Ebert Reaps the Twitter Whirlwind

toxicology reports conclude Dunn's BAC was twice the legal limit:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201...

Again, fuck this guy.

So he wasn't just "Meh, legally drunk" drunk. He was shitfaced.

That settles that.

yup.

yeah.... but can we do a sliding DUI scale for guys that can do this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I feel like george carlin would have a lot of fun with the term "thermal trauma".

The police report now says the car was traveling 130MPH: http://westchester.patch.com/a...

jesus effing christ. Good riddance, asshole.

(i was (metaphorically) speaking to Dunn there, not ReverendSlappy)

One thing I'll add for those of you who (astoundingly) don't understand why so much scorn is being heaped on Dunn in this forum and elsewhere in public: given the fact that he's dead, there isn't much other recourse. 

Had he survived the accident, he'd have been held to account for his actions by the law. If he was drunk (which seems very, very likely) or was driving recklessly (which is substantially supported by the police report), he'd have the book thrown at him. He'd spend time in prison, pay huge fines, etc. as a consequence of his actions. But being that he's dead, there isn't any other way for society to get what it needs out of the situation: recompense, meaningful deterrence, etc.

Is it fair that Dunn's family and friends wind up bearing a disproportionate amount of pain as a result of all the public derision aimed at him? No, it's not. And neither would it be fair that they'd have to suffer through all the pain associated with having a son/brother/friend/whatever in prison for a long, long time. But all of that is Ryan Dunn's fault and nobody else's. Period.

Never said it wasn't his fault. It definitely was. Still doesn't change the fact that I don't think anyone needs to come to the defense of Ebert's comments, and no one should be surprised that the friends and family of Dunn were unhappy with them.

The drunk driver who hit me (had I had a passenger there's no question he or she would've been killed) and then attempted to fight me after exiting his vehicle twelve years ago didn't do any time, didn't pay me any compensation and was still allowed to drive on a probationary sense. Had he died, I wouldn't have felt good about it, had he gone to prison I wouldn't have felt good about it. And I certainly wouldn't have wagged either of those things in the face of his family and friends had either happened.

Never said it wasn't his fault. It definitely was. Still doesn't change the fact that I don't think anyone needs to come to the defense of Ebert's comments, and no one should be surprised that the friends and family of Dunn were unhappy with them.

The drunk driver who hit me (had I had a passenger there's no question he or she would've been killed) and then attempted to fight me after exiting his vehicle twelve years ago didn't do any time, didn't pay me any compensation and was still allowed to drive on a probationary sense. Had he died, I wouldn't have felt good about it, had he gone to prison I wouldn't have felt good about it. And I certainly wouldn't have wagged either of those things in the face of his family and friends had either happened.

But Ebert's comment, borrowed from the old "friends don't let friends drive drunk" anti-drunk driving campaign, isn't a matter of wagging his finger at his family. It's an attempt to do one of the things that I mentioned above: to deter people from doing the same thing in the future. That doing so harms Dunn's family is regrettable, but it's nevertheless necessary and legitimate and, I think, laudable. 

And, again, the only person responsible for that harm to his loved ones is Ryan Dunn.

Edit: If Ebert's comment (or mine) is wagging a finger at anybody, it's everybody who will be out drinking with people in the future. It's a matter of saying, "See how horrible the people drinking with Ryan Dunn must feel about possibly having been able to stop him from killing himself and his buddy but not doing so? Don't put yourself in a spot where you could feel like them." I'm sorry, but I fail to see what's wrong with that -- even if it does wind up causing Dunn's family some additional grief. It needs to be said.

If I were to judge Chicago off of this thread
I would deem it the land of the self-righteous and ignorant.

Everyone makes mistakes, Ryan Dunn paid for his with his life.
Whether or not what he did was irresponsible, incredibly dangerous and against the law is not the issue. The issue is the lack of decency shown by Mr. Ebert in the timing and wording of his posting to the public masses.

But what is really disappointing, is what Mr. Ebert has started and now lives through threads like this. Your desire to spit on a mans grave for no reason other than to beat your own chest is sad.

Let family and friends grieve.

If this really upsets you this much...donate to causes like M.A.D.D. or better yet volunteer so that your voice can be heard.

But spending 3 mins to write a hateful or judgmental post does nothing more than make you look like a jackass. 

The man, by all accounts, got drunk, took his friend in his car, got behind the wheel, and killed him.

That's an action that is, has always been, and will always be deserving of far more scorn than can be adequately delivered in "threads like this." If that somehow offends your sensibilities, then that's your problem.

and we still don't know if he was drunk. You'd be a horrible juror.

I already addressed that. If he wasn't drunk, that changes things somewhat -- but the police report indicates that "speed may have been a contributing factor to the accident", and given the fact that the car jumped a guard rail, flew many feet from the road, through trees, it's not unreasonable to conclude that that speed was probably pretty fast. That alone raises issues itself.

And I'm not a juror, which is why I'm entirely within my right to speculate that a person who was pictured drinking just a few hours earlier and who crashed at high speed at 2:30 in the morning was more likely than not over the legal limit. That's a guess, I admit, but one I'm entirely comfortable making.

speculations and "probably's" are fun.

Especially when they turn out to be right, which I'm pretty confident mine will be.

oh, i'm not doubting it. i just like facts first. but that ruins arguments.

Yeah, I mean generally I'm with you... Facts before pissing matches. It's just that, in this case, between the pictures and the speed of the crash and the fact that he was supposedly drinking beers and shots and the lack of anybody coming out and saying, "Shut up assholes! He was the designated driver and had 2 beers all night!" after all the outrage... yeah, this one really, really reeks of drunken early-morning joy ride. Might not be, sure, but... probably is. And we'll know soon enough.

And in any event, there are two things I'd say: 1) Even if it turns out Dunn wasn't drunk, the whole thing serves as a good reminder to people to not be an idiot dickwad borderline-murderer by driving drunk -- if for no other reason than that your family and friends might have to deal with people everywhere posthumously shitting all over you. 2) Even if it turns out Dunn wasn't drunk, it's still established fact that he was flying down the road at 130MPH. Maybe that's not quite as reprehensible as driving drunk -- and surely not as reprehensible as driving drunk at 130MPH -- but it's just a few ticks down the scale. In which case all my points still stand.

agreed.

Oh spare me. Who's being self-righteous now? This guy is only in the news because he is famous. And, he is only famous because he has himself filmed doing outrageous things (sticking toys up his ass). He died as a result of his own actions as an adult capable of rational thought.  I don't know him, much like I don't know the other thousands of anonymous (to me) drunk drivers who kill themselves and others each year. When such actions are as avoidable as this case was, they deserve scorn for their callous actions, not pity. If Dunn had given a fraction of the thought to his own actions as a human being, he's be alive right now and so would his passenger (who's death he is directly responsible for).  Family and friend can grieve, but Dunn is a thoughtless asshole (now dead) in my book. I would say the same to his mother's face. 

Especially, when we DO NOT KNOW if he was in fact drinking.  Yes, one would assume that he was.  I was a bouncer for 5 years, I see nothing in those pictures of him in the bar that says to me that yes, for certain, he was drunk.  I do not know what he was drinking, I do not know why his face is so red, his eyes to me do not appear to be bloodshot at all, and he looks alert to me.

I'm willing to admit that my entire position on this matter is predicated upon the accounts of the story that indicate that Dunn was drinking -- and possibly well past drunk. 

If that turns out to not be the case, then it's a different story altogether (though there's still the not-inconsiderable matter of driving extremely recklessly.) But I think we're all pretty safe in concluding that's pretty unlikely to be the case.

The toxicology report will answer the question. I'd bet money he was above legal limit. 

One wonders how Dunn's mother would have learned about Ebert's tweet if all these media sites trying to be sensitive to her hadn't built the story up and hyped it.  Think she's one of Ebert's followers and decided to go on Twitter hours after her son's death?

I love how we are being asked to be sensitive to family's feelings about a man who made his living sticking a toy car up his ass.

I'm only vaguely familiar with Jackass and I never even heard of Ryan Dunn before this news of his death. So I decided to look at the Wikpedia article concerning the show and I found this interesting anecdote, which is very apropos of this dicussion:

"A man named Jack Ass sued MTV for $10 million, claiming the series was plagiarizing his name. Jack Ass, formerly known as Bob Craft, changed his name in 1997 to raise awareness for drunk driving, after his brother and friend were killed in a vehicle accident."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

Also, looking at Wikipedia's reference for this information shows that it was a single vehicle accident, which makes the coincidence even more striking.

If only there were some way to address the irresponsibility, and dangers of drunk driving without being needlessly insulting.......

Personally I'm not bothered by Ebert's tweet, probably not something I would do but, whatever. No sacred cows and all that... That said, there are a lot of people being deliberately nasty though.

Public shaming as a method of enforcing cultural mores is pretty much a universal.

Their deliberate nastiness is targeted at somebody who did something deliberately nasty -- and got himself and somebody else killed in the process. And was lucky that it was just those two who were killed.

Two wrongs don't make a right, I'll grant you. But until their comments are wholly and directly responsible for making somebody dead, the people saying "deliberately nasty" things rank far, far below Dunn himself on the "Who deserves scorn, here?" continuum.

and got himself and somebody else killed in the process.

Indeed, it's a shame he had drop off the dude he was getting wasted and partying with, who (as far as we know) thought it was just as fun to drive fast, and instead pick up that altar boy hitchhiking on the side of the road.

Nice try. [rolls eyes]

The person driving drunk is the person at fault. Period. Full stop. End of story.

I wish I could say I'm surprised at your attempt to deflect the conversation away from what is a simple, unavoidable, unequivocal, and obvious truth (that for reasons passing sanity and understanding you somehow fail to comprehend.) But such childish and galactically stupid posts are more or less the norm for you, so... [shrugs]

I've said that drunk driving is wrong and irresponsible, but that being deliberately insulting is unnecessary considering such a tragedy.  At the end of the day it's a horrible accident that could have been avoided if both of these drunk guys didn't get into a car period. 

But such childish and galactically stupid posts are more or less the norm for you,

And you're coming off like a phony, moralizing, and sanctimonious prick.  And as usual an insult is your opening gambit. Funny, I hurt your feelings once, and you've held a grudge ever since.

The worst thing about it all:
Just days ago, I was blissfully unaware about who this celebrity even was. Sigh..

I've said that drunk driving is wrong and irresponsible

We're not talking about something that's merely "wrong and irresponsible". We're talking about something that verges on murder.

And you're coming off like a phony, moralizing, and sanctimonious prick.

I'm not "moralizing"; I'm pointing out simple fact -- which, by the way, is codified in law: killing someone while driving drunk is just one small step down the scale from shooting them in the face. You can try to sugar that up with nicer language like "irresponsible" if you want, but it is what it is -- and if anything is "phony", it's your euphemizing.

And as usual an insult is your opening gambit.

It wasn't my "opening gambit" (giant eye roll); I made a serious, reality-based comment to which you chose to reply with something vaguely resembling "blame the victim." And if you can't even follow along with the conversation well enough to see that, then calling your posts "galactically stupid" was being generous.

Funny, I hurt your feelings once, and you've held a grudge ever since.

You've never hurt my feelings. But your posts have also never given me much reason to believe you're as bright as you apparently believe you are.

Edit: None of this is to mention the fact that watching Navin, Pure-Souled, Unbesmirchable, Unquestionbly Most Righteous, Above It All Navin accuse anybody of "sanctimonious" "moralizing" is quite possibly the funniest load of shit I've read today.

I really hurt you.  I'm sorry.  I realize it now. What can I do to address your vulnerability and personal weakness? Can I hold you? Reverend?

The only person to whom you need apologize is your future self for routinely embarrassing him so.

Can I buy you and your parasitic, worm like, friend "Miles" a Happy Meal or something to assuage your sadistic, petty and creepy need to offend every decent person with your fucked up bloodlust, animal, goon fest? You're quite a fucking ghoul. Pathetic creep.

Mmmhmm. Pointing out that a person who, with a lack of regard for human life, commits a crime and kills himself and another person in the process is the sole person to blame for the resulting sorrow is "bloodlust" now. Mmmhmm. [rolls eyes]

Grow up, moron.

Edit: And being called a "ghoul" and a "creep" and "sadistic" by a supposedly "decent" person who just a few posts ago blamed the victim in this case is so pitifully idiotic that it's just funny.

And when the friends and family of dead people point out that you're an insensitive ass for pouring salt in their wounds, don't complain or try to justify yourself either. Take the criticism and move on.

It's interesting to see the Chicagoist staff rise to the defense of the memory of a guy who killed himself and his friend by choosing to do something incredibly stupid. It's nice to know that thanks to your decency, this organization would never take story about, say, a guy who dies through no fault of his own (that we knew of at the time) and then gets eaten by his dog and make a joke about it. Nice to know you're all above that.

Yeah, I was just going to say... isn't it striking to compare this with what happened on Chicagoist with that man eaten by dog story?

Actually, I agree with that too. Ebert should just say, "Your friend/son died because he did something incredibly, unforgivably stupid. Sorry for pointing out the obvious." And leave it at that.

Yeah because lord knows that YOU would have the guts to actually say as much if you were in that situation.

#phony #creep #bigmanonline #worm #bighatnocattle #jagbag #parentproblems

Coming, again, from the guy who blamed the victim here. Rich. [rolls eyes] Moron.

#unhinged #postingwhiledrunk? #totallackofselfawareness #moronathon

Ebert can say whatever he want, much like anyone else can say what they want. He - or anyone else - just shouldn't be surprised when people who are in grief over the loss of a loved one find certain comments insensitive and get upset over them. After all, if it was your friend or your brother - would you say "You know what Roger, you're right. Screw my friend - he was a jackass."?

If a friend or brother of mine got behind the wheel drunk and wound up killing himself and somebody else, the only thing I'd be "upset" about is not having the opportunity to beat the ever-living shit out of him myself.

The peanut gallery's fully-justified condemnation -- or even mocking -- would rank pretty darn low on my list of concerns.

I'm kinda with you on that. Ebert needs to let it be, instead of trying to make excuses/explanations. They are not necessary. 

Act like a moron, don't be shocked if you get called out for acting like a moron. This is doubly true when acting like a moron gets yourself and somebody else killed.

Dunn's death was clearly reckless and irresponsible.  It is still a tragedy full of young life lost- which, to me is something that should be treated with a little bit of sensitivity.  Should Ebert have to apologize for his tweet? No, it is accurate and not out of line considering Dunn's actions. But do I think he addressed the topic a bit too harsh? Probably.  Twitter has a tendency to make us think it is important to express our immediate stream of thought, vs taking a little bit of time to think about it.

Well said.

I have no sympathy and no sensitivity for him. And see my comment above about "taking time" to speak out on an issue. Its not worth it.

I wonder, if Roger Ebert had said the same things that he said in his column to Mr. Dunn's mother, in person, if people would feel the same way. Drinking and driving is reckless and irresponsible, but shouldn't the feelings of the living be taken into consideration as well?

And I wonder if the hundreds of people who made despicable comments and death threats toward Roger Ebert would have done so if he were standing in front of them. 

Jackass was going 130 mph, got himself and his passenger killed.  Could have just as easily gone head on into oncoming traffic and wiped out a car full of kids.

With all due sympathy to Mr Dunn's family, there's another issue here, and it's irresponsible, stupid behavior that thankfully only got two people killed, and it ought to be spoken about  now so perhaps people can learn from it. 

Actually, I'm going to pile on a bit more here: What Dunn did wasn't "reckless and irresponsible." What he did was just-so-happen to get himself killed in the course of killing somebody else. Call me callous, but my capacity for sympathy towards him is pretty slim. Pretty slim.

And if his getting the scorn he so very richly deserves posthumously hurts the feelings of his loved ones, that's his fault. Not Ebert's, not my friend's on Facebook, nobody's but his.

Public figures generally do not get that kind of consideration. He was a public figure.

Again, media masturbation.

... but shouldn't the feelings of the living be taken into consideration as well

It would have been nice had Dunn taken the feelings of the living into consideration. Since he was too stupid to do so, he deserves whatever ridicule he gets.

No matter how hard you tweet it, Dunn can't hear you. But his mom can.

So, should we consider the feelings of everybody's mother when we assess their actions? I'm sure Jeffrey Dahmer had a mom. Should we not call him out for his actions because his mom might get her feelings hurt?

I don't buy into the idea that we, as a culture, should ignore the transgressions of idiots, as long as they manage to kill themselves. Personally, I think there's value in the object lesson. Maybe pointing out that Dunn is only dead because he acted like a moron will discourage others from the same.

"Personally, I think there's value in the object lesson"

Totally agree. And that's the razor's edge when people say "Oh, it's too soon to say that," or "Can't you lay off while we're grieving?"

A lesson has to be given right after the event. What's the point of waiting six days, six weeks, six months? So Ebert can say "you know that D-List celebrity that died back in June? He shouldn't have driven drunk. Let that be a lesson to you!"

Immediacy=impact. And Ebert has earned the right to speak out on the dangers of alcohol.

Should we not call him out for his actions because his mom might get her feelings hurt?

No, we should condemn those actions for all sorts of reasons. We just shouldn't be tasteless and crass about it, as Roger Ebert was with his tweet.

Tasteless and crass? Pointing out that drinking and driving is a 100% fully "jackassed" thing to do? Yeah, no.

You want tasteless and crass? How about this from somebody I know on Facebook: "Hi, I'm Ryan Dunn and this is the fiery car crash."

Now that is tasteless and crass. And hilarious. And too bad if it makes somebody go in a corner and weep: At the core, the only person who caused sorrow/anger/mourning/whatever here is Ryan Dunn and nobody -- NOBODY -- else.

His mother can take comfort in the fine body of work her  son left behind. Especially the scene where he shoves a Hot Wheels car up his ass. Watching that over and again should sooth the pain Roger Ebert has inflicted upon her. 

I'm seriously glad that I've never watched that show or the movies.

Dunn built his life around being tasteless and crass. Tasteless and crass is what gets attention these days, thanks in large part to people like Dunn. You might call this karma.

But even so, even if it weren't Dunn, why shouldn't we be tasteless and crass about a death that happened for such tasteless and crass reasons? Driving that car was a tasteless and crass act, and it deserves a tasteless and crass response.

He called a spade a spade. Nothing tasteless or crass about it. He lived as a jackass (willingly joined a crew of self-described Jackasses, in fact) and he died as a jackass.

Ebert is right. Also, this happens all the time. Usually the driver is not famous for sticking a Matchbox car up his tuckus (sp?). Everything about this is media masturbation. Nothing to see here.

Totally agree with him, the dude was acting like a complete idiot and it cost him his and his friends life. Thankfully no other oncoming traffic was involved. What if he had taken out a family of four, would Ebert's comment be "insensitive" then? Had Dunn survived, he would have been charged with vehicular manslaughter and be a convicted felon. Its a really selfish attitude. Even if no alcohol is found in his system (which won't be the case), nobody has any business doing 110. You want to live life on the edge, fine, but A) dont put other innocent people's lives on the edge, and B) don't complain when you're made an example of.

I'm with Ebert on this one. Since when is pointing out that somebody's death was senseless, stupid, pointless, or totally avoidable unseemly or insensitive? I'm a little tired of people shouting "but, but, he was MY FRIEND!" when you point out that they might be alive if they didn't do the stupid thing that killed them. 

I stand with Team Ebert in this media-created conflict.