bnd.com reports on the Miami incident.
Tired of their bickering and her husband's complaints that he wanted to die, an exasperated Cutler Bay woman asked him if he wanted his pistol.
Yes, he replied -- so she fetched the weapon from another room and tossed it on the couch next to him, police said.
Then he shot himself, fatally, in the head.
Can she be held responsible for something like that? I say yes. Is there precedent for such a position?
In preparing its manslaughter case, Miami-Dade prosecutors Lody Jean and Kathleen Hoague relied on the successful case against Jeramy Ricky Rushing, who in February 1986 gave a cocked, loaded gun to a despondent woman outside a Dania Beach bar.
A Broward County judge dismissed a manslaughter charge against Rushing, but the Fourth District Court of Appeal reinstated it, clearing the way for a trial. In 1992, jurors convicted Rushing and he was sentenced to two years of house arrest plus 300 hours of community service.
Prosecutors said Valerie Jenkins "engaged in a course of conduct that was gross and flagrant, showing reckless disregard for human life'' by giving the loaded gun to her intoxicated husband.
I know our individual responsibility friends won't like that. But maybe they have a big stake in the matter. If everyone is truly individually responsible for his or her own actions and no one else's, then each person can do whatever they want and no one can say anything. It's a convenient philosophy.
The problem is it fails to take into account that we are not individual islands whose actions have no affect on others. In a society of people, our actions and our words have an impact upon those around us, and for that we are responsible.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I'm a libertarian. He said he wanted to die; she tossed him his pistol. I see no problem.
ReplyDeleteSo you oppose assisted suicide, too, Mikeb? I take it, then, that you oppose Oregon's Death with Dignity law, or do you (somehow) make a distinction between suicide with drugs, and suicide with a gun?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a case of assisted suicide. Assisted suicide means a person has demonstrated competence in his or her choice to end their life.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, you had a man who was drunk. A BAC of .14 means his ability to reason was impaired.
Of course, this points up once more that guns lead to more suicide. What do you think would have happened if the wife tossed him a rope or opened the oven door for him?
As a Christian, I agree with MikeB's argument that the person who helped with the suicide by lending the firearm is culpable for their part in the death of another human. Makes no difference to me how they helped, be it with a gun or a knife or Tylenol.
ReplyDeleteAs a libertarian-minded person, however, I would say that they broke no law. What God has to say on the matter and how they will fare in the here-after is another matter.
If I were on that person's jury, they would not be convicted, but I would pray for their soul.
"What do you think would have happened if the wife tossed him a rope or opened the oven door for him?"
ReplyDeleteIt would depend upon several factors, jade. Such as his determination to truly end his life, and his level of intoxication. At .14 BAC, was he too intoxicated to operate a stove? Or stand on a chair and tie a good knot?
Guns are operator-friendly in that there's not a whole lot to figure out. And they're effective.
But suicide, drunk or not, is a separate issue from guns. At best, this is an alcohol issue, or a "why you shouldn't mouth off about committing suicide to your wife unless you mean it" issue.
What do you think would have happened if the wife tossed him a rope or opened the oven door for him?
ReplyDelete...or opened a pill bottle for him, or started his car and closed the garage door, or led him to the side of a bridge? All common forms of suicide that would be every bit as lethal as a gun. Taking the gun out of this equation likely wouldn't have changed the outcome. Taking the woman out or taking the alcohol out may have.
Ruffy lives in his own private universe.
ReplyDeleteIOW, Ruffy would have us believe a drunk man would be sitting in his car in an enclosed garage. His wife would then start the car for him and leave.
It could happen. Really.
Uhhuh.
Mikeb:
ReplyDeleteIf everyone is truly individually responsible for his or her own actions and no one else's, then each person can do whatever they want and no one can say anything.
Bullshit--exactly backwards. When each person is held 100% responsible for his own actions as an individual, accountability is increased. It's people who argue for spreading the responsibility around (thus diluting it), even among those who have done no wrong, who make it easy for the guilty to dodge at least some of their responsibility.
It's a convenient philosophy.
"Convenient" for ethical, responsible people--it's very inconvenient for unethical, irresponsible people, who now can't blame their shitty decisions on their being "victims of society," or some such bullshit excuse.
IOW, Ruffy would have us believe a drunk man would be sitting in his car in an enclosed garage. His wife would then start the car for him and leave.
ReplyDeleteAfter saying that he wanted to die, she brought him a pistol. I don't think it is a stretch to say that she would assist with another method if there was a lack of firearms in the house. You anti-gunners really get caught up in your own bullshit sometimes.
Anonymous said, "It would depend upon several factors, jade. Such as his determination to truly end his life."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly right. The more efficient the means of death, the less your determination has to be. A half-hearted attempt with a gun to the temple, one with misgivings and mixed feelings is liable to be fatal. Not true of the pills or rope or razor.
Zorro, I don't oppose assisted suicide. Jadegold already told you this has nothing to do with that. More misdirection on your part. Are you feeling a bit tired?
ReplyDelete"That's exactly right. The more efficient the means of death, the less your determination has to be. A half-hearted attempt with a gun to the temple, one with misgivings and mixed feelings is liable to be fatal. Not true of the pills or rope or razor."
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not quite right, MikeB. There's plenty of cases of people attempting to shoot themselves and end up causing themselves severe damage, yet they didn't kill themselves. Sometimes they disfigure themselves, and sometimes they blow their jaw off, and sometimes they simply fail to die from the wound.
One of the more humorous (in a dark and twisted way) is the guy who shot himself in the head with a hunting rifle after taking his estranged wife hostage, then holding the police at bay. The bullet passed through the frontal lobe and exited without further damage.
When the police entered, they fully expected to find him minus a head. Instead, he was unconscious, with a chunk of the top of his skull missing, but otherwise unharmed. The wife witnessed the entire thing, and explained what had happened. He woke up in the hospital days later, and insisted to know why the police has shot him. He didn't remember much, but he vaguely remembered the police being there, and assumed they shot him. He lobotomized himself. Strangely enough, the wife reported later that he wasn't such an asshole nowadays, and much easier to get along with.
Suicide is always dependant upon the determination of the person, but the tool is just a tool. Some work better than others, but the reality is guys will choose methods that are messy and usually successful. Women will choose methods less likely to make a mess, and take longer (pills, razors in the tub, carbon monoxide, etc.)
Taking aways guns might stop some people, but realistically, anyone with the determination to kill themselves will find a way.
Suicide is not a gun issue.
This comment from Zorro got stuck somewhere. My e-mail alert picked it up but I didn't see it here.
ReplyDelete************************
Mikeb:
Zorro, I don't oppose assisted suicide. Jadegold already told you this has nothing to do with that.
Look, genius, you're the one who first called it "assisted suicide" (in the title, no less), so if you have a problem with it being called "assisted suicide," even you should be bright enough to not have any trouble finding the person responsible for calling it that, and whining at him. Second, Jadefool brought up his "point" about it not being assisted suicide after I had brought up Oregon's Death with Dignity law, so what's this crap about he "already told me"?
Finally, Jade's objection to the use of that term was on the basis of the fact that the man was drunk at the time. Fair enough (that's correct, legally, although it's hard to argue that what the man did wasn't suicide, or that the accused didn't allegedly assist in that endeavor). Are you going to tell me that you wouldn't have gotten on your self-righteous high horse if the guy had been sober?
Are you feeling a bit stupid(er than usual)?
No Zorro, I'm not feeling stupid at all. I used "Assisted Suicide" in the title in a facetious way. You then got all serious and linked to the Death and Dignity folks. Did you really miss the figure of speech I was using in the title and take it seriously? No, of course you didn't, so why are you getting all huffy now?
ReplyDeleteFrom Zorro via Yahoo:
ReplyDelete********************
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
Did you really miss the figure of speech I was using in the title and take it seriously?
As I have pointed out before, your "jokes" and "figures of speech" are often nigh-indistinguishable from assertions you make, and ideas you advocate, apparently in complete seriousness.
Besides, as I mentioned (thanks for posting my comment, by the way--Blogspot has been going goofy with my comments quite a lot recently), while this incident would fail (on a number of counts) to satisfy the legal requirements for the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, it can hardly be said that he didn't commit suicide, or that the woman didn't assist. Sure sounds like assisted suicide to me, and remember, you prefer to deal with ethical issues, rather than legal ones.
I'll ask again if you would have been fine with this, if it had met every requirement of Oregon's law, except for the use of a gun, rather than pharmaceuticals.
No of course I wouldn't have been OK with it. The guy was drunk and depressed. Those are not acceptable criteria for suicide. Are they for you?
ReplyDeleteAre you asking if I could be OK with assisted suicide in certain situations? Yes.
Thanks again for going to the trouble of posting my comments that Blogspot loses--that's going well above and beyond. I meant it when I said that you are under no obligation to refrain from deleting any comment you choose, but posting lost ones yourself is far more than I'd dare ask.
ReplyDeleteThose are not acceptable criteria for suicide. Are they for you?
A person who wants to commit suicide doesn't need my "acceptance" of his decision--I have no legitimate right to interfere.
Besides, when I said, " . . . if it had met every requirement of Oregon's law, except for the use of a gun, rather than pharmaceuticals," I was referring to a hypothetical situation in which the guy was not drunk, and was in all other ways mentally competent. I didn't make that very clear.