
Originally Posted by
Kohan
There is a problem with it, in fact: glossing over the reality of the situation. As mentioned earlier, under the guise of humanism, individuals are praising someone while neglecting to mention that they were responsible not only for their own death, but for that of another person -- in short, they killed someone else, not simply themselves. (If you have not read more updated stories, it has been confirmed that he had an incredibly high alcohol level -- the autopsy didn't take long, evidently.) If he survived, but his friend had not, and the justice system were fair, he would be facing jail time for his actions -- not an endless parade of love and praise.
This should be mentioned, recognized, and emphasized, because an outpouring of admiration that deliberately ignores the damning details provides no example for others to learn from. Out of the desire to be "politically correct," an important point is consciously being avoided. That is why these sorts of things continue to happen, and are accepted as normal. It would be an ideal time, therefore, for family and friends to come out against drunk driving; his death could, in fact, produce a useful after-effect for society if it was used as an example. Will this happen in the future? One can only hope.
Meanwhile, by painting it as a tragedy (when it was deliberate, and likely one of thousands of times when he'd driven drunkenly), a disservice is done. Likewise, by saying something completely out of focus -- namely, "if someone dies doing something stupid and reckless it negates anything positive they ever did" -- you're proving the impotence of the counterargument; the subject is not whether he was involved in anything that made people laugh or not while alive, but rather, whether he should be lauded after dying a completely irresponsible death (via means that also endangered others, and literally killed someone else, at that).
He should not be. His death was of his own making. He was careless, disregarded the importance of human life on a regular basis, and died while taking another life with him. That does not deserve respect, as it in of itself was a disrespectful act -- one that easily could have resulted in the deaths of any of those people willfully ignoring why it happened.
It's a pitiable but earned demise, and -- especially considering their celebrity status -- should be made a point of at every opportunity. If such showcasing makes a single person change their mind about drinking and driving, that is a more valuable after-effect than any amount of disposable, inauthentic, "going through the motions" affection shared via Twitter, Facebook, or any other medium will ever be.
Ebert used his fame for the right reasons, understanding that a large amount of people would read his statement and understand exactly what he meant. That's infinitely more important than non-relatives crying over an individual who could have very well been responsible for multiple deaths, and who was already liable for one.