hey, I’ve been accused of being selfish! LMAO
October 31st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Billy,
Go pick up a dictionary and look up the word “intent.” That might help broaden your horizons, but I doubt it.
Now, I’m not stating I think a person who throws a baseball at another automatically deserves 16 years in prison, but “intent” is an important factor.
And as for all the people out there, especially the males, who have somehow seemed to have gone through life without becoming involved in acts that could have seriously hurt or even possibly killed someone, I applaud either your great wisdom, or most likely great luck, because when I reflect upon my own life and think of all the things I have done, I am often amazed at how well most things have turned out very well.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
Billy: you MUST, absolutely MUST, understand the diffeence between intent and drunken gross negligence. If you don’t ,you will never accept the case in point or the resolutions of it.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I see some others have already picked up on the intent issue here. Intent matters. The Bradley students were playing a prank to scare and embarrass their friend. The baseball player was attempting to hurt someone … even though the person he hurt was not his intended target.
The Bradley students were stupid. The baseball player was malicious.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Yo,A must for everyone!!!