In Search of Common Understanding

by sothball on Apr 10, 2009 10:31 PM PDT Comment 47 comments

I could really use your help. Really. Like most of you, I have gone through a full spectrum of emotions over the last few days. Among other places, I have come to HH looking for…emotional support, understanding or insights that can help ease of the pain and shock.

In attempting to find solace, I have instead found comments that frankly have prodded greater angst than nothing at all. Some examples;

In response to a comment asking to show compassion for the driver of the vehicle that killed 3 people, I wrote this:

“I believe (HH commenter) is a decent person and sees the world through decent eyes. So, his natural reaction – since he has a conscience – is that this driver will "suffer" from the painful vision of the dead dancing through his conscience.
Unfortunately, there is a small but significant percentage of humanity that that has no conscience and no empathy for others. Remember Richard Spect? He murdered 5 nursing students in a most horrific manner. His conscience was so "troubled" he videotaped himself in prison having sex, doing drugs, and generally having a great time. On one of his bootleg videos, he was asked by his "partner" if he regretted the murders. His response? Well, I don’t want to repeat it here…not at this time, and not in this thread. I will only say that it was not consistent with a decent man with an empathetic soul.
And so it goes…people like (HH commenter) have the best of intentions. (HH commenter) means no harm, and in fact looks to "help" us and others. He represents the general legal – and sometimes moral – thinking of our times…these are really good souls that have somehow been led astray by their life circumstances (poverty, abuse, addiction, etc). Yes, they deserve punishment for their crimes, but they also deserve our compassion.
And the indecent, conscienceless souls – like Pol Pot, Cory Stayner, Mohamed Atta, Tim McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Josef Goebbels, Saddam Hussein, and so many others whose own compassions extends only to the space they occupy – look at the decent in their midst and think, what fools, what cowardly stupid fools.
We seek compassion, they seek their pleasure. Hope you don’t get in their way.”

..and this…

“There isn’t an inexhaustible supply of human qualities or values, and that includes compassion. If you spend compassion on Andrew Gallo, you have that much less to spend on others far more deserving.

Assuming you live in an urban/sub-urban area, I bet within a 5 mile radius of your home, I could find THOUSANDS of people far more deserving of compassion that are currently receiving NONE of your sympathies. And these are people that have paid their taxes, fought in wars, volunteered their services and generally carried the burdens society has placed upon them without complaining, whining, or asking for favors.

So you really want to show compassion? Volunteer some time at a senior center. Mentor a child struggling with their homework. Donate blood. Do you have any idea how low the blood banks are at this time? Make a donation to Habitat for Humanity. Help a friend through AA or Narcanon. And once you are done helping all of those within your 5 mile circle, if you still have compassion to spend on the likes of Andrew Gallo, go for it.”

In response to a comment that the driver will get what he deserves, my reply was;

"He will get what he deserves? Where? When? How? What earthly punishment can we possibly dispense that could ever make up for the lives destroyed or forever altered? A lifetime in jail will make up for what he has done? BULLSHIT.

10 years from now, this bastard will likely be pumping iron, eating 3 meals a day, laughing and joking with his other prison “homeys”, checking out girlie magazines, receiving conjugal visits, reading books, watching TV, and a whole host of other human activities. Meanwhile, Nick Adenhart and the other victims will be a fading memory of “what might have been”.
Please…don’t think for a moment we can dispense “justice”. We can’t even come close.
There is noting – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING – we can administer to make-up for what he has taken. NOTHING.”

…and this…

“Unbelievable. You just agreed above that there are “…thousands more deserving people…” all around us.
But you didn’t make a call to compassion for those thousands. Instead, you spent your efforts asking for compassion toward an individual far more deserving of contempt…and then people wonder why the world seems upside down.
I’m not surprised…this is the result of our “educational” system.
Your views will likely prevail…Andrew Gallo will likely be the recipient of compassion long before – if ever – it is dispensed to the deserving thousands.”

For those to whom the comments were directed, please forgive the tone. In retrospect, the words may have been overly aggressive, although I stand by the ideas.

I have no interest in embarrassing or ridiculing anyone.

There is no attempt here to pick a fight.

I hope I’m not crapping on anyone’s faith or beliefs.

The goal here is really simple…to understand and try to make sense of these senseless, devastating deaths because it is STILL painful and I cannot look at Nick's photo and think how sad, how wrong, how unnecessary.

There are many intelligent and thoughtful members of the HH community. Please, if you see holes in the logic of my comments above, write a comment! If you think I am missing something, respond! If you want to add a completely unrelated note than can be helpful to me and to others, share it with us!

I promise you I will be respectful of your arguments and thoughts in a search for some measure of common understanding, and in trying to answer the question, "What is the best reaction to these nightmarish events?"

Whatever you thoughts, may you find peace and comfort in your lives, "...with malice toward none, with charity toward all".

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

0 recs | Comment 47 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hang in there Sothball...

This was quite the post! We will all deal with this in our own strange and individual ways…emotions are running high and close to the surface. I found myself giddy while making fun of KMo’s inability to field the “4 hopper throw” from Figgins tonight. I got to laughing so hard I was crying…while watching and posting in the game thread. Frankly, my belief is why should we as taxpayers pay for this idiot to remain in jail for the next 10 years…? His irresponsible actions directly caused the deaths of 3 individuals and critically injured a couple others. Not very humane or compassionate of me, but hey…hang in there and don’t take what others post too seriously!

Miss you Nick...! RIP

by K3YEROUT on Apr 10, 2009 10:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with K3.......we all deal with this in our own way.......

I was so happy to have baseball again today to focus on…..

HH is like my own little sanctuary………its where I go when all the things in the rest of the world dont make sense…….because this place…..and you all, my fellow Angels fans….and this Angels team……makes sense…

Godspeed Nick - RIP - 1986-2009

by norcaliangelsfan on Apr 10, 2009 11:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Tough one Sothball

First of all, I don’t think we know yet if the guy is inheritantly evil like the serial killer guy. He may have woke up the next morning totally devastated. We don’t really know his whole story or character yet.

For a misguided youth (many 22 year olds are still kids), who has an alcohol problem and is not inheritantly evil, I would say that he will suffer plenty. I don’t think they will show too much mercy to this guy. They (judicial system) will throw the book at him because it is a high profile case and they will want/have to make an example out of this case.

If the guy is inheritatantly evil like the serial killer guy, you may have to go to work on him with a pair of pliers and a blow torch to make him suffer.

Now, in the Christian view, this guy can receive salvation and forgiveness and some day join Nick in Heaven. I think.

On a different issue:
I mentioned in the game posting that Frankie would almost always come into the game if it was a save opportunity, so I wondered if Fuentes would come in. (I believe this might have some significance to his role as our absolute closer). Zu Long gave me the 0_0; reply, which I think means I am a total loser. Sure enough, Shields finished of the save opportunity. Do you think Fuentes hold on closer is up for grabs?

Angel Pitching (Adenhart), Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Apr 10, 2009 11:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

When I said "0_0;"

I was indicating surprise that Fuentes WAS, in fact, not coming into the game. You are correct that unless hurt or really low on steam, Frankie ALWAYS came in for the save.

As to why, I can only speculate, as before in the game topic, that Mike decided to allow the lefty/righty splits determine his pitching choice. I think we won’t see that if Shields has pitched a full inning earlier in the game, but we may see Scott go 1.1 a lot if the situation requires it.

Anyway sorry for the misunderstanding, and I apologize for making you feel like a loser.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 10, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was trying to be funny

No human being can make me feel like a loser.

Except for maybe Brad Pitt.

Angel Pitching (Adenhart), Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Apr 10, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh

and when I looked up 0_0 it said “a state of shock, or dumbfound” by the comment.
I embellished upon the meaning I read in order to make your remark sound worse than it was.

Angel Pitching (Adenhart), Angel Defense - get past that.

by vladtheimpaler on Apr 10, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I wasn't the guy you originally talked to

but I’m going to try and answer your questions anyway.

I make a point of retaining compassion for those sorts of people because ultimately it is my compassion for others which separates me from them. As your rightly point out, they are the hardest people to remain compassionate for, and that makes it important to struggle to do so anyway, if for no other reason than that they are still a fellow human being. That alone endows them with a certain level of dignity below which I would rather not let them fall.

Let me be clear that “compassion” doesn’t mean forgiveness. I am of the opinion that there are some things in this world that only the Almighty can forgive, or at the very least, I am certain that there are things which I cannot.

You also speak of compassion as a resource, to be spent or used up. I don’t think that’s quite right. “Compassion” is rather a mindset, the recognition of what I posted above, that whatever they may have done, however low they may sink, they are still just as human as me. No matter how monstrous their acts, they cannot be monsters. Gallo too, had dreams, ambitions, loves, hates, friends, and parents. It is impossible to know how much remorse he may be feeling for what he has done. It may be, as with Spect, that he feels none. Then again, it may not.

You paint a picture of 10 years down the road, where he is pumping iron and laughing and watching TV with his homies. I’d like to paint a different one, if I could: one where a 22-year old Gallo is convicted on three counts of murder and sentenced to hard time in a federal penitentiary with other hardened criminals. It just so happens that one of these other criminals is an Angels fan, and he had a couple hundred on the Halos to take first in the division. Thanks to some losses in April, they’re behind when the trial ends in late August. He doesn’t take kindly to Gallo hurting the Angels’ chances, and makes an example of him. After a few days of brutal beatings and worse in the prison yard and the shower, Gallo is stabbed in the liver with a shiv one night in his cell, a rolled-up sock stuffed into his mouth to keep the guards from hearing his screams. The guards find his body in the morning. There might be a paragraph or two noting his passing in the Times. His family and whatever friends remain have a quiet funeral. He out-lives his victims by all of 5 months.

My story is perhaps more sympathetic, but the Gallo in yours deserves as much compassion as the one in mine, I think. Because much like the terrorists whose torture I do not support, it was never about him in the first place. It’s about me, and the fact that there are things I will and must hold myself above. And that is why I remain compassionate towards Gallo, even though I can’t forgive him.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 10, 2009 11:41 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs

Thoughtful analysis...

There is so much to ponder. Some reactions on forgiveness…

1)The "forgiveness-pushers" that emerge after similar horrible events and instantly offer forgiveness – even though the perpetrators haven’t even asked for forgiveness!!! – occupy a special place of contempt in my conscience. Dante should have added a 10th ring for these folks.
2) Though I have been emotionally wracked the last couple of days, the depth of my despair is immeasurably miniscule compared to the family and friends most directly affected. In this context, I consider it chutzpah to even think in terms of forgiveness. It is THEIR consciences that should weigh the question and respond, and I would give their judgment a great deal of latitude. I would move on to considering other questions (like how can we best prevent similar future occurrences?)
3) If I was Nick’s father, I would want to see public acknowledgment from the driver that he is truly sorry, regretful and remorseful, that he fully understood the ruined lives caused by his reckless negligence. Given that, I would then be compelled to offer forgiveness…hard as it may be.
4) Even after forgiveness, I would still want his punishment carried to the end. He still has to "pay" – in our rather feeble attempt at "justice" – a debt to the balance of our society, and to send a message to future drunk drivers the potential consequences of their acts.

Next up (don’t know that it will be today) some thoughts on human monsters…

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zu, you are an analytical guy, and I have a lot of respect for your posts and comments.

Otherwise, I would not spend so much time in responding.

Part of your comment above really caught my attention, because I so fully disagree with it. Here is the quote:

"No matter how monstrous their acts, they cannot be monsters. Gallo too, had dreams, ambitions, loves, hates, friends, and parents."

I will grant that we don’t know enough about Andrew Gallo, and – at this time – I would not paint him as a human monster.

Now take your quote above and insert these names; Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and Slobodan Milosevic. These are just a few that intentionally and purposefully planned the execution/genocide of fellow humans. And look and the chaos they caused in the world.
These bastards had dreams, ambitions, loves, hates, friends, and parents…you really don’t believe these were human monsters? My take is that they were monsters in human form.

by sothball on Apr 12, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Believe it or not, those were the people I had in mind when I said it.

My reasoning is this: By re-designating those people as “monsters,” we overlook and ignore the ability of the human being to do such things. The mind shrinks from the thought that a flesh and blood person just like ourselves was capable of committing such atrocities. And so we re-designate them as something more terrible and fiendish, a monster or boogeyman with whom we can safely associate their crimes. They become a different class altogether and we can think to ourselves, “well, but they were DIFFERENT.” And to be fair, they WERE different to a certain extent, but they were still human beings.

The other thing re-designation does is allow us to absolve the REST of humanity for allowing, and even helping, these people to do what they did. Hitler and Stalin didn’t personally execute every one of the millions of people we hold them responsible for killing. Those were HUMANS pushing the button at Auschwitz. Those were HUMANS machine-gunning prisoners into mass graves. Those were HUMANS standing guard in the gulags. By calling Hitler and Stalin monsters and throwing all, or even the majority of the blame onto them, we create the impression that the people who did their bidding were brainwashed puppets with no will or thought of their own. And while it may be comforting to think that, at the end of the day I find that the simple truth is there are no such things as monsters. Only people.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 13, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe we will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

I think the telling quote from what you posted above is this;

"By re-designating those people as "monsters," we overlook and ignore the ability of the human being to do such things."

Indeed I agree…and that is part of why we don’t act soon enough to keep the next monster in line from creating equal – or worse – havoc, destroying 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 or more lives in the process. In the case of Hitler, the warning signs were abundantly clear of his intentions…much the same as Hamas and Hezbollah are today. And the world to this point has had about as feeble a response…let’s negotiate, they really don’t mean they want to destroy all Jews, their demands are reasonable. And so it goes. I prefer that if it looks like a monster, acts like a monster, and smells like a monster, we call it a monster. Just look at Josh Beckett…
I share what you say in regard to those that participated in the slaughter of innocents. With reference to the Holocaust, they were a part of a massively horrible machine. In general, I don’t consider them "monsters". Why? There is a HUGE difference. If they openly resisted (as some courageous citizens did…Schindler, Miep Gies and so on), they were subject to arrest, imprisonment, or worse depending on the strength of their resistance. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Milosevic…any of these guys could have simply put a stop to the slaughter of innocents by simply saying "Stop!". Rather than stop it, they reveled in it. I am sure you heard that late in ’44 & early in ’45 as Germany was growing weaker by the day, the train schedules ferrying more Jews to the gas chambers kept chugging along…tends to highlight the Nazi’s priorities. I share their DNA…I don’t share their depravity. They are NOT like the rest of us. Giving them the term “human” tend to uplift their status to a level of respect they lost with the first humans they were responsible for butchering.

by sothball on Apr 13, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That first paragraph has some agreement problems.

You say you agree with this statement:

“By re-designating those people as “monsters,” we overlook and ignore the ability of the human being to do such things."

You go on to describe how this re-designation makes it tougher to spot the “monsters” BEFORE they do things. Then you end by saying you prefer it if we do call them “monsters.”

Not sure if the Beckett thing was a joke or what.

As far as the second paragraph, the fact remains that Hitler only had that power because a significant percentage of the population wanted him to have it. Resistors were subject to arrest etc. by other members of their own community. There’s an interesting tense shift in the middle, from ‘Hitler’ to ‘Nazis.’ Faced with the reality that there were a great many more people than Hitler who were culpable in this, you reflexively reached back for a new “monster” label that would cover them. THEY were depraved. THEY weren’t like the rest of us. Do you see what you are doing with those statements?

Allow me to present you with a hypothetical scenario: You grow up in Germany in the 1930s and are taught—TAUGHT—that the Nazi credo is the one truth of the world. All your neighbors agree with it, all the schoolbooks say it is so. With that in mind, what informs you that what the Nazi’s are doing is depraved?

It’s this question we don’t want to ask ourselves, because the truth is that however much we HOPE that we would have tapped into some inner moral reserve like the courageous few you mention, the odds are we would have shot the Jews when we were told to, just like the rest of the Germans at the time. They weren’t monsters. They were people, and to have any hope of stopping those kinds of atrocities from happening in the future, we have to recognize it.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 13, 2009 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point in response was...

…by designating these people as monsters, we actually HIGHLIGHT the ability of “the human animal” to do such things (that is unspeakable acts of depravity to other fellow humans).
Just curious…do you believe it would have helped to label Adolph Hitler as a human…just like the rest of of with hopes and dreams and love and feeling that simply had this…problems with Jews (and gays and socialists and those born with birth defects, etc)?

by sothball on Apr 13, 2009 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

BTW, I forgot to mention...

..yes, the comment on Beckett was a joke…dropping a small amount of humor in an otherwise serious comment.

by sothball on Apr 13, 2009 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it helps to realize humans are capable of what Adolf Hitler did. It also helps to understand how and why

the German people followed him, and why that was human. In order to prevent it from happening again, you have to understand why it happened the first time. You can’t really do that if you’ve decided monsters were responsible.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 13, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I think a fundamental dichotomy between us…we both agree humans are capable of unspeakable horror toward fellow human beings. The difference is you prefer to maintain they we continue to avoid the label “monsters”, even AFTER they have committed monstrous acts.
Richard Allen Davis…kidnapped a young girl from her home, threatened her 12 year old friend with a knife, raped her, murdered her, and unceremoniously dumped her in a grave. Sounds like he went well out of the way to earn the label “monster” to me! At his sentencing hearing, he (or rather it) had the opportunity to offer some sense of an apology or…some sign it actually had human feeling for the horror committed by it’s own deeds. Instead, it decided to claim that – prior to it’s final butchery of this child – it decided to claim that she had been sodomized by her own father.
Monster to me, but not to you. This is a fundamental distinction in views that cannot be reconciled. You will have your view, I will never change mine. Further, it is the view of those that believe he deserves “compassion” that leads to this. Sick, twisted and disgusting to these eyes.
So, I titled this post “in search of common understanding”. For the purposes of labeling monsters/non-monsters, it appears I will need to keep searching for common understanding. But thanks for responding.

by sothball on Apr 14, 2009 8:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is basically it.

The difference is you prefer to maintain they we continue to avoid the label "monsters", even AFTER they have committed monstrous acts.

The act of de-humanizing someone whom we abhor is a pretty easy and even natural thing to do, but I try to avoid as I think it blinds us.

As far as Richard Allen Davis, I’m not sure what is sick or twisted about that page. While I don’t necessarily agree with the CCADP’s goal of getting Davis off death row (again, compassion and forgiveness are two very different things), I don’t know why it would be evil to simply post his thoughts on his impending death. It’s not impossible that in his years in prison he had gained some wisdom.

At the very least though, be assured that I understand your feelings on the subject. I just don’t agree with them.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 14, 2009 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I rarely make assumptions about those with whom I dialog…

I believe it interferes with the thought process. After reading the above, I will make an assumption that you could not possibly be a parent.
I believe 99.9999999% of all parents – regardless of faith, culture, social standing – would have an immediate visceral disgust when they learned their 12 year-old daughter’s murderer was having his "thoughts" posted on a website.
Just try to put yourself in the shoes of Mark Klass…your daughter kidnapped from her own bedroom, sodomized and murdered. When the murderer finally has the opportunity to show some sense – ANY sense – of remorse, he instead attacks YOU and accuses YOU of incest against the murdered. So while your daughter’s voice has been silenced forever, you find that there are people that will actually give a voice to the murderer. I keep searching, but I can’t seem to find any compassion there for Mark Klass. Maybe I just missed it.
If you were a parent, I think you just might have a slightly different view toward hearing any "wisdom" coming from the murderer.

by sothball on Apr 15, 2009 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You wouldn't need to make an assumption for that one.

I’m not a parent. I’m sure you are right about Mark Klass’s reaction to a site featuring his daughter’s murderer. However, I am not Mark Klass, and while I can put myself in his shoes, and do empathize with his tragedy, I stand by what I said. There are other places, other spaces, in which we remember the deceased. That space is for remembering Davis, whatever kind of person you think he was. If you would rather not, and I feel confident that Klass wouldn’t, then don’t go there. But that doesn’t make it abhorrent or evil.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 15, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What you have done is prove my original point about compassion.

You extend compassion to the murderer, but then show as much compassion as the Terminator for the victim’s father.

As writtten in the Talmud, “Those who are kind to the cruel, in the end will be cruel to the kind.”

Too bad you are unable to wrap your conscience around this appropriate nugget of wisdom.

by sothball on Apr 16, 2009 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This conversation seems to be upsetting you

so I won’t continue it after this post. However, I do feel that you do me injustice by suggesting I show no compassion toward Klass. In no way have I suggested Klass’s actions or feelings render him inhuman. Under the definition I provided of compassion, that would mean I continue to show compassion to him as well. I maintain my respect for the basic humanity of both criminal and victim.

At any rate, I apologize that despite my best efforts, I couldn’t help you understand.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 16, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Upset? Nah!!!

Have you seen some of my…um…inane posts elsewhere today on HH? Now a week ago at this time was a FAR different story…
You seem like a good, decent person so you don’t upset me. Evil people upset me. I don’t believe you are anywhere near evil. Beside, your views are about the same as mine from about 25 years ago (before kids).

No need to apologize. The fault is mine for the inability to make a persuasive argument. Speaking of which…

Imagine you are sitting in a room. You have Mark Klass on your left, and Richard Allen Davis on your right. Okay…some security guards too. The subject? Compassion. So you turn to Richard Allen Davis and say, "What you did to Mr. Klass’s daughter, was evil, cruel, mean-spirited, awful, horrible, disgusting, and – most of all – UNFORGIVABLE! But I want you to know that – in spite of all of this – I still have compassion for you because…well…you and I are fellow human beings". And then you turn to Mark Klass and say, "But don’t take offense Mr. Klass because – despite your contempt for Mr. Davis – I have compassion for you too". Do you believe Mr. Klass might have a somewhat diminished view of your compassion? A simple yes or no response would be sufficient. And I promise after that, this will be complete.

by sothball on Apr 16, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I'd phrase what I said to Klass differently... >_>;

But I doubt it would ultimately make a difference. No.

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 16, 2009 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To put it another way,

I don’t really feel obligated to mention my compassion for Klass, because his humanity is not in doubt.

Mr. Klass has my thoughts, my prayers, and my hopes that he can overcome the tragedy in his life.

Mr. Davis has my recognition of his basic humanity.

See the difference?

~Till the Halo burns out...

by Zu Long on Apr 16, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

mon dieu...

this post lives?

RIP Nick Adenhart - Angel fans will never forget you!

by Downing Rules on Apr 16, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I see in my theoretical room...

…is Mr. Klass doesn’t even qualify for a nod in the direction of compassion because you, “…don’t really feel obligated to mention my compassion for Klass, …his humanity is not in doubt”. Instead, you will turn away from Mr.Klass and toward the murderer to assure him of your compassion. So…who gets the actual expression of your compassion, the murderer, or the victims of the murderer?
I can only repeat again…“Those who are kind to the cruel, in the end will be cruel to the kind”.

by sothball on Apr 17, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easy:

Emotions are not logical. Trying to use rational analysis of feelings when you are not a dispassionate observer is impossible.

In a year, look back. The comprehension takes about that long. We have ceremonies and songs to help us cope during the time we cannot truly analyze the emotion.

by Rev Halofan on Apr 11, 2009 2:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree emotions are not logical...kind of like mixing day and night.

I also agree time can – usually – give better context to our reactions.

To your final point, I don’t believe I want to "…analyze the emotion". What I want is to determine;
1) What do we learn from this? I mean, what do we do with this steaming pile of…?
2) Is there anything we can do to assist the victims and their families?
3) As a society, what can we do to minimize future occurrences of the acts?
4) What are the best ways we can turn this into positive, pragmatic action?
5) What is an appropriate (if even possible) punishment for the driver?

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good people may see things differently

For my part, I don’t feel any particular compassion for Gallo, because he utterly and repeatedly failed to show compassion for society in general by repeatedly refusing to refrain from getting behind the wheel when he was roaring drunk. But I don’t think Zu’s compassion is necessarily wrong-headed nor misplaced, because it is perfectly human to feel a certain empathy for a person in a bad situation, however he got there

As far as justice is concerned, I don’t think we need worry that Gallo won’t receive a just punishment. As I understand the facts of the matter, he is good for three counts of second-degree murder (called “Watson murder” in legal terms), not to mention several other felonies, and will be in state prison until he is an old man.

Sothball, from your other posts I’ve gotten the impression that you are a good-hearted person, and I would strongly caution you not to try to figure this all out while the pain is still fresh. It’s like a ballplayer with an injury: the situation can’t accurately be assessed until the swelling goes down. I know that for my part, today is the first day that I’ve really been able to talk about the situation much at all.

Nick Adenhart, RIP

by rspencer on Apr 11, 2009 2:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thank you.

I understand the caution about trying to figure it out “…while the pain is still fresh”. I acknowledge some aspect will NEVER be figured out. Things have happened and they just cannot be rationalized or explained. they just ARE. It doesn’t matter if we accept, reject, or ignore. They exist in spite our our ability to deal with their presence.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and kind words. Take care.

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where do you draw the line...

on who’s worthy of compassion and who’s not? If you allow your heart to become hardened to certain people or certain instances you run the risk of becoming hard-hearted towards everyone.

I agree with Zu Long (if in fact this is his opinion), forgiveness and compassion are two different things.

I was uncool before uncool was cool.

by WiHaloFan on Apr 11, 2009 7:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

where you draw the line

it has nothing to do with a hard heart towards all, but a firm hand to those who by their actions, do wrong to others. some wrongs are debatable (downloading music for free). other wrongs are inconsequential (california stops). other wrongs are malum in se (evil on its face). there’s no need to overthink such basic and common sense notions of right and wrong, good and evil, fair and unfair. having a hard heart for what mr. gallo did the other night does not prevent most of us from having a heavy heart for nick’s mom and dad. there are plenty of instances where drawing the line is a difficult task. this case is not one of them.

~cmh

by SoCalCMH on Apr 11, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A kindred spirit!

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe drawing the line is that difficult, individual to individual.

About 7 years ago a superintendent that worked for my company was involved in a drunk driving "accident". Call him Mark for this story. He was good guy…worked hard and married with 2 kids. When the accident occurred, he was 26 years old.
His future brother in law was about to get married…they went to Tiajuana for a bachelor party…where they got extremely drunk. Coming back home, traffic was slowing at "checkpoint Charlie" near San Clemente. Mark never did slow down and proceeded to smash into the vehicle in front of them. Fortunately, the people in front of them were not killed but they had significant injuries (broken bones, cuts and bruises). Mark’s brother-in-law was thrown through the windshield. Last I heard, he was still in a semi-vegetative state. Mark emerged from the accident with no significant injuries.
Mark had been living with his in-laws. They were so disgusted that they threw him out. That was before he was tried and convicted. Mark was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Among so much more, he lost his, job, his truck, his family and his freedom. The last time I spoke with him we was genuinely a broken man.

I recount this to explain…I can understand there are some fellow humans who commit horrific acts, yet may be still be deserving of some level of compassion. They fall into…a compassionate gray area.
So where do I draw the line? The answer is sort of like the Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography "…I know it when I see it…".
Do you really think any of the names I mentioned in the original post above are worthy of any compassion? I don’t. My heart remains cold and contemptible to these individuals. No remorse whatsoever.

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're OK, sothball

Tough times on us all. I stand by what Zu Long wrote above, too. I think, in a way, my use of the word “compassion” for the emotion maybe wasn’t the best one to use. What I was getting at is a sadness: sadness that another life, Gallo’s life, has been completely wasted because he decided to ignore the law and the value of three other people’s lives, and got behind the wheel when he was drunk. This is a separate feeling from the anger and shock and hurt I feel at what he did. But it’s saddening that five lives, his included, are now gone because of one stupid choice.

RIP Nick Adenhart.

"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5

by Clutch on Apr 11, 2009 10:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Response...

…I agree with you it is sad this guy has wasted his life. If he actually participated in a church-based Alanon program, then he was exposed to people that attempted to help him realize the good graces that had been bestowed upon him.
We live in a time in history and a place geographically that allows the average individual a maximum of personal freedoms and liberties unthinkable by previous generations, and in fact inaccessible to most inhabitants of this planet. There is no reason each of us should not wake up every single day and thank Providence for our good fortune.
This bastard took the generosity and good will bestowed by society and divine Providence and crapped upon it. He is not deserving of – and is not owed – any further compassion.
Sadness at how he completely f’d up the attempts to help him? Yes. Compassion? No. Definitely no.

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One of the things in the back of my mind

I agree with you on this. But one of the things in the very back of my mind is what if…what “if” Gallo was responding to some emergency of his own?

This question is there, I think, because it’s so hard to believe—to confront, rather—that somebody can be so incredibly callous as to do what he did. I want there to be some other reason.

But the fact is that you are right. He gave a big f****k you to the law, to those who tried to help him, to society, and most especially to Adenhart, to Pearson, to Stewart, to Wilhite, and to all of their families and friends. It didn’t matter to him that he had been given the chance to help himself. F**k all that, he was going to do what he wanted anyway.
Even if he had some reason other than pure stupidity and callousness to get behind that wheel, the act itself manifests a patent and inexcusable disregard for human life and our society.

And you are right that that deserves no further compassion. Maybe when Gallo is 76, or whenever, when he sees the light of day for the first time in at least 55 years, then it will be time to offer him another chance to get his life together and spend the rest of his days—whatever he has left—atoning for what he did and making a positive contribution to society. Maybe if and when he has come to understand just what it is he did—just what it is he took from the world in murdering three people whose lives had yet to begin—and we do not know that ever will grasp it.

But not until then. Part of me wishes it could be otherwise—but Gallo himself has demonstrated, through his own sad, sick, twisted actions, that he neither desires nor needs it to be so.

RIP Nick Adenhart.

"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5

by Clutch on Apr 13, 2009 12:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

compassion is not justice.

compassion is not forgiveness, but compassion is not justice.

there’s a great book about forgiveness, titled “the sunflower” and a jew who was asked to forgive a dying SS soldier some years after the holocaust and world war II. he wasn’t sure what to think and half the book, which is not long gets the responses from all sorts of theologians and philosopher kings about what they would have done. should he have forgiven the man for his evil? his sorrow for what he had done was genuine and as a soldier in hitler’s army, he was simply following orders.

the question is whether or not he should forgive. but the thought he kept coming back to was that he wasn’t qualified to forgive because he wasn’t one of the victims. not everybody agreed with him.

the point about compassion not as forgiveness for the wrongdoer but preservation of the victim, and the survivors of the victim is a good one. but it’s only half the equation.

the other half is justice.

perhaps it is because i have spend the last three and a half years learning the law that i am more interested in the equally important duty of finding justice to a senseless act than in the notion of what constitutes forgiveness and who should be forgiven.

what andrew gallo did was wrong. plain and simple. if it were the first act or a single act that he did, it would be no less permanent to the victims and no less tragic to the world. but what really gets me angry is the perpetual indifference that is shown all to often to DUI’s in our legal system and in our culture. the evil that he did is only surpassed in its calculation and its randomness, in my humble opinion by organized criminals be they in street gangs, mafiosos, or terrorist cells.

and what mr. gallo did last tuesday night/wednesday morning was evil. i know that makes many who come down on the compassion/forgiveness side squeamish. i honestly don’t understand this mentality.

what he did simply makes me angry.

justice addresses what is to be done with mr. gallo.

i don’t envy the person assigned to represent him through the criminal justice system. i couldn’t do it. i wouldn’t do it. and while he is due all of the rights other criminal defendants, and upon his likely conviction and sentencing, the rights of convicted and sentenced criminals are owed in our compassionate society, compassion is not the end in itself, it is the means to the end. that end is justice and when all is said in done a wrong must be righted.

compassion is not justice.
light up the halo.
rip, nick
~cmh

by SoCalCMH on Apr 11, 2009 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If I were his PD

I would be doing everything I could to get Gallo to plead guilty and have it done with. It seems such an open and shut case that to try to tone down the sentence that should be coming to him in any way just seems wrong.

That said, this is a reason why I decided I can’t go in to public defense. I wanted to, for a while, and then realized that this is exactly the type of case I’d be seeing many, many times. I can’t justify getting people like Gallo off. The nature of the system is that if you find the loopholes easily enough, your client—no matter how despicable—gets off or has the sentence reduced. I know a professor who was a PD for some time and quit because he was disgusted at having had to represent some of the most guilty, evil criminals anyone will ever meet—and getting them all off scot free.

RIP Nick Adenhart.

"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5

by Clutch on Apr 11, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The reason you give for not going into public defense...

…that tells me you actually have a conscience. That puts you far ahead (or behind depending on your perspective) of most members of your future profession, and will make it that much more difficult for you to actually practice law.
Without knowing you at all, I like you more already.

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Awww thanks

I heard an excellent point the other day from a current lawyer. He mentioned that he had wanted to protect and defend the defenseless, those often taken advantage of, trashed, destroyed, and denied equal treatment/justice by our justice system. Like me, he had concluded that Public Defense was the way to do this. BUT he realized that the way to prevent unjust prosecution was to become the prosecution—and so he is a DA, getting to decide which cases need to be prosecuted and which charges will assure justice. That strikes me as doing a world of good—which is not at all to speak poorly of Public Defense—because, in the end, innocent people do get charged, some of the guilty get slammed with a charge and a potential stence incredibly disproporationate to their crime, and those people must be defended. I’m not so sure that I’d be a DA, either, because frankly a lot of the violent crime you need to deal with makes me, as I’m sure is the case for most people, really uncomfortable—though this is really my only strong objection to the field. But we’ll see where the path will lead.

Anyway, sorry to get massively off topic!

RIP Nick Adenhart.

"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5

by Clutch on Apr 13, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Passive Agressive Public Defenders:

So I am sitting on a jury, empaneled as an alternate. The trial is about a child molester and all the daming testimony is from the victim’s family, the accused’s family, and multiple past victims, including the current victim, a 10 year-old girl. Gut wrenching stuff.

Each time the prosecutor drove home a major point with a witness, and the witness is turned over to the defense attorney, the defense then spends about 15 minutes asking the very same damning questions that the prosecutor asked – and only those! – invoking a clear and deliberate repeat of the damning testimony just in case there was anybody on the jury who missed it the first time. This went on for two days. The defense attorney made exactly zero attempts to rebut or discount anything being said from the witness stand, or bring forth any testimony in favor of the defendant.

I was stunned that this was happening, and stunned that the judge allowed it to go on. Being an alternate, I was fairly removed from the evaluation process since I realized pretty early on that this was not going to be anything that any of these jurors would have to deliberate on any longer than it would take them to get their free lunches. So I was free to pay more attention to style and tactics.

The case was handed over to the jury and I was dismissed to go home and wait. Sure enough, my call from the foreman came in about 60 minutes later. She thanked me for my service and excused me over the phone. I asked her the verdict. Guilty on all counts. But it was the way she said it, as though I must have been some special kind of idiot to even ask.

I have been conflicted about it ever since. The guy was clearly a menace, and guilty as all hell. But you would think that the one person who was judicially, morally, constitutionally and professionally obligated to be on the side of the defendant would have at least tried. That she did not actually made me feel dirty, as though I was complicit in a sham, however appropriate the cause.

by Stirrups on Apr 13, 2009 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hence

I can’t do it. I don’t know how the system works, and what really happens, clearly, because I haven’t done it and haven’t worked there. Maybe these cases are the exception. You want to defend those who need defending against the things I listed above, but at the same time your job is to ensure justice, not that your client necessarily gets off and walks away free. But I understand, too, that as a PD you probably don’t have a ton of discretion or leeway: if your client is guilty as they come but won’t plead guilty, won’t strike a plea deal despite your best efforts to help out, you’re stuck going to trial on a case you don’t believe in—because the whole thing is overworked and you can’t hand the client off to some other lawyer willing to take the case.

At least that’s my understanding of it. Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong.

RIP Nick Adenhart.

"When the Babe tries to call his shot, I hope Nick puts one in his ear."
--RallyMonkey5

by Clutch on Apr 13, 2009 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only time I was seated as a juror was about 5 years ago…

…and I had similar mis-givings about the public defender.

The case was…bleech. Boyfriend tied up girlfriend to the bed frame with duct tape and shoelaces, put a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her. He was charged with false imprisonment and attempted murder. She admitted on the stand that they had both smoked crack and drank heavily earlier in the evening. These 2 had a history…this was the THIRD TIME he had been arrested for similar assaults on the SAME girlfriend.
The public defender – hate to say – was a joke. She was completely unprepared. While cross-examining witnesses, she would repeatedly have to thumb back through notes for basic details that anyone paying attention could recall…like what time the first call was placed, when the sheriff first arrived on the scene…that sort of detail. And no, she wasn’t looking for something impeachable in witness testimony…she simply didn’t hear prior testimony or didn’t know. It was as though she was trying as assure herself of these basic facts of the case. During closing arguments, she had a brain freeze and couldn’t remember the defendant’s name! Every juror looked away, embarrassed for her.

It took us all of about an hour to convict the defendant. There was really nothing exculpatory presented to us…he didn’t testify on his own behalf. Plus seeing the ball of duct tape up close with her hair still embedded was especially jarring.

Oh did I forget to mention? This was a 3 strikes case as well.

I came away with so many conflicting thoughts. Bloody friggin’ moral nightmare.

by sothball on Apr 13, 2009 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kindred spirit redux!

I draw a lot of inspiration in my thinking from Abraham Lincoln. I didn’t realize the true greatness of the man until a read more of him in depth.
Two qualities I admire most; 1) His absolutely firm and unshakable resolve to bring the Southern states back into the fold no matter the personal, political, or national costs, and 2) His lack of malice toward the renegade states and their representatives once they finally accepted defeat.

I draw a lot of inspiration from Lincoln’s behaviors and decisions. It is more or less the type of resolve we can use today, but that is mostly absent from most of our current political, social, religious, business, and educational leaders. I suppose that should not be so surprising…courage is truly the rarest of human traits.

As far as defending an accused criminal, I could do it if I thought they were innocent. But defend a guy like Andrew Gallo? No way. I wouldn’t deny him representation, but there is no way I could ever and attempt to protect his presumed innocence. I would rather rot in hell…

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just don't know

I have nothing to contribute to this dialogue about the normative concepts of justice and compassion. I was away when all of this happened.

After that wonderful opening night I hit the road the next morning with my ol’ lady (who would never stand to be called Missus Necrosis, so I won’t try) and we went up to Monterey and Salinas for the vacation we’ve been looking forward to for months now. We had no laptop with us, no internet access. And I could not find a single spot near Cannery Row to watch a Halos game at. So I just figured I’d catch up when I got back into town.

One day, after wandering from from tasting room to tasting room and devouring fresh seafood, I stumbled back to my hotel, remembering that my ol’ lady said my phone beeped that morning. There’s a text from my buddy Scott, who doesn’t follow baseball but knows my passions: “Sorry if this is too early for you but Nick Adenhart died in a car crash last night.”

Naturally, I told my ol’ lady. She acknowledged it, but she doesn’t follow sports. Because she loves me, she’s taught herself who Vladdy, Figgy, Simi (Weaver), Torii, Frankie, and Thee Olde Manne are. But I had to explain to her who Nick was.

My eyes have been borderline shrink-wrapped for days now, once it set in, and there’s no one in my post-punk, postmodern life who can understand just how heavy this is.

So I was happy to get home to Halos Heaven, and happy I can reconnect, in this weird 21st century manner, to people who share my sense of loss. (But for posterity, my loss is nothing. Mr and Mrs Adenhart – I just can’t imagine what that could be like. How an adult goes on living and remembering to breathe after burying their child, I just can’t imagine.)

So again, I’m thankful this community is here, even if my sentiments are posted two days behind the zeitgeist, and even if most people here can’t stand my usual cabernet-fueled contributions.

Thanks. See you at the game tomorrow.

"I've got more action than my man John Woo
And I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew" - Shure Shot, The Beastie Boys

by Zoe Necrosis on Apr 11, 2009 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It is remarkable how it affects more that are "in the community".

My wife is also a die hard fan – perhaps more so than me – and she was crying again this evening. It hits a little close to us in a couple of ways;
1) Our son is only about a year older than Nick.
2) Until about a month ago, our daughter was driving a Mitsubishi Eclipse, very similar to the one Courtney was driving.
3) We had gone to an ST game about 3 weeks ago and saw Nick pitch.

It is just so jarring to be reminded that a life is like some weird cosmic lottery and our number may or may not be coming up and we all know the grim reaper is out there somewhere but we try to ignore it and enjoy life and escape into what we enjoy and then the next lottery pick is a young pitcher we have been following for a short period of time and they are suddenly gone. Forever.

by sothball on Apr 11, 2009 10:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs