|
February 10, 2007
A single rock can ruin your whole day
A bullet made the front page of today's Inquirer, and I guess that's progress. At least the headline didn't say that the gun did it. However, there's something unsettling about the tone of the headline -- which is "One stray bullet forever changed 2 lives." It's as if they're blaming the bullet -- and not just for the irreparable damage done to the shooting victim. The clear implication of the statement that it "forever changed two lives" is that the shooter was also the victim -- of the bullet that he fired. Oh, but it was an accident, because (so the shooter claims) he did it to impress his friends: In the video played in court yesterday, Yahnajeah Kirkland pulls herself along in a tiny wheelchair, clutching a doll in the rehabilitation center that has been her home since being shot more than two years ago.I'm supposed to think it's tragic that this thug got only ten years for turning a healthy young child into someone who's now disabled for life? If anything, the tragic part is that he'll be out when he's still in his 20s -- free to be a victim of more of the bullets that have to be loaded into a gun which has to then be pointed and fired. In my view, blaming the instrumentality of crime -- whether a gun or bullet -- minimizes the outrageous nature of the criminal act. Thanks in no small part to the anti-gun mentality though, this happens more with guns than with other instrumentalities of crime, and thus, perpetrators of gun crimes are more likely to be seen as victims of their own criminal conduct. To illustrate, let's accept the shooter's story on its face, and assume that when he fired the gun to impress his friends, he meant no harm to anyone else. Is that any different than tossing a rock from an overpass? So many rocks are thrown from highway overpasses that most of them now have tall wire cages on each side of the walkway along with security cameras, but that does not stop the thugs from throwing rocks to impress their friends while meaning absolutely no harm. But when this happens, the headlines usually don't characterize the rocks as "life changing" objects. They tend to stick to the facts, as in this typical news item, titled "Man Injured By Rocks Thrown Off Worcester Overpass -- (CBS4) WORCESTER A 55-year-old Ludlow man was critically injured Thursday morning when he was struck by a large rock in the head, thrown from the Laurel Street overpass, while he riding on Interstate 290 east in Worcester.But they didn't mean any harm! Stories of rocks thrown from overpasses abound, and there's no question that they're not only dangerous enough to cripple people for life, but that they kill. Recently, Dr. Helen discussed a local report in Knoxville, Tennessee about a man who used a rock to kill, and who received a life sentence despite the fact that he "never intended to hurt anyone": I find this statement from the defendant interesting:I think a life sentence for killing an innocent person is appropriate, and I am so cold hearted that I blame the killer, not the bullet or the rock. It's probably also worth asking why a bullet that kills someone is called "stray" but it would be laughable to refer to someone being killed by a "stray rock." I suppose the latter could occur -- especially if it fell from a truck. But when there is human responsible agency, I'm not sure "stray" is the right word. It would be one thing if a gun went off by accident, but if it is fired by an adult human being intentionally pulling the trigger, I don't think it is "stray" unless it was aimed at something and missed. In today's example, the man fired from an urban street corner to impress his friends, and I see no functional difference between that and, say, my throwing a rock from the top of the Empire State Building. Anyway, I thought I should close with a picture of the Worcester, Massachusetts suspects. The caption is "Two of the rocks Worcester Police say were thrown from the overpass": The victim may permanently lose some of his eyesight, and the rock thrower hasn't been caught. But if he is ever convicted and sentenced, will the headline be "One stray rock forever changed 2 lives"? I don't think so.
After all, the rock didn't hit anyone, and he mainly threw it only because he was trying to be a good role model for the oppressed kids or something. posted by Eric on 02.10.07 at 08:49 AM |
|
February 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2007
January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Bush's Global Warming!
Clouds girlish infatuations with macho men Integration Keeping my hand in How deep can strategy sink? Penn and Teller On Drugs Reliving History Honeymoon Finally Over? War On The Horizon
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"Joyfully tossing a pebble," if I recall correctly, was how Said referred to his action.
I wonder whether the overpass rockthrowers "joyfully tossed" their rocks as well.
Sigh.