# The Bishop is a drunkard. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 29, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457 "2014-12-29T18:59:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![campp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@campp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/campp)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/101 "2015-04-01T15:22:49Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > This is a very odd news story. Was the guy not convicted of some form of homicide? The story says he was convicted of leaving the scene, though he apparently admitted that he had actually hit and killed the guy. > > Also, it said " …who was arrested last year for his role in a hit-and-run that killed a carpenter …". **For his role** in a hit and run?!! Don’t you mean something like “for vehicular homicide”? When pressure came to arrest the bishop, he was hustled in and out of that jail in mere minutes. He didn’t have to wait with the others apparently. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2015, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/102 "2015-04-01T15:32:33Z")
Do you know if he was charged or convicted with some form of homicide? Or just for leaving the scene? It appears he got special treatment not only from the police, but from the _New York Times_. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/103 "2015-04-02T03:57:09Z")
Of those to whom much is given, much is expected. ---
**Author:** ![Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulf_the_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/104 "2015-04-02T17:15:36Z")
Or perhaps, of those to whom much is given, much more continues to \*be \*given… ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/105 "2015-04-02T17:27:18Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Of those to whom much is given, much is expected. I presume you mean sweetheart deals with the cops are expected. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/106 "2015-04-03T03:18:32Z")
Indeed not. See post 57. ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/107 "2015-04-03T15:21:23Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Then you have no sympathy for any human being on the planet, as panic is a fight or flight reaction. Everyone has the instinct to flee when they panic in a situation where fight is not possible. Fight wasn’t possible in this case; the reason Tom Palermo wasn’t able to fight is because he lay there dying after she hit him with her car. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/108 "2015-04-03T16:19:55Z")
> [@Spiderman](#): > > Fight wasn’t possible in this case; the reason Tom Palermo wasn’t able to fight is because he lay there dying after she hit him with her car. :rolleyes: 😕 Yes. And because she was in a car. Though I guess she could have frozen up and wound up driving off the road, too. Panic is something I know way, way too much about, from experience. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/109 "2015-04-03T16:22:21Z")
I am confused by the pronouns here - the OP and discussion is about a female bishop, and I believe it’s customary to refer to such a personage as “she” no matter how much Star Trek tried to change the language. What are the “he” references above? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/110 "2015-04-03T16:59:14Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Then you have no sympathy for any human being on the planet, as panic is a fight or flight reaction. There was no fight or flight involved. She struck a person with her car, then tried to flee the scene. She was in no immediate danger. I’ve seen people hit pedestrians & cyclists with cars and own up to it. What makes her so special? > [@](#): > > Everyone has the instinct to flee when they panic in a situation where fight is not possible. Was she afraid of a zombie cyclist? ---
**Author:** ![SpoilerVirgin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@SpoilerVirgin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SpoilerVirgin)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/111 "2015-04-03T23:40:50Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > I am confused by the pronouns here - the OP and discussion is about a female bishop, and I believe it’s customary to refer to such a personage as “she” no matter how much Star Trek tried to change the language. What are the “he” references above? **campp** linked to an article about a similar case in which a male Roman Catholic Bishop in Phoenix killed a man in a hit and run. The “he” references are to that case. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/112 "2015-05-27T01:30:13Z")
Maryland Episcopalians have a new suffragan bishop: [Md. Episcopal Diocese Chooses Replacement For Defrocked Bishop : NPR](http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409672010/md-episcopal-diocese-chooses-replacement-for-defrocked-bishop) ---
**Author:** ![blue\_infinity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_infinity/32/2817_2.png) [@blue\_infinity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blue_infinity)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/113 "2015-05-27T03:28:59Z")
So they’re replacing an alcoholic with a recovering alcoholic. They like to live dangerously, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/114 "2015-05-27T16:43:47Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Do you know if he was charged or convicted with some form of homicide? Or just for leaving the scene? It appears he got special treatment not only from the police, but from the _New York Times_. Can you explain what special treatment you feel the New York Times gave him? In Arizona, ARS 28-661 provides: > [@](#): > > The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of a person shall: > > 1. Immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close to the accident scene as possible but shall immediately return to the accident scene. > 2. Remain at the scene of the accident until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of section 28-663. > B. A driver who is involved in an accident resulting in death or serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 and who fails to stop or to comply with the requirements of section 28-663 is guilty of a class 3 felony, except that if a driver caused the accident the driver is guilty of a class 2 felony. It was this law that Bishop O’Brien violated. I sense that you’re wondering why he wasn’t charged with “some form of homicide.” The answer is that there was no evidence to support such a charge. If you’re interested, I can provide each of Arizona’s varities of homicide: negligent homicide, manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree murder, and the required elements for each. But the short answer is that even “negligent homicide,” 13-1102, requires that the death occur as a result of _criminal negligence_. This is very different from ordinary, or “civil” negligence. Ordinary negligence can simply be inadvertence or heedlessness. But criminal negligence can only arise from conduct that the actor knows has a high degree of likelihood, a substantial risk, to cause the outcome in play. It also requires a “gross deviation from the applicable standard of conduct.” So far as I know, there’s nothing in evidence to suggest that the Bishop was driving in any way that created a substantial risk of loss of life, and that he was driving in some way that could be described as a gross deviation from ordinary driving. So he wasn’t charged with homicide because there was insufficient evidence to support that charge. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/115 "2015-05-27T17:48:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain what special treatment you feel the New York Times gave him? > … I refer you to my comments in post 97 … > [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > … > Also, it said " …who was arrested last year for his role in a hit-and-run that killed a carpenter …". **For his role** in a hit and run?!! Don’t you mean something like “for vehicular homicide”? I’m not sure why you felt the need to qute the law, I was reacting to the language in a newspaper article and I didn’t know exactly what crime her was convicted of. And the fact that he wasn’t convicted for homicide is kind of beside the point. Convicted “for his role in a hit and run”?That really puts him at quite a rempve from causing this man’s death and running away, apart from the question to what degress his acts may or may not have been criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/116 "2015-05-27T17:56:31Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I refer you to my comments in post 97 … > I’m not sure why you felt the need to qute the law, I was reacting to the language in a newspaper article and I didn’t know exactly what crime her was convicted of. And the fact that he wasn’t convicted for homicide is kind of beside the point. Convicted “for his role in a hit and run”?That really puts him at quite a rempve from causing this man’s death and running away, apart from the question to what degress his acts may or may not have been criminal. Well, there was no evidence that his role in causing the man’s death was criminal. So convicting him for his role in the man’s death wouldn’t really be an option, and the paper shouldn’t use a sentence that suggests the death was criminally imputable to the driver. On the other hand, there was ample evidence that his role in leaving the scene of a fatal accident was criminal. So what phrasing should the New York Times have used? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/117 "2015-05-27T19:29:50Z")
How about, “He was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident in which he had hit and killed a pedestrian.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/118 "2015-05-27T22:32:41Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > How about, “He was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident in which he had hit and killed a pedestrian.” The problem with that sentence is that it’s unclear whether the crime was killing the pedestrian, and then leaving, or leaving the scene period. The crime with which he was actually charged was completed with the leaving, regardless of the death. However, the death is not legally irrelevant, since the punishment becomes more serious when a death is involved. Still, in looking again at the New York Times’ choice, it soft-pedals the issue by not making clear that he was the one that left, and not merely someone peripherally involved in some other “role,” so I do see your point. ---
**Author:** ![Emiliana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@Emiliana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Emiliana)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/119 "2015-05-27T22:42:34Z")
> [@blue\_infinity](#): > > So they’re replacing an alcoholic with a recovering alcoholic. > > They like to live dangerously, I guess. Hey, they’re Episcopalians. Where there’s four, there’s a fifth. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457/120 "2015-05-27T23:33:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with that sentence is that it’s unclear whether the crime was killing the pedestrian, and then leaving, or leaving the scene period. > > The crime with which he was actually charged was completed with the leaving, regardless of the death. However, the death is not legally irrelevant, since the punishment becomes more serious when a death is involved. > > Still, in looking again at the New York Times’ choice, it soft-pedals the issue by not making clear that he was the one that left, and not merely someone peripherally involved in some other “role,” so I do see your point. You have a pretty consistent habit of judging everything that happens in the real world as if it were happening within a courtroom. That sentence is crystal clear to me. “He was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident” is exactly what he was convicted for, and the rest of the sentence is a accurate description of the undisputed facts of the event. So what if if fails some legal standard of clarity, it certainly meets journalistic standards. And it makes clear that the man was not a fleeing witness, or one of a number of people who shared some kind of contributory guilt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-bishop-is-a-drunkard/708457.md?page=7)