Um… you do understand that we’re discussing a report about the results of what happened in a courtroom, don’t you?
Um … you do understand that we’re talking about a newspaper story, and it is not constrained in its language to a sterile recitation of what the court decided?
You forgot the “, don’t you?"
No it isn’t. The sentence and the meaning it conveys are not unclear.
And this, in a nutshell, is the problem with our system’s treatment of killer drivers–that “simpl[e]…heedlessness” while driving on public roads is not automatically considered criminal negligence. That people are licensed to drive, and allowed to continue driving, without understanding that not paying attention to where you point your moving car is creating a substantial risk to people around you.
Are you saying you want the newspaper to slant the story??
I disagree. I contend if twenty people, unfamiliar with the case or with the specifics of hit and run law, were given Boyo’s version, at least five would reach a different conclusion.
No, I believe they already slanted the story by using obfuscating language that minimized the degree of responsibility the bishop had for the death.
I agree.
But I contend your proposed language is guilty of the opposite flaw – by not making clear that the criminal act was the leaving, and not the death, your draft slants the story towards overstating the degree of criminal responsibility the bishop had.
I don’t see it. The “in which” sets off the rest of the sentence. Yes, technically it needs a comma before it to make it an nonessential clause, but we’re already predisposed to hear “which” as as nonessential.
If 1/4 people would have trouble understanding it, I’m not sure what would be better and still convey all the same information, other than adding the aforementioned comma.
I mean, I had trouble at first figuring out what your objection was, as it seemed so obvious that the fleeing the scene of the accident was the issue. If not, I’d expect something like “He was convicted of hitting a killing a pedestrian and leaving the scene of an accident.” You’d set them at equal level, not downplaying the bigger crime.
How about, “He was convicted of leaving the scene of the accident, one in which he had hit and killed a pedestrian.” That adds the comma, and a single word, but much more clearly sets off the ‘leaving’ as the criminal act.
Bump.
Plea deal. The ex-Bishop pled guilty to manslaughter. Sentenced to 10 years.
Saw this today: Bishop Who Killed Cyclist While Driving Drunk Gets 7 Years
I guess she got some time off for God behavior.
Seven years seems a bit light. A man died and she had priors.
Thanks for bumping this thread. I’d completely missed the news story. Once upon a time the Roman and Anglican churches split on delicate theological matters like whether Catherine of Aragon was still a virgin on her SECOND wedding night. Now it seems the main choice between the two churches is whether you want to be led by child molesters or hit-and-run drunks.
Is this why Mike Huckafart never made the big time? He’s just a Baptist; maybe he needs to molest a boy and kill someone to make Bishop.
This will be my go-to factoid next time some right-wing idiot denigrates the Islamic faith.