The unbearable-ness of being Chris Henry

[BZBot]

The Cincinnati Bengals didn’t wait long to become a member of the blamed in the death of wide receiver Chris Henry. Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com, shortly after aiming his sites at Jay Feely’s Twitter account, named the Bengals a co-conspirator in the tragic end of the wide receiver – sort of. “Henry’s case is sad and [...] Source: http://www.bengalszone.com/?p=1082

[Ickey44]

His death was tragic, even more so because he made the effort to reform and failed.

Says who? You don't know what happened out there so you are in no position judge. Writing nonsense like that makes you no better than Freeman.

[jjakq27]

Wow that's a little harsh. I will give them (or Mike Brown) credit for trying to help him.

If he doesn't break his arm he plays in that game yesterday. Who's to blame for that?

[jjakq27]

From Chick Ludwig on cincinnati.com

http://cincinnati.co...is-henry-death/

[101Airborne]

His death was tragic, even more so because he made the effort to reform and failed.

Says who? You don't know what happened out there so you are in no position judge. Writing nonsense like that makes you no better than Freeman.

I believe the point he is trying to make is that jumping in the truck was another example of poor decision making. You are correct that we don't know details about exactly why he did it, but there are not a whole lot of reasons that could justify such a dangerous move. Now I would not go so far as to say his reform was a failure in the sense that there was no progress, but in another sense his progress meant little in the end, as the same ugly problem led to this irreversible tragedy, and in that sense it was a failure. Saying that jumping in the truck was a terrible decision may be an unprovable statement due to the lack of details but one would be far more hard pressed to take the opposite opinion considering the results.

[Ickey44]

His death was tragic, even more so because he made the effort to reform and failed.

Says who? You don't know what happened out there so you are in no position judge. Writing nonsense like that makes you no better than Freeman.

I believe the point he is trying to make is that jumping in the truck was another example of poor decision making. You are correct that we don't know details about exactly why he did it, but there are not a whole lot of reasons that could justify such a dangerous move. Now I would not go so far as to say his reform was a failure in the sense that there was no progress, but in another sense his progress meant little in the end, as the same ugly problem led to this irreversible tragedy, and in that sense it was a failure. Saying that jumping in the truck was a terrible decision may be an unprovable statement due to the lack of details but one would be far more hard pressed to take the opposite opinion considering the results.

Unless you know what led him to jump in that truck you have no right to make a judgment call and say that he failed. For all we know they had an argument and she said she was leaving. Could be he just saw his whole world falling apart and didn't want her to go. That might be worth jumping in the back of that truck.

The reality is, BJ Bethal doesn't know what happened any more than I do and that was an extremely ludicrous statement to make without having the facts.

[Sea Ray]

His death was tragic, even more so because he made the effort to reform and failed.

Says who? You don't know what happened out there so you are in no position judge. Writing nonsense like that makes you no better than Freeman.

I believe the point he is trying to make is that jumping in the truck was another example of poor decision making. You are correct that we don't know details about exactly why he did it, but there are not a whole lot of reasons that could justify such a dangerous move. Now I would not go so far as to say his reform was a failure in the sense that there was no progress, but in another sense his progress meant little in the end, as the same ugly problem led to this irreversible tragedy, and in that sense it was a failure. Saying that jumping in the truck was a terrible decision may be an unprovable statement due to the lack of details but one would be far more hard pressed to take the opposite opinion considering the results.

Unless you know what led him to jump in that truck you have no right to make a judgment call and say that he failed. For all we know they had an argument and she said she was leaving. Could be he just saw his whole world falling apart and didn't want her to go. That might be worth jumping in the back of that truck.

The reality is, BJ Bethal doesn't know what happened any more than I do and that was an extremely ludicrous statement to make without having the facts.

Just about nothing warrants risking your life but that scenario isn't even the worst.

If he really was worried about something, my guess is she was going to report him for something that would end his NFL career. With his history, if she goes to the police and says he laid a funger on her, he could be done.

[Ickey44]

Just about nothing warrants risking your life but that scenario isn't even the worst.

Maybe not to you, but it is to some people.

Honestly, it's kinda crappy to say things like this with no basis especially considering how things turned out.

[derekshank]

Just about nothing warrants risking your life but that scenario isn't even the worst.

Maybe not to you, but it is to some people.

Honestly, it's kinda crappy to say things like this with no basis especially considering how things turned out.

So, what I'm hearing you say is that the reason it's not okay to make judgments about his decision making is because he died?

I would say that his death is the primary reason to make such a judgment. You can say whatever you want about why he did it. No one really knows for sure... but the one thing we do know is that it was a poor choice. It would have been just as poor if he had not died, because it was reckless and dangerous.

Was it criminal? I'm guessing not. But the point being made is that he made an immature decision that led to this tragedy. It can't really be argued, because that much is fact.

He was 26, so it's not terribly out of character for impulsive behavior from anyone in that age group. So it might be a little unfair to say that his reform was failed. But, as 101 noted, his reform doesn't really mean anything now, does it?

He didn't get shot while waving his gun in public. But that's the reason it's a tragedy, right? It's tragic because a young man who was trying to get his life turned around no longer has the opportunity to do so. His poor, impulsive choice prevented it. That's why it's sad.

[gregstephens]

Ron, I understand your point, and do appreciate your sensitivity towards the death of one of our own. However, I think the point others are making here is that his decision to jump into that truck was not a good one. I'm sorry if that is insensitive, and no I don't know all the circumstances. All I know is this. My wife and I have a big argument and she storms out of the house and jumps into her car, I'm not running out into the driveway to jump on the hood to make her stop. She'll calm down and come back. I'll calm down. We'll talk. That's what I haven't understood. Why didn't he just wait for her to come back and talk it out? It was her house (or family's house, whichever). She was coming back.

That said, I can't and won't say his efforts to reform failed. That is a bit of a judgment call that I'm not sure BJ Whoever has the right to make. He made a bad decision that cost him his life. It is what it is. We bury him. We remember him. We miss him.

[COB]

That said, I can't and won't say his efforts to reform failed.

Me neither. Chris Henry was going through a significant life change. Change like that is a process, not an event. It was a success, but he was still in the process.

[Ickey44]

I'm not arguing that it was a bad decision to jump in the truck. My original point was that it's not right to say his effort to reform failed just because he did it. Unless this BJ person was there and saw what happened, he doesn't know what led Chris to jump in that truck.

That being said, I agree with you Greg. If my wife got pissed and left I definitely wouldn't chase her or jump on top of her car. The problem is, though, we don't know what their argument was about. Without that knowledge it's hard to make an accurate judgement. Who knows? If you knew the exact circumstances maybe you do the same thing, maybe you don't.

[HoosierCat]

FWIW, I think the trouble here is that grouping Henry's numerous prior problems and the event that led to his death under the heading of "bad decisions" is committing a kind of category error. It's like putting three pineapples and a grape on a table and saying they're all the same because they're fruits. While true, it's not a very useful categorization.

All of Henry's run-ins with authorities were fairly typical of the kind all too many young and suddenly wealthy people have. They're are all avoidable if those people take time to think, but they don't, or think they can get away with bad behavior because they're special.

This final incident, however, was clearly an act of passion. Even the smart and stable people can fall victim to these; by definition, they aren't avoidable. They are things done "in the heat of the moment."

I understand the impulse to try to draw some sort of meaning or lesson out of Henry's death. I've tried, and failed, to find one myself. That, IMO, is why it's such a tragedy, precisely because it's so senseless.

[gregstephens]

FWIW, I think the trouble here is that grouping Henry's numerous prior problems and the event that led to his death under the heading of "bad decisions" is committing a kind of category error. It's like putting three pineapples and a grape on a table and saying they're all the same because they're fruits. While true, it's not a very useful categorization.

All of Henry's run-ins with authorities were fairly typical of the kind all too many young and suddenly wealthy people have. They're are all avoidable if those people take time to think, but they don't, or think they can get away with bad behavior because they're special.

This final incident, however, was clearly an act of passion. Even the smart and stable people can fall victim to these; by definition, they aren't avoidable. They are things done "in the heat of the moment."

I understand the impulse to try to draw some sort of meaning or lesson out of Henry's death. I've tried, and failed, to find one myself. That, IMO, is why it's such a tragedy, precisely because it's so senseless.

I agree with this completely. I see it every day in criminal court. Guys with long records begging not to go back to prison because they've made 'bad decisions' and have now magically learned lessons. One minor scrape with the law, like so many on DUI's, may be bad decisions. Repeated contacts with the law in re thefts, weapons, drugs--that's being a lawless thug. Henry's prior issues weren't 'bad decisions' to me. He WAS a lawless thug--and I emphasize the word WAS not because he is dead, but because for the last couple of years of his life, he did reform himself and WAS no longer a lawless thug. Doesn't mean he wasn't capable of bad decisions, as we all are, to differing degrees.

Either way, from that perspective, BJ Whosits appears to be wrong. At the time of Henry's death, the reform from being a lawless thug appears to have been successful. Now, moving on...

[derekshank]

I'm trying to understand how a criminal act is avoidable if you stop and think, but an act of passion isn't.

Every bad decision is avoidable if you stop and think. There is no such thing as an unavoidable decision. It was in the heat of the moment... sure. As all too often 20-somethings tend to do, it was impulsive.

I mentioned earlier that it doesn't fit onthe category of criminal... but it does fit in the category of immature and unwise. While not having much to do with his reform, it still shows his tendency to make impulsive and poor choices.

It is probably unfair to use his criminal past against him because of this decision he made. This decision simply appeared to be an impulsive and bad one. But I would be saying the same thing if it had been Carson Palmer.

The main difference there is that we would have all been shocked to hear this story about Palmer, because he is not known for making poor choices on impulse. Chris Henry in that situation is far less of a shock.

[gregstephens]

I'm trying to understand how a criminal act is avoidable if you stop and think, but an act of passion isn't.

I agree that every decision is just that--a decision. A choice, meaning you can also make an alternate choice to every action in life. However, in terms of the section I've quoted above, there is a difference. The law recognizes that all criminal offenses, with the exception of aggravated assault that occurs as a result of provocation, are impervious to issues of 'passion', or more accurately reaction as opposed to lucid thought. Rage is never a defense in the law.

An act of passion, on the other hand, is more reactionary and thus makes us all more susceptible to those types of actions. Someone like me that would never consider planning and executing a bank robbery may get cut off in traffic and, in an 'act of passion', think something reactionary that I should not think. However, maturity levels hopefully prevent us from reacting to an extreme and jumping out of cars and beating the person that cut us off.

That said, acts of passion are by definition choices that can be avoided, but the reactionary nature of said acts make them less likely to be avoided than a typical criminal act. Different intent, different circumstances prompting said actions.

Philosophically speaking, of course.

[101Airborne]

I don't believe the word failure here is suggesting that he had made no progress to reform. Certainly you can find success in his story as well. I think the word may be a bit harsh for an emotional reader to not react to but in the light of what happened, I would agree that the word might be strictly appropriate, even if its probably not the best choice of phrase. I cannot agree that we aren't supposed to make judgement calls unless we know all the facts. If that were true, nearly no one would make a judgement about anything ever. How often does anyone have all the facts about anything? When making a judgement we look at likely hoods. The author seems reasonable in his logic (I disagree with the assertion that he is committing a category error fallacy, though I won't go into why unless asked) and I think it is unfair to suggest that he is on the same level as the journalist who claimed that the Bengals were in any way responsible for this tragedy. My only intent in this is to defend the author's journalistic integrity. My intent is not to offend anyone, especially not the memory of Chris Henry.

[Ickey44]

I cannot agree that we aren't supposed to make judgement calls unless we know all the facts. If that were true, nearly no one would make a judgement about anything ever. How often does anyone have all the facts about anything? When making a judgement we look at likely hoods.

The only facts we have are that he got into the back of the pick up truck and "came out of it". They still haven't release whether he was dislodged or jumped. We don't know what the domestic incident was. By definition that could just be an argument. What's really happening here is that assumptions are being made about what happened and the judgments are being made off the assumptions. I don't think that's fair to Chris.

[gregstephens]

I cannot agree that we aren't supposed to make judgement calls unless we know all the facts. If that were true, nearly no one would make a judgement about anything ever. How often does anyone have all the facts about anything? When making a judgement we look at likely hoods.

The only facts we have are that he got into the back of the pick up truck and "came out of it". They still haven't release whether he was dislodged or jumped. We don't know what the domestic incident was. By definition that could just be an argument. What's really happening here is that assumptions are being made about what happened and the judgments are being made off the assumptions. I don't think that's fair to Chris.

If you are talking about judging Henry, ok, I agree. If you are talking about judging his actions in this situation, I disagree. It doesn't matter the circumstances, what the incident was, whatever. At no point does jumping into the bed of a moving pick-up truck, or a truck you expect will soon be moving, or a truck that is even remotely possible to move a good judgment call. Factor in that truck being driven by a presumedly upset woman, and the decision doesn't look good on paper under any circumstances. Whether he was dislodged by accident, dislodged because he was trying to beat on the roof and climb in the window, or dislodged voluntarily doesn't factor into the irrational nature of the decision.

It's also not an issue of being fair to Chris. Being unfair to Chris would be assuming he was drunk, on drugs or packing a weapon when he did this. There are no unfair assumptions being made when discussing the reasonable nature of his decision.

[Ickey44]

Well, Greg, it's easy to say you wouldn't do a certain thing, but until you're in that situation you don't really know. I would like to think that I would never jump on to a moving vehicle, but I imagine there are circumstances out there that would get me to do it. Never say never because you just don't know.

You can say all day it was unreasonable for him to do what he did, but I don't see how you can do that without knowing why he did it.

[gregstephens]

Well, Greg, it's easy to say you wouldn't do a certain thing, but until you're in that situation you don't really know. I would like to think that I would never jump on to a moving vehicle, but I imagine there are circumstances out there that would get me to do it. Never say never because you just don't know.

You can say all day it was unreasonable for him to do what he did, but I don't see how you can do that without knowing why he did it.

Because, by definition, jumping onto, or into, a moving car is never reasonable. The only exception to that is if it's to save someone's life, like if someone carjacks a car with my wife or kids in it, or my wife passes out behind the wheel and that's the only way I can save her. Otherwise, whatever passion he experienced that led to the decision can't make it a reasonable one.

That said, I'm not making a judgment of character. There is where I think you are misinterpreting me. I'm not judging Henry's character, his reformation, or anything else. The decision was a bad decision. I'm having a hard time believing you think there's a circumstance that can come out of all this that makes his decision a good one.

[Ickey44]

Because, by definition, jumping onto, or into, a moving car is never reasonable. The only exception to that is if it's to save someone's life, like if someone carjacks a car with my wife or kids in it, or my wife passes out behind the wheel and that's the only way I can save her. Otherwise, whatever passion he experienced that led to the decision can't make it a reasonable one.

That said, I'm not making a judgment of character. There is where I think you are misinterpreting me. I'm not judging Henry's character, his reformation, or anything else. The decision was a bad decision. I'm having a hard time believing you think there's a circumstance that can come out of all this that makes his decision a good one.

Say you say it's never reasonable, then list reasons that it would be reasonable. Nice.

I'm not going to speculate on anything else on the situation. There's just no way for us to know what the situation was. Going on what was reported, sure it looks like a bad decision. But what's being reported isn't the whole story. All I'm saying is that we don't know and I don't think it's fair to make a definitive judgment without that knowledge. That is all.

[gregstephens]

Because, by definition, jumping onto, or into, a moving car is never reasonable. The only exception to that is if it's to save someone's life, like if someone carjacks a car with my wife or kids in it, or my wife passes out behind the wheel and that's the only way I can save her. Otherwise, whatever passion he experienced that led to the decision can't make it a reasonable one.

That said, I'm not making a judgment of character. There is where I think you are misinterpreting me. I'm not judging Henry's character, his reformation, or anything else. The decision was a bad decision. I'm having a hard time believing you think there's a circumstance that can come out of all this that makes his decision a good one.

Say you say it's never reasonable, then list reasons that it would be reasonable. Nice.

Well, except all rules need exceptions to actually prove the rule. Nothing is per se always unreasonable if human life is at stake, and I guess I assumed we were having this discussion going on that obvious premise.

So, until the story comes out where Henry jumped into the truck to save a life, I shall remain on my argument as you to yours. Ultimately it doesn't really matter. Won't bring him back.

[Sea Ray]

Ron, I am very anxious to hear more facts on this but this is how I see it as of today:

-he jumps into the back of a moving pickup truck in mid December with no shirt on and an arm in a cast

-somehow he fell out

I see the following as reasons he might have fallen out:

-he jumped

-she managed to dislodge him on purpose

I doubt he just "fell out" on a residential street

Under either of these circumstances he showed poor judgement. He was either crazy for jumping or he picked a crazy woman for a girlfriend.

I don't see how this turns out in a way that doesn't reflect poorly on his judgement