From The Stranger, September 5, 2007:
Now, in the first place, I'm not complaining that Rodolph was not charged. This is one of those pure accidents of stupidity. We all have those moments, and if things go horribly awry, someone loses an eye, or a hand, or, in this case, a life. There is no question that Rodolph conducted himself as well as he could in the wake of the tragedy, and no question that this was an accident. (Really, could I roll a 23-lb. rock down a mountainside and actually hit a target? Probably not.)
But it seems odd to me that one's service in Iraq should be a factor in the decision to not prosecute. Humility in the face of such a stupid accident (e.g., "extreme remorse"), lack of intent, and honorable conduct in the aftermath are all reasonable and proper considerations. But how, specifically, does service in Iraq make a difference? Should recent military (wartime) service really be a mitigating factor? It seems irrelevant. I mean, if I really want to split the hair, I might even be able to build an argument that it increases culpability, but let's not be ridiculous here.
Okay, we can be ridiculous. I'll include it in the poll, but I won't make the argument.
_____________________
Notes:
The week continues with a tale of fatally bad luck from the wilds of Wyoming. That's where 47-year-old Pete Absolon—the Rocky Mountain director of the National Outdoor Leadership School, as well as a beloved husband and father—was hiking in the Wind River Mountains earlier this month when he was fatally struck by a bowling ball–sized rock. Hideous twist: The 20-pound rock was sent on its deadly way by Luke Rodolph, a 23-year-old Iraq war veteran who'd been sitting on the rim of a canyon with three friends. As Rodolph told the Associated Press, he didn't see Absolon until the rock struck him in the head, leaving no time for a warning. (For what it's worth, Rodolph's behavior after the accidental killing was exemplary—he stayed overnight with Absolon's body, reported the deed to police the next morning, and made sure Absolon's body was recovered that same day.) Last week, Rodolph got a fat load of good news, as Fremont County Attorney Ed Newell announced that Rodolph wouldn't faces charges in the accidental killing, with Rodolph's extreme remorse, lack of intent, and service in Iraq cited as factors in the decision. (Schmader)
Now, in the first place, I'm not complaining that Rodolph was not charged. This is one of those pure accidents of stupidity. We all have those moments, and if things go horribly awry, someone loses an eye, or a hand, or, in this case, a life. There is no question that Rodolph conducted himself as well as he could in the wake of the tragedy, and no question that this was an accident. (Really, could I roll a 23-lb. rock down a mountainside and actually hit a target? Probably not.)
But it seems odd to me that one's service in Iraq should be a factor in the decision to not prosecute. Humility in the face of such a stupid accident (e.g., "extreme remorse"), lack of intent, and honorable conduct in the aftermath are all reasonable and proper considerations. But how, specifically, does service in Iraq make a difference? Should recent military (wartime) service really be a mitigating factor? It seems irrelevant. I mean, if I really want to split the hair, I might even be able to build an argument that it increases culpability, but let's not be ridiculous here.
Okay, we can be ridiculous. I'll include it in the poll, but I won't make the argument.
_____________________
Notes:
Schmader, David. "Last Days". TheStranger.com, September 5, 2007. See http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=309688