As much as the title appears "flippant", I have to agree with the sentence. My LB may disagree, as he sent me this, but I will explain. The initial shock in this story is that this wife of a soldier, mother of three and normally composed person lost it this one day and did something stupid so why is she being treated like a career criminal and given a penalty that a sexual predator may receive?
All one has to do to answer that question is to think back to the case where two idiot, angry women ended up at the end of an off-ramp after cutting each other off. When one woman got out of her car to continue with the argument, the other woman, still in her vehicle, chose not to leave but rather to pick up a gun and shoot the first woman: dead. So, I fully understand and agree with the sentence because this case has a woman, in anger, picking something up at hand and throwing it into a moving vehicle hitting the driver. What if something heavier was at hand? Something sharper? A gun? Something caustic? Something hot? She could have done damage not only to the driver but also to whomever the driver hit when he/she lost control of the vehicle and hit another vehicle, or a pedestrian, or a baby stroller.
Ignorance and idiocy are not sufficient defenses of one's actions. This sentence may deter someone else in that city to think twice before doing something equally stupid or worse. If only other judges had the same awareness and fortitude to do the same in other cases to really send a message that crime does not pay and that we truly have laws to protect the innocent.
Ciao.
ABC News: Woman Sentenced to Two Years for 'McMissile'
All one has to do to answer that question is to think back to the case where two idiot, angry women ended up at the end of an off-ramp after cutting each other off. When one woman got out of her car to continue with the argument, the other woman, still in her vehicle, chose not to leave but rather to pick up a gun and shoot the first woman: dead. So, I fully understand and agree with the sentence because this case has a woman, in anger, picking something up at hand and throwing it into a moving vehicle hitting the driver. What if something heavier was at hand? Something sharper? A gun? Something caustic? Something hot? She could have done damage not only to the driver but also to whomever the driver hit when he/she lost control of the vehicle and hit another vehicle, or a pedestrian, or a baby stroller.
Ignorance and idiocy are not sufficient defenses of one's actions. This sentence may deter someone else in that city to think twice before doing something equally stupid or worse. If only other judges had the same awareness and fortitude to do the same in other cases to really send a message that crime does not pay and that we truly have laws to protect the innocent.
Ciao.
ABC News: Woman Sentenced to Two Years for 'McMissile'
powered by performancing firefox
1 comment:
ya should have asked first...
I agree 100% - that's why I sent it
the "whoa" was because I couldn't believe she did it, not fo rthe sentence... I know what I would do if someone threw a drink through my window whiel I was on the highway
Post a Comment