Seven year-old Brendon Mackey was walking with his father in the parking lot of the Boathouse Restaurant in Midlothian, Virginia at around 9 p.m. last Thursday when a bullet, apparently shot into the air by a Fourth of July celebrant, fell through his skull, killing him.
“We don’t think this was an intentional shooting. We think that somebody in or around the area was celebrating the Fourth of July. Unfortunately we think they were shooting a gun in a reckless manner and this young boy is a victim,” a police spokesman told the media. The bullet, experts say, may have been fired as far as five miles away.
There is an investigation ongoing, but if history is any indication, Brendon’s killer will remain a mystery. Last Independence Day, a Michigan State student, engaged to be married, was killed the same way, by a bullet believed to have been launched into the sky by a celebrating stranger. Michelle Packard was 34. This spring, her still grieving fiancé committed suicide.
Has a reckless celebrant with a gun ever stepped forward voluntarily to accept responsibility for causing such a tragedy? I cannot find any news accounts that suggest it. Deaths from stray bullets fired into the air are rare: most fall to earth harmlessly, and even when they hit someone, the result is seldom a fatality. Still, firing a gun skyward is illegal, and truly reckless and stupid. My father told me that during World War II, he warned the men under his command that he would see that anyone firing a weapon into the air without good reason would be court martialed. “They really seemed surprised when I told them that the bullets came down,” he said.
So imagine that you live in a rural area like Midlothian, Virginia, and as a substitute for fireworks, you fire your legal and licensed firearm into the air to honor the courage of Tom, Ben, and the rest. Then, a day or so later, you read in horror that a child was killed by a falling bullet shortly after you fired, and the police are looking for the idiot who shot him, accidentally but unforgivably. Would you come forward?
The rationalizations you would be tempted to amass to talk yourself out of doing so would be many and deep. Other people do the same thing, you would say, and nothing happens: this is pure moral luck. Cruel chance has already taken one life; why should it ruin yours too? It’s unfair. You almost are as much of a victim as the child! This wasn’t a malicious act, it was one mistake, and an accident. You’re not a criminal; criminals are bad people, and you are a good one: ask anybody who knows you. Who is served by you going to jail, and being tarred for life as a child-killer? There would probably be a lawsuit and damages; your whole family will be harmed by the consequences of you coming forward. You have a duty to protect them, not a dead boy who can’t be helped. A huge civil damages verdict would not be fair either: you were just unlucky, and your spouse and children and unborn grandchildren did nothing wrong at all. Your kids won’t be able to go to college; your whole line will be reduced to poverty for generations….all because of the unpredictable trajectory of a falling bullet! Your co-workers will also suffer when you, a critical part of the organization, are forced to leave by public pressure and vindictiveness. Oh, but the jury won’t care—it will side with the grieving parents and the dead child, regardless of the injustice. The jury system is rigged against people like you. Besides, you can’t bring the boy back to life by confessing. You feel terrible, and this will haunt you forever: isn’t that punishment enough? For you to go to jail wouldn’t be justice, it would just be revenge. It would only magnify the tragedy, curing nothing, and adding to the damage. The law is too harsh in these situations anyway. And who is to say that it was your bullet? Others probably did the same thing, but if you are the only one to come forward, you can bet they will find a way to make you the villain even if you’re innocent. That certainly is unfair. And best of all, this:
Nobody will ever know, if you say nothing.
My guess is that the vast majority of people facing this dilemma would lie low and avoid the legal consequences of their act. Yet that decision is ethically indefensible. It is cowardly, irresponsible, unfair, unjust, criminal, and a violation of civic responsibility. A law was broken, and a reckless act took a child’s life. The parents of the child deserve damages; societal standards of conduct must be enforced. Most tragedies have an element of moral luck; that is no excuse for avoiding legal and personal responsibility for the direct consequences of reckless conduct.
I can safely duck this question, or give “the exam answer” (“Sure I’d turn myself in. It’s the right thing to do”), since my father drilled into my brain at a young age that firing a gun in the air like all those TV cowboys was like firing a gun into a crowd for fun. I do wonder, however, how many of us would do the right thing, if we had killed Brendon Mackey?
Pointer: Washington Post
Facts: CBS, Detroit News
Graphic: Jill Boyd’s Place
58 thoughts on “More Ethics Of Terrible Secrets : Falling Bullets, Moral Luck, And The Accountability Check Of A Lifetime”
I’d also do the same thing if I’d fired downwards, into a sand bucket, and by some incredible mischance that no-one could reasonably predict, the bullet had exited, ricocheted off a flint, and hit someone.
Not a difficult moral question. Such difficult questions do exist though, and on those, I might well get it wrong.
Either you have integrity – answering easy questions like this one with obvious answers – or you don’t.
I would really, really hope though that it could be shown that it was someone else’s negligence, not mine. That the bullet was of a different calibre for example. It shouldn’t make any difference, but I’m human.
Though the sand bucket scenario isn’t reckless, and you would probably avoid criminal penalties. Civil would be a crap-shoot.
This is why I would probably fire BLANKS into the air.
Or not fire into the air. That is still an option, right?
I’m thinking more a scenario where you fire off a full clip on a range, remove the magazine, open the bolt to check it’s empty, then fire into a sand bucket anyway. A trained reflex, something you do with any weapon you know positively can’t possibly be loaded, before entering a building, field-stripping it, etc. even if you’d done it only a minute before.
I don’t own a firearm. I have been trained in basic firearms safety.
Again, if you engage in reasonable or reasonably mitigated behavior which should not be expected to harm another person, and somehow it does by random occurance harm another person, you aren’t accountable for any intentional harm. And yes, you do mention that you did it.
Muddling thing further is what if someone was harmed and the likelihood of it being your unlikely behavior causing that harm is around .01% but it still COULD have been you, do you fess up to the behavior?
Yes, for obvious actions you take that within all reasonable expectations would not result in harming another person, then it should be assumed that you shouldn’t be punished.
Shooting in the air is reckless behavior, not reasonable behavior.
I don’t think I can answer this question.
I don’t see myself ever firing randomly into the air. I think that by merely avoiding stupid behavior I don’t have to answer the question.
“Still, firing a gun skyward is illegal, and truly reckless and stupid.”
Isn’t that the advice that glorious Vice President of our actually suggested when confronted by a possible burglar. Didn’t he also say to shoot through doors at targets you only suspect are bad people, without confirming identification?
As for the police’s 5 mile radius theory, that’s a bit generous. Barring natural miracles, I’d keep the suspect radius to less than a mile (even less on the side the wind was blowing too). Small arms simply don’t have the range.
When did he say that?
http://mobile.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/20/joe-biden-shotgun-advice-could-land-jill-biden-in-jail>shooting in the air
shoot through doors and unidentified targets
Colossal link failure.
The interviews are google-able.
Here is the link.
In defense of Joe Biden….
I remember being shocked on moving to New Jersey that deer hunting was only allowed with shotguns. Coming from the midwest, I knew the proper firearm was a .30-30, and shotguns just seemed horribly unsporting.
It was pointed out to me that the general distance of a rifle bullet is somewhere like a mile, and in NJ there’s practically nowhere a mile-long shot won’t endanger someone. A shotgun blast, on the other hand, is considerably dissipated after about 45 yards.
So when Biden advises Jill to just fire off a 12-gauge on the porch, he’s avoiding the direct use of lethal force (wise if you’re not sure what’s really going on, and what intruder wants to face a shotgun within a 10-yard range), and he’s very much not endangering people in the general vicinity.
It is very different from firing off a bullet from a rifle or even a handgun. It’s far safer – and frankly the blast of a 12-gauge in your general vicinity is probably a lot scarier than the sound of a .38 being fired.
Being excessively gracious and giving a wide margin of benefit of the doubt to the Vice President, it still does not absolve him of the idiotic advice to shoot through a door at a suspected threat without positive identification.
Again being extremely gracious to the Veep, shotguns have low penetrative potential. A good solid wooden door will probably severely slow the pellets, turning a lethal shot into minor (albeit painful) wounds. Then again, recommending a double barrel like he did is just boneheaded. The best thing about shotguns for home defense is intimidation – there isn’t a single petty thug in the country who can mistake the sound of that slide.
That is ludicrously gracious. Under no *civilian* circumstances do you shoot at unidentified targets.
I didn’t see the shoot-through-the-door quote; sounds like I’d agree with you on that one.
in one of my failed links, shooting through a door
Don’t own a gun so firing one into the air just seems reckless. However, how many people who leave smoldering embers or fires that turn into disasters and death ever fess up and take responsibility?
It’s human nature to avoid responsibility esp when there is no smoking gun
In some places (like Washington DC) all legal handguns have their ballistics on file – if your weapon is used, they can compare it to their files, and find out what gun it came from.
And for the record, no. No I don’t think that is a good idea.
Like that will ever be implemented in most locales. The gun loons would be up in arms about ‘registration’.
Registration has led to confiscation.
You mean like with cars?
Historically it has with guns.
Gun ‘loons’ up in arms over registration? Or did you mean to say ‘citizens concerned with their right to privacy’?
I just read through the DC registration requiremenst and no where does it state you are required to give them a ballsitic fingerprint for the weapon.
About mid-way through the article. http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/8/miller-emily-got-her-gun/
Thats interesting as there is nothing on their website of in the PDF on their website saying you had to do that.
I certainly agree with all the ways in which we wish we’d never find ourselves in such a situation (fire blanks, ballistics checks, gun bans, firing downwards), but you do pose a stark moral question: Would I turn myself in?
Yes. I’m pretty sure I would.
I must add I don’t think I’m particularly ethical. Maybe I’m a little given to negativity; maybe I have a yearning for the dramatic; maybe I’ve got a martyr complex. And I think I’d have been much less likely to answer ‘yes’ in my younger days.
Still, yes, I would. Because it’s so, so the right thing to do. The relief it would grant the victim’s family I guess is part of it. Maybe I actually think that society would be somewhat lenient, within bounds. Maybe I’ve spent enough years thinking about trust that I’m more comfortable with doing the right thing. I’m not sure. But maybe I don’t have to be.
Jack, if you over-think it, is it ethical? Or should ethical behavior be instinctual?
You’re the expert on that question, your thoughts please?
I’d think a person who was raised with particular attention to ethical behavior would find themselves instinctively inclined towards ethical behavior.
A person who perhaps wasn’t raised to behave ethically or to think ethically, who later in life wishes to behave ethically and therefore must deliberately determine what the right choice is in any given situation is still an ethical person. We all have gut reactions at times that would lead us to behave unethically, that doesn’t make us unethical unless we act on those gut emotions. We all have to discipline ourselves.
Shooting into the air ranks only marginally ethically lower than turning in a false fire alarm.
Like you, I was schooled in firearms at any early age.
Therefore, I would not being firing into the air.
But just for the discussion, let’s say I had a momentary lapse of reason and did so, and five miles away, a child was killed.
Up until 2012, I would have turned myself in and hoped my honesty over a foolish mistake and lack of intent would be enough to insure I was fairly treated.
This is America, after all.
Also, I know myself, the guilt of keeping quiet would eat me alive.
That being said, since 2012, and the new knowledge of what hoping for mercy or forgiveness in our once civilized country can bring (Zimmerman, Deen), I would have to think long and hard about it.
Esp. if the child killed was a child of color.
I don’t blame you.
I’d turn myself in anyway. I can’t blame you for not doing the same.
I’m inconsistent here I know, but I hold myself to a different standard than I do other people. Others get benefit of doubt, and just plain human recognition of human fallibility. I’m an arrogant, self-righteous prig, but I’m not a merciless justiciar.
I can’t give myself benefit of doubt, while with others I have to. Human fallibility? Sure, I don’t always live up to my own ideals. I try to though, and on this one, it’s easy.
I guess maybe I’m more arrogant than I think. I’d rather be convicted unjustly for something I didn’t do, than do something and get away with it. In the first case, I could look at myself and know I’m innocent, and don’t care that much about what others think. Sure it would be inconvenient, especially if I ended up on Death Row, but in the end, the only person whose opinion I care about is my own.
The downside of that is that I can never get away from myself. If I know I’ve done something wrong, and not atoned for it and made what amends I can, I can’t live with that.
The problem with having this as a personal philosophy is that you have to rely on others’ opinions to cross-check to make sure you’re not fooling yourself. Otherwise you could turn into a monster, convinced of their own moral rectitude, while committing atrocities. In that regard, others’ opinions are vital. If others are wrong on matters of fact though, ignore them.
Yes, yes and Yes! to Zoe!
The only person’s opinion you care about is your own…
You have to rely on other’s opinions to cross check yourself.
Not the answer you were hoping for, huh?
Of course the person think the whole evading essay might think the same thing if they’d sideswiped a kid walking along the road, but its the same crap shoot. But it might be a little harder to evade.
I don’t think this is a relevant hypothetical because I think anyone taking the time (and possessed of the ability) to read this web log has a basic understanding of gravity and parabolas and knows that what goes up must come down and would not shoot a gun in the air under any circumstances. Conversely, anyone who’s enough of an idiot to fire a gun in the air wouldn’t turn themselves in.
But to answer the question, no, I doubt I’d have the courage to turn myself in.
Maybe the reading assignment should be Conrad’s “Lord Jim” or Styron’s “Sophie’s Choice.”
Well, I might shoot a gun into the air, but only if my target was above me…
And even then I would at least TRY to see if I could position myself so that my “Down-range” held the least possible risk…
This makes me mad. EVERYONE knows not to fire a gun into the air. I don’t even own a gun and I know that. So, I am going to make some guesses here — the shooter was drunk, untrained in firearms, and most likely young. That person will not be turning himself/herself in. But, to the extent that person was at a party and there were witnesses present, perhaps the shooter will be found anyway. That poor family.
I don’t know, Beth—do you ever see those videos of Middle East soldiers and revolutionaries shooting their weapons in the air? Cowboy movies where cowboys do it routinely? Heck, good gut Meryl Streep tries to do it in “The River Wild.” I think people grow up thinking its harmless practice.
Why do some soldiers in the Middle East fire their weapons into the air?
Because they are ignorant and ill-disciplined.
Then their commanders should put them on latrine duty for a month, at a minimum.
Have you seen their latrines?
Latrine duty? You must be in a forgiving mood this evening. I would have surely thought your punishment would be decimation.
I’m sorry, that was cynical and intolerant of me. Correction:
It’s a celebratory thing in their culture.
And, really, let’s be honest – if the bullet travels more than a mile laterally before it comes down, the odds are actually really good that it’s hitting open desert…
The odds are 100% in favor that they don’t consider this at all before pulling the trigger.
I have been thinking about this question all day. And what I’ve arrived at is that, yes, I would fess up. It’s not even that I would fess up for the right reasons, but that I would do so for selfish reasons. To me, the opportunity to come clean, to ask for forgiveness from the family, to plead for mercy, to serve out any punishment that might be meted, would far outweigh living with a black, soul- devouring, cancerous secret. At the end of the day, i only have myself to live with. I don’t want to live with someone I can’t stand.
And has “Sophie’s Choice” ever been discussed on this blog? Now THERE’s something I would like to see tackled.
How do the two not go hand in hand (fessing up because you did wrong and fessing up because you feel guilty for doing wrong)?
Yes. This. Exactly.
Anyone who shoots a weapon in the air is an idiot, and anyone who does so then turns themselves in to law enforcement in this day and age of mandatory sentencing and no probation or parole is a bigger idiot. Thirty years ago yes, by all means turn yourself in and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Today mercy of the court has been legislated out by the government requiring mandatory sentences.
What a terribly interesting answer. Seriously. Thanks.
Jack? Anything to say on Bill’s observation?
I think it is an overly broad generalization. That crime, for example, does not have a narrow mandatory sentence. Besides, it’s negligent homicide, not better or worse than drunk driving manslaughter. With all due respect to my friend Bill, not admitting guilt because you don’t like the punishment and think you’ll get more of it than you deserve isn’t that.novel.
Sorry Jack but after what we have seen what the politicians and prosecutors were willing to do to bring Zimmerman to trial and convict him in the press anyone who trust the them and the courts to do the right thing is a fool.