Probably not - we have a deal with squirrels. And pigeons.
There should be a rule you cannot pit dead people. How they died notwithstanding.
Having said that, I will admit to an occasional dark thought while driving with my three kids on a highway and having a couple of motorcyclists whiz by in and out, back and forth freaking out at least 100 cars around and then me scanning the field in front to see if any driver will react and attempt a manoeuvre that could cause a pile up. Believe me, you need to see a motorcycle disappear under the back of the 16-wheeler and a rider scattered all over the highway only once to develop certain attitudes.
Also, I do realize the field for espousing a capacity for adrenaline manufacture has shrunk in a(n) (sub)urban society these days but I just have a strong objection to, in fact utter rejection of, the idea of becoming a little wheel on someone else’s testosterone conveyer.
I may not share OP’s style and strength of beliefs but I sure know where he’s coming from.
As mhendo noted upthread, Roger Ebert took to Twitter to lambast Dunn, and it has sparked some controversy:
My head is hurting. I’m disagreeing with Roger Ebert and agreeing with Perez Hilton!!!
Let’s call this Hippy’s Law: before Tweeting or Facebooking your scorn for a dead person’s actions, let the body cool on the slab a bit. Should we say, 72 hours?
Also, maybe it’s a good idea to preface it by saying, “Any preventable death is a tragedy, and sympathies go to the deceased’s family…”
That’s the entire problem with Twitter, it allows for pithy remarks that are not and cannot be put into context. In this case, Ebert tweeted something that was certainly true, but it is totally without anything context, so it lacks a necessary amount of compassion and understanding, especially for those who were friends and family. It seems to me that celebrities Tweeting has a big potential downside and almost zero potential upside.
Heh, I’d change that to say “that’s the entire problem with people.” I have no idea why some people think it’s a blog - it’s a way to convey information immediately, and it’s not private at all. There’s already been about 20 regrettable Twitter incidents and Roger Ebert, a smart guy, should know much better… I mean, does he even know Ryan Dunn? Are people clamoring to hear Ebert’s take on Dunn’s death?
I guess you’re right, ultimately. I’ve been on Twitter for about 2 years, and have about 50 tweets to my name - mostly from participating in a “tweet chat” and telling a large group of friends at a conference about the evening’s plans. Most people who have to worry about their public image would be well advised to tread carefully.
ETA: Joey P, that suggests that this kind of post is better suited to a Facebook or LiveJournal post.
My essential point is that he risked others – which the argument that he might have been driving crazy fast without being drunk does not particularly refute.
The road he was driving on is pin-straight (and there’s no posted speed limit, FWIW), but the exit he was trying to take is kind of hidden and very easy to take too quickly even if you’re just not paying attention. I’ll actually be taking that exit tonight on my way home from work, so I’ll see if there are any skidmarks running over squashed squirrels to be found.
This dude was driving drunk (if assumptions are correct) at over 100 mph. Odds are any accident you get into at that point is going to be a capital offense for someone. Either the driver, the passenger, or whoever just happens to share the same road is going to pay a rather steep penalty for that particular poor decision.
Whoa! Are you actually saying that there’s a potential lack of absolute rigid standards here? That maybe the OP holds some moron on television to a different standard than his family? If true, that would be shocking and shake my faith in humanity to the core! :rolleyes:
If the OP is an ass, there are a lot better reasons to call him such things than this.
I have a law of my own: “When a person chooses show biz as their livelyhood, they take the drawbacks with the outrageous perks.”
One of the draw backs is that you don’t get the same public treatment that private citizens get. Folks can feel free to crack wise at your demise, the same way they laughed it up and stuffed your pockets with cash when you were shoving cars up your ass. Your family realizes this and decides to pay attention to what his real life friends have to say…not the faceless public.
ETA: Team Ebert, always!
Also, I think that Dunn has the kind of sense of humor that he wants folks to lighten up about it, not go all emo like his friend Bam is trying to get everyone to do.
ETA, again: maybe not ‘lighten up’ but maybe, add a little levity, yes.
That has been the speculation in this thread and in the media at large. That was also one of the thrusts of the post I was responding too. Thusly I addressed it with the assumption in parentheses.
As I’ve never watched the show or taken a ride with Mr. Dunn, commenting on his driving skills seemed more of a leap than his blood alcohol level. Apparently you have other knowledge.
Most people don’t know this, but Dunn was actually a time-traveller, sacrificing himself for the good of humanity. His passenger was going to be the father of Future Hitler and the creator of Skynet. Also, he cracked his knuckles.
A few more details have now come out. Turns out Dunn swerved to avoid a group of high-BMI* polyamorous furries LARPing on their way to a MENSA meeting.
Not that they could help it, or that it means anything anyway.
I don’t know how the whole alcohol seller tortious liability thing has worked out in the State in question, but I think on the whole it is unlikely that the bartender would admit that he served this guy enough alcohol to get totally legless than let him walk out to his car, even if it were true.
Not even if you kill someone. Although it is sometimes capital for your victim, weirdly enough
