Amazon.com Widgets

Dave Winfield seagull incident: Should the baseball star have served time?

  • No responses have been submitted.
  • No, Dave Winfield should not have served time.

    No, Dave Winfield should not have served time for the seagull incident. In my opinion, it was an accident and he was remorseful. The incident was investigated and he was cleared of intentionally throwing the ball at the bird. While it was a sad story, jail time was not necessary in this case.

  • It was right to charge Winfield, but there was insufficient evidence of a crime

    From the police officer's perspective, it appeared that Winfield had deliberately injured the bird without any thought to the life of the bird. There was reason to charge him with "causing unnecessary suffering to an animal." The officer did the right thing by charging and arresting Winfield, but there was not enough evidence to convict him so he should not have served any time.

  • No, he shouldn't have served time.

    No, he shouldn't have served time for the seagull incident because it seems like it was an accident. If we are putting people in jail for killing seagull, what else can we put them in jail for? I don't understand people calling for someone to go to jail for killing a seagull, but they let other things slide. The whole thing seems really dense.

  • No, the baseball star should not have served time.

    No, the baseball star should not have served time because it was an accident. He did not want to hurt or kill any birds. This is the case of wrong place at the wrong time. If there is not malicious intent, a person should be considered innocent in the eyes of the law.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.