For the past few years, the Marion County Probation Department in Indianapolis and the Indiana Department of Correction have been requiring all registered sex offenders who are on probation or parole in that county to attend a mandatory meeting during the evening hours of Halloween. The object is to contain these offenders while kids trick-or-treat, thus minimizing kids' exposure to sex offenders.
You can read a little about the program here.
I understand the reasoning behind this practice, but I offer a different point of view to ponder.
I don't know how much manpower is involved in orchestrating this event, but Halloween is on a Saturday this year, so I can only assume that many of the probation officers and parole officers will be earning overtime to work. And we're not cheap to begin with. At time-and-a-half, that's a lot of money just in salaries. Offenders are going to have to be notified in writing, likely with some sort of proof of receipt, of the requirement to attend this program, so there's additional cost in office supplies and postage. Plus there's the cost associated with using a building that is likely not normally used on weekends.
Keep in mind, too, that this program is only mandatory for those on probation or parole. Those who have already completed terms of probation, parole, and/or incarceration cannot be forced to attend. The article says that nearly 300 people attended last year, with only four people not attending. According to the Indiana Sex Offender Registry, there are close to 2000 registered sex offenders in Indianapolis. For those who don't have a calculator handy, this program is only containing 15% of the registered sex offenders in the city.
But these are sex offenders we're talking about, right? So it's worth the cost to taxpayers to corral 15% of the registered sex offender population on Halloween, right? After all, these monsters will be lurking in the bushes, ready to dine at-will from the smorgasbord of kids out that night, right?
Read this recent study and decide for yourself. Unless you're a mathematician, the statistical analysis part of the article is likely to be a little dry for you, so let me hit the high points. According to this study, there is no increase in sex offenses on or around Halloween. (However, our children are four times more likely to get hit and killed by a car on Halloween than they are on any other day of the year.) And the belief that sex offenders lurk in the bushes, ready to pounce on unsuspecting kids? This study shows that only 2 out of every 1000 sex offenses against kids are committed by non-family members. The study simply confirms what I have come to believe after being a probation officer--and working with sex offenders--for 13 years.
I don't mean to poo-poo what Marion County officials are doing. I truly believe that they are genuinely trying to do everything they can to protect the public. I also don't question that a threat exists that kids can be molested during Halloween. Nor do I mean to minimize the lasting psychological and physical damage that offenders inflict upon their victims, or in any way, shape, or form justify sex offenders' behavior when they offend.
What I question, as does the study, is the cost-benefit equation of programs like Operation Halloween, especially when there is such a cheap and easy alternative: active parenting. I also worry that programs like this lull the public into a false sense of security, thinking that all the sex offenders in the city are rounded up and contained on Halloween night when, in fact, 85% of registered sex offenders (not to mention all the offenders who haven't registered, who aren't required to register, or who haven't been caught yet) are still out there on Halloween. "The bad guys are all rounded up, Ma! Cut the kids loose for a few hours!"
As a parent, and reinforced by my experience as a probation officer, I don't believe that kids should just be let loose to roam neighborhoods unattended while trick-or-treating. Bad things can happen--in addition to sex offenses--when kids are left unattended. Several years ago on Halloween, in one of our affluent neighborhoods where kids from all over the county are dumped by their parents in order to get candy from the "rich people," a young man was severely beaten by a handful of other kids and nearly died. What was the attack over? Halloween candy. The attackers demanded it, the victim didn't fork it over, and the victim wound up in the hospital with significant head trauma.
My kids are very young, but still, they only trick-or-treat at the homes of people we know. And, of course, we walk with them. The chances of a sex offender jumping out the bushes and snatching my kids, a pack of teenagers putting my kid into a coma over Halloween candy, my kids getting hit by a car, or anything else bad happening to them are reduced exponentially by me and the Mrs. being there to watch and protect. As my girls get older and want more independence while they trick-or-treat, that's fine. But they can't stop me from trailing a half-block behind them in my car.
By simply spending some time with our kids on Halloween, we're going to have a much higher success rate--and at a much lower cost--of protecting our kids than government officials are going to have with programs such as Operation Halloween. And as a taxpayer, I'd like to see the resources that were set aside for Operation Halloween spent instead during the period between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day. That period of time is the most dangerous time of year in terms of drunk drivers and the death and destruction they cause, and that money could be used to beef up funding for law enforcement, public information, alternate transportation, and other ways of keeping us safe on the roadways during the holiday season.
Or should we just round up all the convicted drunk drivers who are on probation and parole and keep them contained during the entire month of December?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Dinner with June
My dad tells a story about how, when he was growing up, he was slurping his soup loudly at the dinner table, much to his dad's disgust, and my grandfather smacked my dad hard enough in the back of his head to put his face into the soup.
Tonight, I TOTALLY understand where my grandfather was coming from.
We had soup for dinner. The Mrs. correctly predicted that Olivia and June would not be big fans of minestrone soup, so in addition to the little bowls of soup she provided them, she also warmed them up some chicken nuggets and cut up some fresh strawberries.
The girls immediately turned their noses up at the soup, but they enjoyed their nuggets and strawberries. June, watching her older sister drink from a "big girl" cup with no lid, wanted to try her own drink without a lid.
A two-year-old with a lid-less cup of juice is a disaster waiting to happen.
To her credit, it only took one spill of about eight ounces of juice down the front of her shirt to try a different approach to the cup. After refilling her cup, we figured we'd give her another shot at it. Heck, it's bath night tonight, and she's already soaked, anyway.
So June's next strategy was to keep the cup on the table and lean over until she could put her lips on the rim of the cup. Then, ever so carefully, she tipped the cup verrrrry slowly until she could sip some juice. No spills. Much rejoicing from me and the Mrs.
Having been positively reinforced for sipping, her next drink involved even louder sipping. Followed by even louder sipping. Followed by even LOUDER sipping. Until "sipping" was no longer the correct term for the noises coming from that cup. "Slurping" was more accurate. I'm not even sure "slurping" is the right word. What's louder than slurping? Anyway, the Mrs. and I couldn't even hold a conversation over the slurping.
Then June thought it would be funny to blow bubbles in her juice. She sounded like a mini-outboard motor, and juice was flying everywhere, as if said motor was going to town in the cup. So the lid went back on. Enough mess and disgusting noises at the dinner table.
A few seconds later, June set off the alarm. Oh no!! One of her chicken nuggets was gone!! Where might her nugget have gone? Why, in her cup, of course! The Mrs. removed the lid, and sure enough, there was a chicken nugget in the middle of a cup of apple juice. At some point while we weren't looking, June had apparently decided to see if nuggets float. (They do, sort of.)
No problem for June! She was more than happy to shove her hand into her cup, apple juice going halfway up to her elbow (and slopping all over the table), to retrieve the nugget. As she pulled it out, it was, naturally, dripping. And what do you do with a dripping chicken nugget soaked in apple juice?
Well, you wring it out, of course!
Into your soup.
And then you throw your nugget in your soup.
And then take a drink of juice with nugget parts floating in it.
And then eat the nugget.
As I put my head in my hands, trying to suppress my gag reflex, I thought of my grandfather planting my dad's head into a bowl of soup all those years ago. And I understood.
Tonight, I TOTALLY understand where my grandfather was coming from.
We had soup for dinner. The Mrs. correctly predicted that Olivia and June would not be big fans of minestrone soup, so in addition to the little bowls of soup she provided them, she also warmed them up some chicken nuggets and cut up some fresh strawberries.
The girls immediately turned their noses up at the soup, but they enjoyed their nuggets and strawberries. June, watching her older sister drink from a "big girl" cup with no lid, wanted to try her own drink without a lid.
A two-year-old with a lid-less cup of juice is a disaster waiting to happen.
To her credit, it only took one spill of about eight ounces of juice down the front of her shirt to try a different approach to the cup. After refilling her cup, we figured we'd give her another shot at it. Heck, it's bath night tonight, and she's already soaked, anyway.
So June's next strategy was to keep the cup on the table and lean over until she could put her lips on the rim of the cup. Then, ever so carefully, she tipped the cup verrrrry slowly until she could sip some juice. No spills. Much rejoicing from me and the Mrs.
Having been positively reinforced for sipping, her next drink involved even louder sipping. Followed by even louder sipping. Followed by even LOUDER sipping. Until "sipping" was no longer the correct term for the noises coming from that cup. "Slurping" was more accurate. I'm not even sure "slurping" is the right word. What's louder than slurping? Anyway, the Mrs. and I couldn't even hold a conversation over the slurping.
Then June thought it would be funny to blow bubbles in her juice. She sounded like a mini-outboard motor, and juice was flying everywhere, as if said motor was going to town in the cup. So the lid went back on. Enough mess and disgusting noises at the dinner table.
A few seconds later, June set off the alarm. Oh no!! One of her chicken nuggets was gone!! Where might her nugget have gone? Why, in her cup, of course! The Mrs. removed the lid, and sure enough, there was a chicken nugget in the middle of a cup of apple juice. At some point while we weren't looking, June had apparently decided to see if nuggets float. (They do, sort of.)
No problem for June! She was more than happy to shove her hand into her cup, apple juice going halfway up to her elbow (and slopping all over the table), to retrieve the nugget. As she pulled it out, it was, naturally, dripping. And what do you do with a dripping chicken nugget soaked in apple juice?
Well, you wring it out, of course!
Into your soup.
And then you throw your nugget in your soup.
And then take a drink of juice with nugget parts floating in it.
And then eat the nugget.
As I put my head in my hands, trying to suppress my gag reflex, I thought of my grandfather planting my dad's head into a bowl of soup all those years ago. And I understood.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Indiana is a Racist State. A Lawyer Told Me That.
A man killed his wife in front of their children in late June in the county in which I work. It was a really awful crime, for a number of reasons beyond the fact that a woman lost her life. He was sentenced to 55 years in prison yesterday, as was reported in the news in, among others, this article:
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/21250084/detail.html
As I read the article, a few things bothered me. They are things that bother me in just about every article I read involving the judicial system.
First, the article reports that the man received a 55-year sentence in prison. That leads a normal person to believe that he won't be eligible to walk out of prison until October 9, 2064, right? And since the man is currently 41 years old, that's almost assuredly a "life-in-prison" sentence, right? He'll be in his late 90's before he gets out. Right?
Wrong.
What the article fails to mention is that in Indiana, for every day a person serves in jail, that person gets an additional day of credit time, commonly referred to as "good time credit." You can read about it in Indiana Code 35-50-6-3. So this man will actually only serve half of his time. That's 27.5 years, not 55 years. So now we're talking a release date of somewhere in April of 2037, right? He'll still be in his late 60's when he gets out of prison, right?
Wrong.
Read the next section in that chapter of the Indiana Code (35-50-6-3.3) and learn about all the ways he can reduce his sentence. He has the potential to knock another 4 years off his sentence while he's in prison through a variety of programs designed to better a person while they are incarcerated. I'm not commenting on these programs and their associated time cuts. I'm simply pointing out another way that the man can cut time off his sentence. Something that was not reported in the article.
Then, at the very beginning of that chapter of the Indiana Code (35-50-6-1), you can read about parole. Whether this man has the possibility of parole or not isn't mentioned in this article, but it's another way that he might be released from prison earlier than many people expect.
Finally, the article makes no mention that the man receives credit for all the time he has been in jail while his case has been pending. He was caught by the police several hours after the murder occurred, so he's been in jail since late June. He has a little over 3 months of credit time already, plus 3 months of good time credit.
Again, I'm not commenting on the way Indiana state law reads. My irritation is a result of the media reporting that the man got 55 years in prison, leaving the public to believe that he will exit the prison doors 55 years from yesterday, assuming he's still alive, when that isn't even close to the truth.
Another big gripe I have with this article and with most other on-line media is the ability given to the public to add its comments, usually in complete anonymity. I understand the First Amendment and the right to free speech and all of that, but what constructive purpose does comments from the public serve? Many of these comments are posted by people who lack any knowledge of the situation, who are hiding under the cloak of anonymity, and who are simply trying to post the most inflammatory comment that they can come up with for reasons known only to them.
Let's look at some of the comments on this article together, shall we?
Our first (anonymous, of course) commenter laments about "killings in indy getting such light punishments." Aside from the fact that the killing did not take place in Indianapolis, but in one of its suburbs instead, Indiana Code 35-50-2-3 outlines the possible punishment for Murder. Murderers can get 45-65 years in prison, with the advisory sentence being 55 years. Murderers can also get life in prison without parole or the death penalty if certain circumstances are in place in that particular case. Once again, I'm not commenting on the Hendricks County Prosecutor's choice to offer this particular man the advisory sentence in exchange for not requiring the time, anguish, and money of a trial, and for wrapping up a murder case in under four months. I'm simply saying "such light punishments" are right down the middle of the plate, as far as what Indiana law allows a Court to sentence someone to for Murder.
The very next comment comes from a person (anonymous, of course) who blames the "light punishments" on "old brizzie", referring to Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. This person, in addition to misspelling Brizzi's name, failed to notice that the crime occurred and was prosecuted in Hendricks County, not Marion County. Mr. Brizzi had no jurisdiction or involvement in this case. Thank you for that educated, well thought-out comment.
Fortunately, the next commenter (once again, anonymous) pointed that out, throwing in an inflammatory "idiot" reference. That's constructive.
Then we get to the next (anonymous, naturally) commenter who somehow feels the need to tie a local domestic violence-related murder to President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier in the day. Huh?
Then we have a few more people (all anonymous) calling each other dumb, followed by later comments further down the page predictably throwing out the racial argument. * Yawn. *
Moving to page 2, we have some anonymous person spouting off that sentences are too short because prosecutors are overcoming budget constraints. (Once again, this man got the advisory sentence for Murder, according to Indiana law.) This person also suggests raising taxes in Marion County to help better fund the Prosecutor's Office. (The Marion County Prosecutor's Office was not involved in this case at all. It was a Hendricks County case.) Perhaps this is the same person who incorrectly blames "light punishments" on "old brizzie."
From there, it just degenerates into page after page after page of absolute hogwash, comprised of racism (one of the funniest comments: "Indiana is a racist state. A lawyer told me that." Not funny at all: "It is a noted fact that most murders are committed by blacks."), incorrect information about Indiana law ("in Indiana they use the 3 strikes law"), calls for public hangings and this man's murder in prison by other inmates and/or his suicide and/or the removal of his penis, and a return to Hammurabi's Code.
What is the point of this? Why does nearly every on-line news service allow uncensored, anonymous comments by the public? I cannot come up with a single constructive reason for allowing people to post such inflammatory things on the news service's website for everyone--regardless of age--to read, without any repercussions whatsoever. Pre-Internet, opinion letters could be sent to the editor of a newspaper, but the newspaper weeded out the letters from morons that contained racist comments, incorrect information, and other absurdity. And each letter contained the writer's name and town in which the writer lives. If someone wrote something asinine or inflammatory, everyone knew who wrote it.
Sure, sure. There's the option to not read said comments. But explain that to a child who is reading the news for a school project or for their own education. As my girls get older, I want them to be informed of current events. What I don't want them exposed to is page after page of the ramblings of the underbelly of society.
Do you want your kids perpetually exposed to that?
So my first suggestion to Internet news services, such as Channel 6's website, is to accurately report a person's sentence. Don't leave the public thinking a man is going to do 55 actual years in prison for killing his wife in front of his kids, when that's not even close to what he's going to serve. It's not hard to mention good time credit, educational credits, and parole.
Second, just eliminate the ability of the public to comment on stories.
The world will be a better place for it.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/21250084/detail.html
As I read the article, a few things bothered me. They are things that bother me in just about every article I read involving the judicial system.
First, the article reports that the man received a 55-year sentence in prison. That leads a normal person to believe that he won't be eligible to walk out of prison until October 9, 2064, right? And since the man is currently 41 years old, that's almost assuredly a "life-in-prison" sentence, right? He'll be in his late 90's before he gets out. Right?
Wrong.
What the article fails to mention is that in Indiana, for every day a person serves in jail, that person gets an additional day of credit time, commonly referred to as "good time credit." You can read about it in Indiana Code 35-50-6-3. So this man will actually only serve half of his time. That's 27.5 years, not 55 years. So now we're talking a release date of somewhere in April of 2037, right? He'll still be in his late 60's when he gets out of prison, right?
Wrong.
Read the next section in that chapter of the Indiana Code (35-50-6-3.3) and learn about all the ways he can reduce his sentence. He has the potential to knock another 4 years off his sentence while he's in prison through a variety of programs designed to better a person while they are incarcerated. I'm not commenting on these programs and their associated time cuts. I'm simply pointing out another way that the man can cut time off his sentence. Something that was not reported in the article.
Then, at the very beginning of that chapter of the Indiana Code (35-50-6-1), you can read about parole. Whether this man has the possibility of parole or not isn't mentioned in this article, but it's another way that he might be released from prison earlier than many people expect.
Finally, the article makes no mention that the man receives credit for all the time he has been in jail while his case has been pending. He was caught by the police several hours after the murder occurred, so he's been in jail since late June. He has a little over 3 months of credit time already, plus 3 months of good time credit.
Again, I'm not commenting on the way Indiana state law reads. My irritation is a result of the media reporting that the man got 55 years in prison, leaving the public to believe that he will exit the prison doors 55 years from yesterday, assuming he's still alive, when that isn't even close to the truth.
Another big gripe I have with this article and with most other on-line media is the ability given to the public to add its comments, usually in complete anonymity. I understand the First Amendment and the right to free speech and all of that, but what constructive purpose does comments from the public serve? Many of these comments are posted by people who lack any knowledge of the situation, who are hiding under the cloak of anonymity, and who are simply trying to post the most inflammatory comment that they can come up with for reasons known only to them.
Let's look at some of the comments on this article together, shall we?
Our first (anonymous, of course) commenter laments about "killings in indy getting such light punishments." Aside from the fact that the killing did not take place in Indianapolis, but in one of its suburbs instead, Indiana Code 35-50-2-3 outlines the possible punishment for Murder. Murderers can get 45-65 years in prison, with the advisory sentence being 55 years. Murderers can also get life in prison without parole or the death penalty if certain circumstances are in place in that particular case. Once again, I'm not commenting on the Hendricks County Prosecutor's choice to offer this particular man the advisory sentence in exchange for not requiring the time, anguish, and money of a trial, and for wrapping up a murder case in under four months. I'm simply saying "such light punishments" are right down the middle of the plate, as far as what Indiana law allows a Court to sentence someone to for Murder.
The very next comment comes from a person (anonymous, of course) who blames the "light punishments" on "old brizzie", referring to Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. This person, in addition to misspelling Brizzi's name, failed to notice that the crime occurred and was prosecuted in Hendricks County, not Marion County. Mr. Brizzi had no jurisdiction or involvement in this case. Thank you for that educated, well thought-out comment.
Fortunately, the next commenter (once again, anonymous) pointed that out, throwing in an inflammatory "idiot" reference. That's constructive.
Then we get to the next (anonymous, naturally) commenter who somehow feels the need to tie a local domestic violence-related murder to President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier in the day. Huh?
Then we have a few more people (all anonymous) calling each other dumb, followed by later comments further down the page predictably throwing out the racial argument. * Yawn. *
Moving to page 2, we have some anonymous person spouting off that sentences are too short because prosecutors are overcoming budget constraints. (Once again, this man got the advisory sentence for Murder, according to Indiana law.) This person also suggests raising taxes in Marion County to help better fund the Prosecutor's Office. (The Marion County Prosecutor's Office was not involved in this case at all. It was a Hendricks County case.) Perhaps this is the same person who incorrectly blames "light punishments" on "old brizzie."
From there, it just degenerates into page after page after page of absolute hogwash, comprised of racism (one of the funniest comments: "Indiana is a racist state. A lawyer told me that." Not funny at all: "It is a noted fact that most murders are committed by blacks."), incorrect information about Indiana law ("in Indiana they use the 3 strikes law"), calls for public hangings and this man's murder in prison by other inmates and/or his suicide and/or the removal of his penis, and a return to Hammurabi's Code.
What is the point of this? Why does nearly every on-line news service allow uncensored, anonymous comments by the public? I cannot come up with a single constructive reason for allowing people to post such inflammatory things on the news service's website for everyone--regardless of age--to read, without any repercussions whatsoever. Pre-Internet, opinion letters could be sent to the editor of a newspaper, but the newspaper weeded out the letters from morons that contained racist comments, incorrect information, and other absurdity. And each letter contained the writer's name and town in which the writer lives. If someone wrote something asinine or inflammatory, everyone knew who wrote it.
Sure, sure. There's the option to not read said comments. But explain that to a child who is reading the news for a school project or for their own education. As my girls get older, I want them to be informed of current events. What I don't want them exposed to is page after page of the ramblings of the underbelly of society.
Do you want your kids perpetually exposed to that?
So my first suggestion to Internet news services, such as Channel 6's website, is to accurately report a person's sentence. Don't leave the public thinking a man is going to do 55 actual years in prison for killing his wife in front of his kids, when that's not even close to what he's going to serve. It's not hard to mention good time credit, educational credits, and parole.
Second, just eliminate the ability of the public to comment on stories.
The world will be a better place for it.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Those Are the Breaks
After a few weeks of being on the receiving end of world class ass-kickings and having several players on our softball team give up during games, our team entered the single-elimination playoffs last night as the #7 seed (out of 7 teams). As a result, we had to play the #2 seed (only because the #1 seed got a bye in the first round). The #2 seed beat us 18-3 in four innings earlier in the season. And that's when everyone was still trying.
So I spent most of the week trying to get the team fired up for what was most likely our last hurrah for the season. The message was simple: we play hard from start to finish, we make them TAKE the win from us instead of just giving it to them, and if we go down, we go down swinging. We leave everything on the field.
I did everything I could all week long to get everyone's hearts into the game. I sent e-mails, I sent inspirational speeches that I found on YouTube, I called people, I wrote our battle cry on the lineup, I talked to everyone before the game, I told Chuck's wife (who keeps book for us) not to reveal the score at any point during the game, and I kept my big mouth running the whole game through, getting fired up on good plays and keeping everyone focused on our goal: to try our best the whole way through.
And wouldn't you know it, it worked.
We were outscored 16-14, but it wasn't 18-3 this time, and we didn't have any quitters. Everyone gave it their all, and I couldn't have been more proud. We had people sliding into bases, beating out throws to first base, running full speed after fly balls, making outstanding catches in the outfield, making outstanding plays in the infield, and doing just what I asked of everyone: leaving it all out on the field. We even had one of our guys hit an out-of-the-park grand slam home run!! We did our absolute best, and we came darn close to pulling off a miracle.
Of course, since Chuck's wife followed my instructions to a T, I had no idea just HOW close we came until it was all over. In fact, we were the visiting team, and after we batted late in the game, I went back out on the field to play defense because I had no idea what the score was, or what inning we were in. Only after I got in position did I notice everyone else doing the line of congratulatory handshakes over by home plate, which meant the game was over.
I played second base and had a relatively quiet night there. They hit one grounder right to me, which I fielded easily and threw the runner out at first. Another grounder late in the game had some zip on it, but I still should have gotten it. Instead of stopping it with my glove, though, I stopped it with my throwing hand. That stung a little. The runner was safe, but he never came around to score, so no harm, no foul.
I had my best batting night of the season, going 3-for-4 with two doubles and two runs scored. I would have gone 4-for-4, but I couldn't run out my last hit.
Why?
Because on my second hit, which was my second double, I broke my ankle sliding into second base in the third inning.
I knew as soon as I hit the bag and felt and heard a pop that I had done something serious to my ankle. I have never broken a bone in my life before last night, so I had no point of reference, but I figured a broken bone would sound and feel like my ankle did.
Nevertheless, we didn't have an extra guy last night, and I wasn't about to come out of the game. What kind of sissified blowhard would I have looked like if I got my team believing in fighting to the bitter end, and then I quit halfway through the game? Nope. Wasn't going to happen. We were leaving it all out on the field, dammit, and that included me.
I actually came around from second base to score later in the inning. And I batted again later in the game and got a single. (I admit, though, that I asked to be replaced with a pinch runner after reaching first base. I know. I'm a wuss.) In my last at-bat, I'd have had another single if I had had two good wheels, but my body was starting to tell me that playing 3+ innings on a broken ankle was just about enough. Plus, I had fouled off a pitch earlier in the at-bat, and when my ankle rotated with my normal batting motion on that swing...well...let's just say that the sensation was unpleasant. Very unpleasant. Damn near drop-me-to-my-knees-and-cry-like-a-baby unpleasant. So when I hit it fair, it was all upper body, with my right foot off the ground. That I even got the ball past the pitcher with that ridiculous batting form is amazing.
So anyway, we all played our hearts out all the way through the game, and I'm damn proud to have played with that group of people last night. The loss is inconsequential. The other team is better than we are, and that's okay. Congratulations to them, and good luck the rest of the way. But we showed that if we try our best for all seven innings, we can hang in there with the best of 'em.
We didn't just give them a win. They had to take it. And that made last night--broken ankle and all--worth it.
So I spent most of the week trying to get the team fired up for what was most likely our last hurrah for the season. The message was simple: we play hard from start to finish, we make them TAKE the win from us instead of just giving it to them, and if we go down, we go down swinging. We leave everything on the field.
I did everything I could all week long to get everyone's hearts into the game. I sent e-mails, I sent inspirational speeches that I found on YouTube, I called people, I wrote our battle cry on the lineup, I talked to everyone before the game, I told Chuck's wife (who keeps book for us) not to reveal the score at any point during the game, and I kept my big mouth running the whole game through, getting fired up on good plays and keeping everyone focused on our goal: to try our best the whole way through.
And wouldn't you know it, it worked.
We were outscored 16-14, but it wasn't 18-3 this time, and we didn't have any quitters. Everyone gave it their all, and I couldn't have been more proud. We had people sliding into bases, beating out throws to first base, running full speed after fly balls, making outstanding catches in the outfield, making outstanding plays in the infield, and doing just what I asked of everyone: leaving it all out on the field. We even had one of our guys hit an out-of-the-park grand slam home run!! We did our absolute best, and we came darn close to pulling off a miracle.
Of course, since Chuck's wife followed my instructions to a T, I had no idea just HOW close we came until it was all over. In fact, we were the visiting team, and after we batted late in the game, I went back out on the field to play defense because I had no idea what the score was, or what inning we were in. Only after I got in position did I notice everyone else doing the line of congratulatory handshakes over by home plate, which meant the game was over.
I played second base and had a relatively quiet night there. They hit one grounder right to me, which I fielded easily and threw the runner out at first. Another grounder late in the game had some zip on it, but I still should have gotten it. Instead of stopping it with my glove, though, I stopped it with my throwing hand. That stung a little. The runner was safe, but he never came around to score, so no harm, no foul.
I had my best batting night of the season, going 3-for-4 with two doubles and two runs scored. I would have gone 4-for-4, but I couldn't run out my last hit.
Why?
Because on my second hit, which was my second double, I broke my ankle sliding into second base in the third inning.
I knew as soon as I hit the bag and felt and heard a pop that I had done something serious to my ankle. I have never broken a bone in my life before last night, so I had no point of reference, but I figured a broken bone would sound and feel like my ankle did.
Nevertheless, we didn't have an extra guy last night, and I wasn't about to come out of the game. What kind of sissified blowhard would I have looked like if I got my team believing in fighting to the bitter end, and then I quit halfway through the game? Nope. Wasn't going to happen. We were leaving it all out on the field, dammit, and that included me.
I actually came around from second base to score later in the inning. And I batted again later in the game and got a single. (I admit, though, that I asked to be replaced with a pinch runner after reaching first base. I know. I'm a wuss.) In my last at-bat, I'd have had another single if I had had two good wheels, but my body was starting to tell me that playing 3+ innings on a broken ankle was just about enough. Plus, I had fouled off a pitch earlier in the at-bat, and when my ankle rotated with my normal batting motion on that swing...well...let's just say that the sensation was unpleasant. Very unpleasant. Damn near drop-me-to-my-knees-and-cry-like-a-baby unpleasant. So when I hit it fair, it was all upper body, with my right foot off the ground. That I even got the ball past the pitcher with that ridiculous batting form is amazing.
So anyway, we all played our hearts out all the way through the game, and I'm damn proud to have played with that group of people last night. The loss is inconsequential. The other team is better than we are, and that's okay. Congratulations to them, and good luck the rest of the way. But we showed that if we try our best for all seven innings, we can hang in there with the best of 'em.
We didn't just give them a win. They had to take it. And that made last night--broken ankle and all--worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)