Thursday, April 29, 2004 Stupidity Leads to Tragedy, Innocent Third-Party Blamed
Acme is a brick company. They make bricks for use in construction of brick walls, etc. They do not place warning labels on the bricks telling users that the bricks are intended for construction, not recreational, use. Most people get the idea, but every now and then somebody hurls a brick at somebody else, perhaps for fun, perhaps with malicious intent, or perhaps completely by accident. If the brick whizzes by the targets head and lands in a pile of leaves, then there's no problem. That is, unless the intended target takes it upon his or herself to administer a beatdown, with or without retrieving the brick. But back to the point. Eventually, one of these bricks is going to hit somebody in the head. Can you really, in good conscience blame Acme for this? Granted, they didn't have a warning label with an illustration showing one figure hurling a brick at another's noggin with a red "X" indicating that this is an inappropriate way to use bricks. But most people get the point about projectiles nonetheless.
But of course, there are others that are so devoted to the cause of stupidity that they will injure themselves or others (usually others), then deem themselves not only blameless, but also undeserving of the "stupid" appellation. They will do this by blaming a third party, which is almost invariably innocent. The third party here is Daisy, manufacturer of the coveted BB rifles of lore. Anyone who has ever been within spitting distance of a TV at Christmastime knows that these BB rifles are not without their dangers. Specifically, there is an ever-present risk of putting one's eye out. But even if you live on Mars and haven't been bombarded with the eye-putting-out message for the past decade, the rifles come with instructions to tell you that air-propelled projectiles are just like, well, air-propelled projectiles and should not be taken lightly. But if you're really stupid, you can take them as lightly as you wish and blame the consequences on, of all entities, Daisy.
On May 24, 1999, it was a drizzly afternoon in Solebury, Pa., north of Philadelphia. John Tucker Mahoney took out the BB gun his father had bought for his 16th birthday two days before. Tucker, as he was known, was a strapping high-school sophomore who played varsity soccer and was a homecoming prince. He was no expert shooter, but he had two other BB guns his grandfather had taught him to handle, his parents, Jerome and Rebecca Mahoney, say.
Tucker and a friend, also 16, shot at a crow in Tucker's backyard and, later, a mailbox at the friend's house down the street, according to a February 2000 deposition the friend gave in a private lawsuit the Mahoneys filed against Daisy in federal court in Philadelphia.
The gun seemed out of BBs, so the boys headed back to Tucker's house. Thinking the gun was empty, they took turns firing at each other, mussing their hair with blasts of air, Tucker's friend testified.
Can anyone honestly say this is safe, intelligent behavior? Even if the gun was empty, had they bothered to even check, if there was dirt or other detritus, the air could propel it with enough force to put an eye out. While shooting your buddies hair with blasts of air is fun, it's no more intelligent than hurling bricks at his head in attempts to part his hair, or attempting to shoot an apple off his head with a poison-tipped arrow.
The teenagers were playing with a PowerLine Model 856, with a scope and a plastic stock made to look like wood. Tucker's father had paid $39 for it at Kmart. It came with a hand-operated air pump that increased the velocity at which BBs fly. Pumped 10 times, it could fire at 650 feet per second. At that speed, a BB can penetrate a human skull. Tucker's gun came with a printed warning: "Not a toy. Adult supervision required."
Standing in Tucker's driveway, his friend worked the pump and then fired what he thought was an empty gun at Tucker's head. In fact, there was a BB in the firing chamber. It pierced Tucker's skull just above the left ear and severed an artery in his brain. Tucker was left unable to speak, walk, eat, drink or otherwise care for himself.
Of course this is tragic, but to blame Daisy for this kid's senseless death is utterly moronic. This kid was shot by his friend, at close range, on purpose, although he didn't appear to wish him any harm. Sure, the parents share some blame for giving kids a "toy" that was clearly labeled as not being such, and requiring of adult supervision, which they did not provide. But they probably assumed, wrongly, that these teenagers were intelligent enough to know not to point guns at each other, ever. Or maybe it occurred to them that these boys weren't smart enough for that, but were at least smart enough to not pump up the gun to maximum power before pointing it. Or, barring that, they might have thought the kids surely knew not to pump, point, then pull the trigger. Or perhaps they thought that kids had been sufficiently indoctrinated with the message about the putting out of eyes. Whatever they thought, they were wrong, and now one set of these parents no longer has a son as a result. They were probably banking on that kid providing them with a more comfortable retirement than they could otherwise afford. But, they have a backup plan. Daisy can fund their retirement, and they can act like concerned do-gooders and helpless victims. And emotionally-charged idiots can cry about the dangers of BB guns and point to this kid's death as evidence of such. The millions of kids that safely fire billions of BBs at cans and other non-living targets without ever harming themselves or anyone else can be ignored.
10:34 AM
Police say they had no choice but to go by the book when they handcuffed a 97-year-old woman and took her to jail for failing to pay a traffic ticket.
Harriette Kelton was arrested last week after officers stopped her for having an expired registration and inspection sticker and realized there was a warrant for her arrest for failing to pay a traffic ticket.
This woman was driving the car, on a public street, by herself. So one would think it would be alright to assume that she is a sentient adult, and as such, responsible for her actions. But that wouldn't be using judgement.
"Our real beef with this is that no real judgment was displayed or actually carried out in this incident," said Kelton's son Dr. Phil Kelton Jr., a plastic reconstructive surgeon with Baylor University Medical Center.
What judgement? His mother's getting a ticket and not paying it and driving around with expired registration and an expired inspection sticker? Pretty poor judgement, yes. But that's not the lack of judgement this shameless assclown is referring to. No, he believes the cops shouldn't have arrested her. Why? Because she's old, apparently. He gives no other reason. In fact, he goes on to make a fairly good case for why she should have been arrested.
Phil Kelton Jr. said his mother lives alone, cooks her own meals, goes out to lunch regularly and is involved in the community. She has good eyesight, he said.
Sounds like someone who also could've paid a ticket and kept her registration current. Or someone who would be responsible for the consequences of not doing so. Are cops really supposed to just let people go because of their age? And at what age exactly does one get a free pass to break the law? 90? 80? I've seen some pretty old-looking 60-somethings that I'd judge to be frail enough to be harmless. But I've also seen some teenage weaklings that would be considered equally harmless. The time for using judgement would've been when this woman made the decision not pay her ticket, not when the cops pulled her over. She might have thought that she'd get a free pass for being a little old lady, or she might have reasoned that she might not be around by the time a warrant was issued. Whatever her reasoning, she judged poorly. Or she forgot. In which case perhaps she isn't as independent and capable as her dear son so emphatically attests. And she squandered yet another opportunity to use good judgement when she let her inspection sticker and registration expire. If there is a warrant issued for your arrest, good judgement should tell you that giving the cops a reason to pull you over might not be the best idea. Yes, there were some lapses in judgement here, but not on the part of the cops.
12:12 PM
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
While We're At It...
Since the solution to any problem seems to be passing additional laws, even if the behavior causing the problem is already considered outside the law, and someone's dislike of something is sufficient grounds for legislation, I submit the following:
I propose a ban on any bumper stickers with "pro-environment" messages on any vehicle that belches smoke or drips toxic fluids. If the smoke from your tailpipe has deposited a layer of film over your "Save Our Springs" such as to render it unreadable, then perhaps "educating" those driving behind you shouldn't be your biggest concern. Ditto if you can always find your way home by the trail of oil/antifreeze/etc. that your car deposits everywhere you go. Barton Springs blind salamanders aren't too fond of motor oil runoff, even if the source is a filthy unwashed hippie.
I recognize that driving around in a smoldering heap of an old Isuzu isn't strictly legal now and that the owner can be compelled to fix the vehicle such that it doesn't smoke or take it off the road. But since it seems nothing is stopping anybody else from proposing their various asinine schemes, I thought I'd go ahead and jump into the fray.
Besides, most bumper stickers are composed of some sort of plastic (the same stuff which shampoo bottles are made of, for those who have never touched one) which is manufactured using (gasp!) OIL. And it's also a safe assumption that the adhesive holding that "Nader/LaDuke" sticker to your bumper is composed of something other than unadulterated pine sap. So think about it next time you're about to plop down $1.50 for a ""Regime Change" Starts at Home"" sticker. For you just might be supporting Big Oil.
10:34 AM
This dude hit the nail right on the head.
12:43 PM
Scorcher indeed
Disclaimer: I am writing this from a desk in Austin, Texas. A high of less than 90° in Austin is cause to spend a pleasant day outside playing golf or other sports, or merely basking in the comfortable weather. In SF it's cause for alarm. So please consider this before becoming enraged at any perceived insensitivity to the plight of these Californians. Granted, today's expected high in SF is greater than the expected high in Austin, but right now everyone in Austin is basking in the cool spring weather knowing it will soon give way to days where a low of 90° would be considered unseasonably cool. Scorchers, if you will.
Things will be heating up today throughout the San Francisco and Monterey bay areas.
The National Weather Service is reporting record-breaking temperatures for today from Sonoma and Marin counties in the north to Monterey and San Benito counties in the south.
After a warm weekend over the entire region, weather officials warn that today's temperatures will soar even higher and warn residents sensitive to heat to take any necessary precautions.
What are these "scorching" temperatures, you ask?
A quick check here reveals that the current temperature is but 66° F. But it's only 10:15 in the morning in San Fran, so I suppose that's fairly warm. The expected high for today is much higher at 89°F. Not only is this scorching temperature front-page news, it is worthy of prominent placement almost at the very top of the page. A high of 89°. Farenheit.
Those planning to be outside over the next few days are advised to take precautions to protect themselves from the heat. The National Weather Service advises reducing outdoor activities if possible, particularly from late morning to early evening.
Yes, be careful out there, for "the next few days" promise to be truly oppressive. A sweltering, 83° INFERNO is predicted for tomorrow, with the highs decreasing steadily throughout the week. Yes, 83°F is the HIGH. Better to go ahead and call in sick for the rest of the week than to risk going outside and baking in an 80° oven.
