A word of defense on behalf of Constable Hartery. Putting aside the question of whether he overreacted, and giving full credit to Winfield for his post-incident comportment, I would tend to believe Hartery when he says he overheard Winfield say “watch this” and I understand why Hartery would be disgusted by what happened next. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for Hartery to just make this up. And while it’s doubtful Hartery knew it, Winfield had previously demonstrated a taste for taking a cheap shot (or five) at a vulnerable being: https://vault.si.com/vault/1972/02/07/an-ugly-affair-in-minneapolis. That doesn’t come close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a failure to cross the high bar for finding Winfield guilty of a criminal offense is not the same thing as saying Winfield, who seems to be a basically decent guy with a streak of menace mixed in, is innocent of what Hartery accused him of.
Thanks for this excellent defense, including evidence exhibits, Brent! This really needs to be a Law & Order: Toronto episode for us to get all sides of it. Even as they ran from the decision, all Hartery's superiors backed him in making it--and that shows me he was acting in a manner they approved of, even though they couldn't support the decision he made, largely for political reasons. I tried not to find too much fault with Hartery, versus the system that allowed him to make a judgment that no one else would support. He seems to have been a fine officer; in September 1983, he made headlines for a fairly heroic deed in which he saved the life of a person who appeared ready to commit suicide (the story headline identified him as the "seagull incident officer"). Absent any evidence that he acted in bad faith, I'd say he, like Winfield, didn't fully consider the consequences of their actions beyond the immediate, but that's about as far as I'd go, myself.
I don’t know if we can entirely rule out suicide in this case. As you pointed out, the bird was ailing and likely to die soon. Perhaps he opted for “death by thrown baseball” as a solution (similar to “death by cop”).
Or what if Winfield saw the sick bird, understood it was waiting for the end, and decided to help it on its passage to the next world? You really could do a whole legal ethics unit on this incident and hash it out via the Socratic method.
All seriousness aside, this struck (pardon the pun) me as funny: “Meanwhile, in Canada, the autopsy results confirmed the gull’s cause of death. It had been hit in the head with a baseball.” Such forensic analysis!! Meg
Bottom line is people aren’t aware of Dave is he built a children’s wing onto then Hackensack Hospital. Say what you want about the bird he’s still a decent guy. 🦅🦆
This is quite right. Steinbrenner kept bringing up Winfield's considerable philanthropy during the seagull episode. Even in this episode, he's doing charity dinners, commissioning artwork for auction, he's a patron of the arts and medicine. That's the whole gamut.
A word of defense on behalf of Constable Hartery. Putting aside the question of whether he overreacted, and giving full credit to Winfield for his post-incident comportment, I would tend to believe Hartery when he says he overheard Winfield say “watch this” and I understand why Hartery would be disgusted by what happened next. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for Hartery to just make this up. And while it’s doubtful Hartery knew it, Winfield had previously demonstrated a taste for taking a cheap shot (or five) at a vulnerable being: https://vault.si.com/vault/1972/02/07/an-ugly-affair-in-minneapolis. That doesn’t come close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a failure to cross the high bar for finding Winfield guilty of a criminal offense is not the same thing as saying Winfield, who seems to be a basically decent guy with a streak of menace mixed in, is innocent of what Hartery accused him of.
Thanks for this excellent defense, including evidence exhibits, Brent! This really needs to be a Law & Order: Toronto episode for us to get all sides of it. Even as they ran from the decision, all Hartery's superiors backed him in making it--and that shows me he was acting in a manner they approved of, even though they couldn't support the decision he made, largely for political reasons. I tried not to find too much fault with Hartery, versus the system that allowed him to make a judgment that no one else would support. He seems to have been a fine officer; in September 1983, he made headlines for a fairly heroic deed in which he saved the life of a person who appeared ready to commit suicide (the story headline identified him as the "seagull incident officer"). Absent any evidence that he acted in bad faith, I'd say he, like Winfield, didn't fully consider the consequences of their actions beyond the immediate, but that's about as far as I'd go, myself.
I agree, Brent, I think Dave Winfield was not entirely innocent.
I don’t know if we can entirely rule out suicide in this case. As you pointed out, the bird was ailing and likely to die soon. Perhaps he opted for “death by thrown baseball” as a solution (similar to “death by cop”).
Or what if Winfield saw the sick bird, understood it was waiting for the end, and decided to help it on its passage to the next world? You really could do a whole legal ethics unit on this incident and hash it out via the Socratic method.
All seriousness aside, this struck (pardon the pun) me as funny: “Meanwhile, in Canada, the autopsy results confirmed the gull’s cause of death. It had been hit in the head with a baseball.” Such forensic analysis!! Meg
Bottom line is people aren’t aware of Dave is he built a children’s wing onto then Hackensack Hospital. Say what you want about the bird he’s still a decent guy. 🦅🦆
This is quite right. Steinbrenner kept bringing up Winfield's considerable philanthropy during the seagull episode. Even in this episode, he's doing charity dinners, commissioning artwork for auction, he's a patron of the arts and medicine. That's the whole gamut.
+1 for the pun, and I can confirm you laughed at the laugh line. It's always nice to know when a line like that...hits home.
Doesn’t really matter does it? After all you know what they say, “Taste like chicken.”