Personal accountability and the Maldonado/Schutlz case
I have been reading various posts and blogs on the internet recently that espouse support for Matthew Maldonado and Nicholas Schultz. I will tell you right now, the reader, that this is an opinion/editorial piece. Hell is too good of a place for these two men as far as I'm concerned. They are scum of the earth. Let me explain why by defining the concept of personal accountability.
Say you choose to drink to the point that you are legally intoxicated, and subsequently get in your car to drive your residence. During the trip home, you hit and kill another driver. Is it the other driver's fault that you killed them? What if the other driver had also been drinking? Does that lessen your guilt?
If you replies that it does, you need a lesson in critical thinking. The moment that you choose to get behind the wheel in an impaired state, you are guilty of putting other drivers/bicyclists/pedestrians/deer/random squirrels in danger. If you were sober and alert, then you could argue that person you hit shared some of the blame. Because you're completely sober and fully alert, you are as prepared as you can be to deal with other people's stupidity. When this is not the case, you are no longer prepared and must accept responsibility for your mistakes.
Allow me a personal and exceedingly mundane example to illustrate my point. I recently went to a job located in downtown Austin. I parked on the street in an area that required to pay the meter in order to park. The owner of the building told me that commercial vehicles like mine were exempt from paying for parking. She was wrong. I found this out when I got a parking ticket. My van was clearly marked as a commercial vehicle. My helper tried to argue with the person issuing the ticket. I immediately told him to stop. I took the building owner's word without checking the veracity of her statement. It was my fault for doing so. No one held a gun to my head and told me that I had to park there, or that I must take the owner's word as gospel.
This point brings me to back around to the despicable men that raped and abused Lloyd Irvin's female student, Nicholas Schultz and Matthew Maldonado. The justice system failed the plaintiff in a spectacular fashion because the jury did not understand the ramifications of these men's crime. They were instructors at Lloyd Irvin's school. As such, they bore a responsibility to care for their students. Those who don't train combat arts will never understand this. The sweat and blood a person invests in their gym is not to be taken lightly. Instructor's bear a special duty to honor and care for this investment. By doing so, they treat their students efforts in a respectful manner that encourages growth on everyone's part.
These two men, Matthew Maldonado and Nicholas Schultz, could not have violated this trust in a more heinous manner. A student asked them, two of her instructors, men she trusted with her personal safety, to provide her with safe passage home. Instead they brutalized her. Not worse, but equally horrible, they let her head and body strike the ground repeatedly. Then they left her on the cold concrete of a parking garage on a 55 degrees Fahrenheit night.
Now, some cretins have argued that the lady in question was asking for it, due to her intoxicated state. To those troglodytes, I ask this, if your mother was sick and incoherent, would you take advantage of her by emptying her wallet and leaving her out in the cold? No? Then ask yourself, what is the difference in the behavior of these two monsters who took advantage of the plaintiff in this case.
Answer, there is none.
Last edited by jnp; 11/01/2013 11:36pm at .