Tom Palermo's killer up for parole already

[makoti]

http://wtop.com/maryland/2017/05/former-md-bishop-convicted-killing-cyclist-parole/

18 months. Just makes me sick.

[Blown Reek]

She was just doing the Lord's work.

[marciero]

Wow. Seems like yesterday. I have mixed feelings since she left the scene, but still, 18 months is real jail time.

[R00td0wn]

https://www.bikemaryland.org/heather-cook-parole/

From the Bike Maryland page, "Please join Bike Maryland in signing this letter to ask David Blumberg, Chair, Maryland Parole Commission to deny Heather Cook parole"

[54ny77]

sickening. wonder how the parole board would be handling this if it were a close family member of theirs, say, a child or spouse, who was killed by this person.

[AngryScientist]

The woman basically admitted guilt to killing a man while she was drunk, texting and driving. She's 60, so i doubt she has any young kids who depend on her. i can't possibly see what the case would be for her to get out early.

these days the justice system needs to send the message loud and clear that distracted, impaired driving is not OK, and letting her out at the first opportunity sends just the opposite message.

i would be shocked if she got out this early.

[oldpotatoe]

Wow. Seems like yesterday. I have mixed feelings since she left the scene, but still, 18 months is real jail time.

She was drunk, she killed a guy, she left, she lied about it. She needs more 'real jail time', imho.

[josephr]

https://www.bikemaryland.org/heather-cook-parole/

From the Bike Maryland page, "Please join Bike Maryland in signing this letter to ask David Blumberg, Chair, Maryland Parole Commission to deny Heather Cook parole"

Thanks so much for the link....18 months for a drunk-driving fatality isn't enough...cyclist or no cyclist.

[Peter P.]

Maryland is fortunate to have a bicycle advocacy group that follows and is willing to participate in cases like this. I think that has greater leverage than family members.

I see no reason she shouldn't be paroled after 18 months. But make a condition of her release a lifetime driver's license ban. That's punishment enough for most people.

[GregL]

Maryland is fortunate to have a bicycle advocacy group that follows and is willing to participate in cases like this. I think that has greater leverage than family members.

I see no reason she shouldn't be paroled after 18 months. But make a condition of her release a lifetime driver's license ban. That's punishment enough for most people.
I have to respectfully disagree. An 18 month prison sentence is far too short for her crime. This was at least her second documented DUI AND she was texting. It's the double whammy of stupid driving offenses. For that alone she deserves a longer sentence. Her callous disregard for human life led to the death of an innocent person. No punishment will bring back Tom Palermo, but an 18 month prison term is simply no deterrent to this type of crime.

Greg

[OtayBW]

https://www.bikemaryland.org/heather-cook-parole/

From the Bike Maryland page, "Please join Bike Maryland in signing this letter to ask David Blumberg, Chair, Maryland Parole Commission to deny Heather Cook parole"
Glad to see that Bike Maryland fixed the spelling of the gentleman to whom the petition was addressed.

I called and wrote to the parole board.....

FWIW: The Right Rev. Heather Cook’s Division of Corrections number is 442452, and her case number is 115035007. The address for letters about Cook is The Maryland Parole Commission, 6776 Reisterstown Road, Suite 307, Baltimore, Maryland, 21215. (410) 585-3200

[OtayBW]

Maryland is fortunate to have a bicycle advocacy group that follows and is willing to participate in cases like this. I think that has greater leverage than family members.

I see no reason she shouldn't be paroled after 18 months. But make a condition of her release a lifetime driver's license ban. That's punishment enough for most people.I hear you about the advocacy group, but to some extent, it's also a bit of a mixed bag....

However, I also strongly believe that the fatality resulting from Ms. Cooks actions - texting while driving and at ~3 times the legal blood alcohol limit - was certainly not a non-violent crime, particularly as her second offense. Her leaving the scene twice and her failure to call 911 for assistance were also exacerbating circumstances that, in my opinion, warrant appreciably more than an 18-month slap on the wrist.

If we are to be serious about drunk AND distracted driving - indeed, both in this case - there needs to be enforcement and deterrence. IMO, we need to send the correct message of deterrence that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

[soulspinner]

sickening. Wonder how the parole board would be handling this if it were a close family member of theirs, say, a child or spouse, who was killed by this person.

+1

[daker13]

This petition looks like it is for Maryland residents only, is that right?

If a powerful person like this lady can commit such a heinous crime and get out of it after a mere 18 months, it truly says horrible things about this country.

[makoti]

This petition looks like it is for Maryland residents only, is that right?

If a powerful person like this lady can commit such a heinous crime and get out of it after a mere 18 months, it truly says horrible things about this country.

Don't think so. I'm in Va & I signed it.

[adrien]

Much longer piece here:https://cyclingtips.com/2017/05/eligible-for-parole-after-18-months-in-prison-the-builder-the-bishop-and-a-most-violent-crime/

It's a great piece. But it's horrible, and won't make anyone feel any better.

I have given up hoping for an official response from the church. That they would elevate a woman like this (who had a DUI previously) and then stay essentially silent after she does this is abhorrent, effete, and self-serving. For those who care about such things, they "reached an agreement to allow her to resign" in May after she killed TP in December.

There's no church acknowledgement that what she did (fatally injure a man, and leave him alone to die while fleeing the scene) is in fact the opposite of what the church (and indeed, she at the time) teaches. It's feckless and weak on their part.

[Llewellyn]

Much longer piece here:https://cyclingtips.com/2017/05/eligible-for-parole-after-18-months-in-prison-the-builder-the-bishop-and-a-most-violent-crime/

It's a great piece. But it's horrible, and won't make anyone feel any better.

I have given up hoping for an official response from the church. That they would elevate a woman like this (who had a DUI previously) and then stay essentially silent after she does this is abhorrent, effete, and self-serving. For those who care about such things, they "reached an agreement to allow her to resign" in May after she killed TP in December.

There's no church acknowledgement that what she did (fatally injure a man, and leave him alone to die while fleeing the scene) is in fact the opposite of what the church (and indeed, she at the time) teaches. It's feckless and weak on their part.

One of many, many reasons that I have no time for organised religions. But not unexpected either.

It's unbelievable that she could even be considered for parole after just 18 months. Further proof that in the eyes of the justice system the life of a cyclist isn't worth jack s**t :mad:

[ElvisMerckx]

I'd feel better if she spent more time in prison. Perhaps she could do more good in prison ministry than on the outside.

Heartfelt thoughts to the Palermo family.

[choke]

these days the justice system We don't have a justice system....we have a legal system. It would be great if justice was served during that legal process but IMO in most instances that is not the case.

As for Ms. Cook, the longer she is kept from behind the wheel of an automobile the better.

[unterhausen]

I feel like she would be driving again fairly soon, almost surely drunk and texting. Summary execution is too kind if that happens

[daker13]

That Cycling Tips article was very good, very sad. The worst (well, maybe not the worst) part to me is that, when he wrote her while she was in jail, she seemed interested in trying to convert him... at least, that's what I took from it... the idea that someone could commit such a crime and transform it into a mere gimmick for the religious conversion of others...

Tom Palermo really seems to have left his mark on the world, and I'm glad that so many people seem dedicated to keeping his memory alive... but I have little faith in her own ability to appreciate the gravity of what she's done. Such a person has no right to presume to offer other people spiritual guidance. Bleck.

[smontanaro]

While I agree it's too short, eighteen months seems like a dream sentence to me when compared to the ten-day+probation sentence Ryne SanHamel got for killing Bobby Cann here in Chicago in 2013. Blind drunk, well over the speed limit, but Daddy got him big name legal counsel, and it seems like the Cook County prosecutor's office just wanted to clear it of their books.

[R00td0wn]

Early parole rejected

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-cook-parole-hearing-daily-20170509-story.html

[sales guy]

Early parole rejected

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-cook-parole-hearing-daily-20170509-story.html



I just saw this. And i'm sorry, but thank Allah!! or Jehovah or Buddha or God or whomever.

[David Tollefson]

Throw away the key.

[weisan]

Early parole rejected
.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-cook-parole-hearing-daily-20170509-story.html
.
Commission chairman David Blumberg said the two commissioners who ruled on the case told him one reason they denied Cook parole was that she "took no responsibility" and "showed no remorse" for her actions during the 90-minute hearing.

Blumberg said Cook will no longer be eligible for parole.

I think we should measure our response and follow Rachel's lead. (Tom's widow)

Rachel Palermo was the first to speak after the hearing.

Her voice choking with emotion, she told a small group of reporters that "today is really about Tom" and "also about those who continue to love him and feel his loss."

Then she made a plea to anyone listening to avoid the kind of behavior that led to the crash that killed her husband.

"I ask this: if you still talk on your phone or text while driving, please put your phone down," she said. "If you plan to go out and drink, please set up a ride before you go. I want you to think of a 6- and an 8-year-old who wish their dad was still here. I want you to think of me and my pain. I want you to think of Tom's parents and their loss. And I want you to think of your own loved ones."

[makoti]

"Denied outright". I like that.
How can you talk for AN HOUR about killing someone & never even address the wife of the man you killed, who is sitting a few feet from you? What an empty, soulless woman she has to be.
She could still get out in 2019, but not today.

[benb]

That whole thing is totally crazy.. she's been sitting in jail for long enough by now to have reflected on it and have some remorse.

So much for "morality must come from God", in this case the legal system is working quite a bit better...

[GregL]

"Denied outright". I like that.
How can you talk for AN HOUR about killing someone & never even address the wife of the man you killed, who is sitting a few feet from you? What an empty, soulless woman she has to be.
She could still get out in 2019, but not today.
One of two possible reasons for her lack of apology or contrition: (1) her lawyer could have advised her not to accept any blame, as it would likely be admissible in a civil lawsuit; (2) complete and utter lack of empathy on her part. My money is on (1), but (2) is certainly within the realm of possibility. Either way, good on the parole commissioners. Nice to see the law followed and justice preserved.

Greg

[Pelican]

One of two possible reasons for her lack of apology or contrition: (1) her lawyer could have advised her not to accept any blame, as it would likely be admissible in a civil lawsuit; (2) complete and utter lack of empathy on her part. My money is on (1), but (2) is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Civil suit was already settled, so it is (2).

[zennmotion]

One of two possible reasons for her lack of apology or contrition: (1) her lawyer could have advised her not to accept any blame, as it would likely be admissible in a civil lawsuit; (2) complete and utter lack of empathy on her part. My money is on (1), but (2) is certainly within the realm of possibility. Either way, good on the parole commissioners. Nice to see the law followed and justice preserved.

Greg

And if the civil suit is her concern, she may be protecting the church with deeper pockets than hers (and possibly even providing her counsel?) as they may be seen as partially culpable if Diocese officials knowingly did not prevent her from getting behind the wheel (before this tragedy or any other possible DUI infraction in the past). As a preacher's kid, who's seen my share of church politics I find the Diocese's handling of this by turning inward and sticking their collective heads up their azzez to be disgusting.

[Aaron O]

I really don't know what justice looks like in this case. I don't know what's fair. A just society balances mercy, punishment and rehabilitation...what that looks like for this woman is beyond me. I'll wager a guess that the sentencing judge felt the same way. She killed a man...each and every one of us thinks that could have been me when we think about it. We think about our families. We're, justifiably, outraged; her behavior was outrageous.

Most of us also understand that it's tough when allocating blame and punishment with addicts. I hear from people I trust and who know more than me about the subject that it's a disease...that I shouldn't be judgmental. I am judgmental and I don't accept that there's no free will. I get that I don't have addiction in my family and I had a blessed life from an ivory tower in many ways...and I still feel like addiction is, ultimately, a choice and a weakness. But the people who understand it say otherwise. I know mens rea counts and that it's different from a bank robber. But she also still decided to drive.

What's fair here? I have no clue.

[Aaron O]

FWIW - I'm an aggressively secular guy with no love for organized religion, and I'm a bit confused at the assumptions here that the church is at fault in some way...or is somehow on the hook for her behavior. I haven't seen anything that indicates it's pitch fork time.

If you hired a contractor who was a functioning addict, and they killed someone on the way to your house, would you by default be to blame? Unless there's some evidence that the church did something egregious, or violated dram shop laws, I'll just continue assuming that the problem is addiction and Heather Cook. I don't find it that hard to make the assumption that she was a functioning alcoholic.

[MattTuck]

FWIW - I'm an aggressively secular guy with no love for organized religion, and I'm a bit confused at the assumptions here that the church is at fault in some way...or is somehow on the hook for her behavior. I haven't seen anything that indicates it's pitch fork time.

If you hired a contractor who was a functioning addict, and they killed someone on the way to your house, would you by default be to blame? Unless there's some evidence that the church did something egregious, or violated dram shop laws, I'll just continue assuming that the problem is addiction and Heather Cook. I don't find it that hard to make the assumption that she was a functioning alcoholic.

If I interpret the sentiment correctly, the problem is that the church hasn't come out more vocally against her. As an organization (supposedly) grounded in moral values from above, they should be the first to condemn this behavior. You know, since "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment, and all. I guess they're worried about potential liability, or their reputation being tarnished by this member of their community, I don't know. I think there is generally a wide held (wrong) belief that the church stands for what's right, and people expect its actions to flow from that belief, despite consistent historical evidence to the contrary.

[zennmotion]

Actually, what's "fair" also seems pretty straightforward with respect to legal guidelines for parole.

Blumberg said parole officials in vehicular manslaughter cases typically consider four main criteria during such hearings: the degree to which an offender takes responsibility or displays "appropriate remorse," the continuing impact on victims and the question of public safety.

And if a case were to be successfully made that church officials knew her to be driving under the influence (e.g. witnessed coming to/leaving her office or meetings drinking or drunk) and made no reasonable attempt to intervene, I would assume (though having no legal expertise) that would be negligence, especially if there were repeated incidents. I totally get substance abuse as a disease and treatment over punishment, but that doesn't exonerate the conscious choice to put the public at risk. Being drunk used to be an accepted excuse for domestic violence, that's changing, though we still have a long way to go there too.

[Aaron O]

If I interpret the sentiment correctly, the problem is that the church hasn't come out more vocally against her. As an organization (supposedly) grounded in moral values from above, they should be the first to condemn this behavior. You know, since "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment, and all. I guess they're worried about potential liability, or their reputation being tarnished by this member of their community, I don't know. I think there is generally a wide held (wrong) belief that the church stands for what's right, and people expect its actions to flow from that belief, despite consistent historical evidence to the contrary.

I haven't followed closely enough to have an opinion, but I'm sure they've expressed sorrow, sympathy and prayers. It's also not the Church's job to condemn their member...that's the job of society's representatives, and she was condemned.

[OtayBW]

Actually, what's "fair" also seems pretty straightforward with respect to legal guidelines for parole.

Blumberg said parole officials in vehicular manslaughter cases typically consider four main criteria during such hearings: the degree to which an offender takes responsibility or displays "appropriate remorse," the continuing impact on victims and the question of public safety.

And if a case were to be successfully made that church officials knew her to be driving under the influence (e.g. witnessed coming to/leaving her office or meetings drinking or drunk) and made no reasonable attempt to intervene, I would assume (though having no legal expertise) that would be negligence, especially if there were repeated incidents. I totally get substance abuse as a disease and treatment over punishment, but that doesn't exonerate the conscious choice to put the public at risk. Being drunk used to be an accepted excuse for domestic violence, that's changing, though we still have a long way to go there too.
I wrote what I thought was a fairly effective letter to Parole Commission Chair Blumberg (and indeed received a response), and based on the facts of this case, and if they adhere to his criteria, I'd be surprised if the Right Rev. Heather Mills doesn't spend at least another year in jail.

UPDATE: The Right Rev. Heather Mills was just recently denied parole based on this being her 2nd offense and her lack of remorse. No more parole opportunities until mid-2020. That seems 'fair' to me.

Sorry - didn't see previous posts announcing this earlier.

[David Tollefson]

As a preacher's kid, who's seen my share of church politics I find the Diocese's handling of this by turning inward and sticking their collective heads up their azzez to be disgusting.

As a fellow PK, I echo this sentiment.

[unterhausen]

alcoholism is really tough. It seems to go hand in hand with lack of personal responsibility and a narcissistic streak. As a society, we don't know how to deal with it unless the outcome is really tragic. And it's clear that society would be better off if Heather Cook was not allowed to drive again. But if she gets out, she will.

[zennmotion]

alcoholism is really tough. It seems to go hand in hand with lack of personal responsibility and a narcissistic streak. As a society, we don't know how to deal with it unless the outcome is really tragic. And it's clear that society would be better off if Heather Cook was not allowed to drive again. But if she gets out, she will.

I think the key word above is "seems", which is an attempt to oversimplify something that''s not commonly understood. Not meaning to target you, you have an opinion as everyone has. However, we should remember that there are surely alcoholics in here reading this, recovering and otherwise, and they're not Heather Cook. In some cases a bicycle may be part of a means to cope with a tough reality and for that I'll trade pulls with them any day.

[p nut]

"...Cook spoke at length, calling her alcoholism a disease and describing the parole process as a "brutal irony," but never apologized to Rachel Palermo, Thomas' widow and the mother of his two children."

Speaking of brutal irony, I wonder how just it would be to sentence her to mandatory cycling hours, post jail time.

Weird, but similar sentences have been handed out...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0109/10-weird-criminal-sentences/

[Blown Reek]

Good.

[weisan]

If I interpret the sentiment correctly, the problem is that the church hasn't come out more vocally against her. As an organization (supposedly) grounded in moral values from above, they should be the first to condemn this behavior. You know, since "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment, and all. I guess they're worried about potential liability, or their reputation being tarnished by this member of their community, I don't know. I think there is generally a wide held (wrong) belief that the church stands for what's right, and people expect its actions to flow from that belief, despite consistent historical evidence to the contrary.

First off, please know that I rarely ever venture into this space because A) it seldom bares fruit and B) it is also my wish to keep politics and religions out of our discussion as much as possible.

Having said that, i think Matt and a few other pals raised some very pertinent questions and observations that I thought I might be able to throw some light on. So please bear with me....

Here's what I would say about this "church" thing.

Make no mistake, it's IMPOSSIBLE for any organization, including a church, to fully regulate every speech and action of its members or affiliates. There's always going to be someone somewhere walking out of line in some fashion. You can blame the church, you can blame the person, it doesn't matter. It has happened and it will continue to happen. That's our nature, we tend to wander.

Secondly, how a church respond or handle a situation is completely dependent on its leadership. Yes, I put the onus on the leaders. With great power comes great responsibility. Those who are given more are expected more out of them. That's how it works. If they act in self-interest, if they care more about self-preservation, if they basically go against what they preach, it will be self-evident at some point. They cannot hide. Their true intentions will be revealed at some point. It's inevitable.

And now, we come to the "critical" part.
This is lifted directly off the text.

There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.

Guess who they are talking about?

Yup. Both people of the book and people not of the book.

Anyone who is guilty of such, there's no playing favorites here. It applies to all.

So, for those of you who are thirsting for blood, be rest assured, if blood is what you want, blood is what you will get. Christian or not. Pope, Bishop, Patron Saint, The Most High Priest...or just a plain parishioner...it doesn't matter, it applies to them all. Don't assume just because you don't see justice done at your preferred timing or with your preferred method that justice is absent. It's not.

Therefore, it's been said - the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

One last bit...to say I am a Christian apologist is to oversimplify and put me in a box, I am quite a bit more sophisticated than that. Would you like me to explain to you using Taoist or Buddhist terminology? I think not. :D

[unterhausen]

However, we should remember that there are surely alcoholics in here reading this, recovering and otherwise, and they're not Heather Cook. In some cases a bicycle may be part of a means to cope with a tough reality and for that I'll trade pulls with them any day.
you're right, I was too sweeping with my generalizations.

[adrien]

Okay, I also will wade further.

I went for a walk with my grandfather years ago, just a few years before he died. He told me he regretted not going to seminary. It hit me hard as a young adult. Because of that and how much I love him (still, 20 years after his passing), I got married in a church. I dove in.

When I emigrated to the USA, it's a church community that was the most welcoming, helped me find work, baptized my child, welcomed us. It was for me as much about tradition and connection as it was about faith. All faith is about a dance with doubt.

Cycling brought something new. Friends, adventure, and yes, a kind of worship -- in nature, and through fellowship. I love this sport, and the adventures it brings.

Then she did this.

I don't wish her ill, except in my weaker moments. Secular authorities have dealt with her, and reasonably effectively. Divine authorities will in due time. And yes, a bigger man than I would recognize she is fallen as we all are, and deserves no less welcome in a church. She is no doubt an addict and she did something abhorrent; something that she was granted the authority to guide us not to do. And she keeps doing it, extending the pain.

The problem is that this has all shed a light on the church's lack of credibility. It reeks of privilege, and "handling" by the very entity that rests upon the notion of moral leadership. As a one-time PR person, this is a disaster for them. It would not have been difficult to release a simple statement condemning the behavior but not the person. But it would have required courage.

Look academically at the hits to the church's tattered reputation among those of us here. It's a mess. And it's completely unaddressed.

It's difficult now to walk into a church without all the noise of this intervening. I don't easily find God. I've managed to, once or twice, often when it's a personal friend preaching. But it's the exception. Clipping in and rolling down the road, though; that still works every time.

[AngryScientist]

meh, to me - it doesnt matter what her day job was.

she's just a terrible human being IMO, if you add up all the puzzle pieces.

she's nothing more than a booze hound old lady with no respect for human life, other than her own. so alcoholism is a disease, one than can be horribly addictive. i get that. getting boozed up, getting behind the wheel and texting is not one of the clinical symptoms of alcoholism.

leaving the scene of the crime and trying to cover up the accident is the worst part.

this woman sucks. let her rot in a prison cell, and throw away the key. the streets are safer and society is better off without her roaming around like a destructive moron.

[Aaron O]

Okay, I also will wade further.

I went for a walk with my grandfather years ago, just a few years before he died. He told me he regretted not going to seminary. It hit me hard as a young adult. Because of that and how much I love him (still, 20 years after his passing), I got married in a church. I dove in.

When I emigrated to the USA, it's a church community that was the most welcoming, helped me find work, baptized my child, welcomed us. It was for me as much about tradition and connection as it was about faith. All faith is about a dance with doubt.

Cycling brought something new. Friends, adventure, and yes, a kind of worship -- in nature, and through fellowship. I love this sport, and the adventures it brings.

Then she did this.

I don't wish her ill, except in my weaker moments. Secular authorities have dealt with her, and reasonably effectively. Divine authorities will in due time. And yes, a bigger man than I would recognize she is fallen as we all are, and deserves no less welcome in a church. She is no doubt an addict and she did something abhorrent; something that she was granted the authority to guide us not to do. And she keeps doing it, extending the pain.

The problem is that this has all shed a light on the church's lack of credibility. It reeks of privilege, and "handling" by the very entity that rests upon the notion of moral leadership. As a one-time PR person, this is a disaster for them. It would not have been difficult to release a simple statement condemning the behavior but not the person. But it would have required courage.

Look academically at the hits to the church's tattered reputation among those of us here. It's a mess. And it's completely unaddressed.

It's difficult now to walk into a church without all the noise of this intervening. I don't easily find God. I've managed to, once or twice, often when it's a personal friend preaching. But it's the exception. Clipping in and rolling down the road, though; that still works every time.
I'm not trying to be objectionable here, but do we know they didn't condemn her behavior? Can't we just assume they condemn her behavior? I'm not seeing why it's important for them to some how take on responsibility for her actions.

I feel pretty certain that the folks in that church are awfully sorry that a man was killed. I'm not aware of any mis-deeds by the church, or anything they did that was offensive. I'm not seeing a moral duty that they didn't meet. I didn't follow every detail closely, so maybe there's something that I missed.

If someone of serotta forums ran someone over...would we all be on the hook for condemnations and apologies?

A woman with an addiction exhibited gross behavior and she killed a member of our circle. She's where she belongs - a cell. She belongs there for punishment and to keep her Subaru away from the rest of us. All of us know someone who knows someone that was friendly with Tom. All of us are, with good reason, furious.

Maybe my standards for religious leaders are different - I assume they're just human beings, and many of them are pond scum. This one is pond scum. Why is her entire church community on the hook? Should we be extending that to her neighbors? Her book club?

[Aaron O]

meh, to me - it doesnt matter what her day job was.

She's just a terrible human being imo, if you add up all the puzzle pieces.

She's nothing more than a booze hound old lady with no respect for human life, other than her own. So alcoholism is a disease, one than can be horribly addictive. I get that. Getting boozed up, getting behind the wheel and texting is not one of the clinical symptoms of alcoholism.

Leaving the scene of the crime and trying to cover up the accident is the worst part.

This woman sucks. Let her rot in a prison cell, and throw away the key. The streets are safer and society is better off without her roaming around like a destructive moron.

this

[adrien]

I'm not trying to be objectionable here, but do we know they didn't condemn her behavior? Can't we just assume they condemn her behavior? I'm not seeing why it's important for them to some how take on responsibility for her actions.

I feel pretty certain that the folks in that church are awfully sorry that a man was killed. I'm not aware of any mis-deeds by the church, or anything they did that was offensive. I'm not seeing a moral duty that they didn't meet. I didn't follow every detail closely, so maybe there's something that I missed.

Maybe my standards for religious leaders are different - I assume they're just human beings, and many of them are pond scum. This one is pond scum. Why is her entire church community on the hook? Should we be extending that to her neighbors? Her book club?

Think of it in secular terms. Every employment contract I have ever had has listed grounds for termination, and every one has said that termination will be immediate upon admission or conviction of a felony. I have seen people fired for far, far less from employers with no claim of moral high ground.

They never terminated her. They never made a statement condemning her behavior. It's not that she was a member of a forum. She was an employed senior executive.

[benb]

Comparisons to someone in the forum running someone over are not terribly valid.

This is a loosely knit community with no power that focuses on a fun activity/hobby. Churches tends to be powerful community organizations that are granted a lot of leeway in society and hold themselves as authorities on moral behavior.

My original remark was not about her church not doing more, although it certainly would have been interesting if they had tried to do some "good works" to help his widow and children, and apparently they have not. (Performing Good works being a common behavior of some Christian denominations but not others.) My remark was more about the failure of her to show remorse. Her training/position should have put her in a position to be able clearly reflect on what she had done, come to grips with what had happened, understand she was wrong, and both apologize and show remorse. The fact that she can't, and was elevated to a high position in that particular church, shows a failing of the church. In the end it is a huge failure to be mindful of the golden rule.

This kind of systemic failure is increasingly common and is a big reason so many of us who were raised in faith based families have walked away.

[Aaron O]

Think of it in secular terms. Every employment contract I have ever had has listed grounds for termination, and every one has said that termination will be immediate upon admission or conviction of a felony. I have seen people fired for far, far less from employers with no claim of moral high ground.

They never terminated her. They never made a statement condemning her behavior. It's not that she was a member of a forum. She was an employed senior executive.

Employment contracts, and separation agreements, are quite different for senior executives vs. GROPOs. I don't know nearly enough about standard terms for various positions in church hierarchies to express an opinion about her termination.

I'm not seeing a need for her church to kick her on the way down...and booted down she was. I'm also not seeing a need for the church to express culpability for her behavior.

If I were a member of that church, I likely would have had a fund raiser for Palermo's family.

[Aaron O]

Comparisons to someone in the forum running someone over are not terribly valid.

This is a loosely knit community with no power that focuses on a fun activity/hobby. Churches tends to be powerful community organizations that are granted a lot of leeway in society and hold themselves as authorities on moral behavior.

My original remark was not about her church not doing more, although it certainly would have been interesting if they had tried to do some "good works" to help his widow and children, and apparently they have not. (Performing Good works being a common behavior of some Christian denominations but not others.) My remark was more about the failure of her to show remorse. Her training/position should have put her in a position to be able clearly reflect on what she had done, come to grips with what had happened, understand she was wrong, and both apologize and show remorse. The fact that she can't, and was elevated to a high position in that particular church, shows a failing of the church. In the end it is a huge failure to be mindful of the golden rule.

This kind of systemic failure is increasingly common and is a big reason so many of us who were raised in faith based families have walked away.
I certainly don't view them that way...and that might be the difference in our approach. I'm not disappointed because I don't consider religious institutions to be arbiters of morality. To me they're just an organization with different individuals...and most of those individuals are likely disgusted by Cook. As far as leeway and power granted by society, in my mind that's a mistake on the part of society, but I'm in a small minority.

The comment about paceline was meant to illustrate the slippery slope of defining by organization.

I don't know what they did as far as fund raising...but if I had a church where this happened, yes, I'd have a fund raiser. I'd be pretty disgusted with one that didn't, but I'm often disgusted by the behavior of many organizations and individuals who don't meet my standard of decency.

[zennmotion]

you're right, I was too sweeping with my generalizations.

I like to try to be an ally, and it's too easy to forget.
(Hey mods, can we change the:beer: emoticon to ice cream cones instead?)

But the main point of your earlier comment that it would be best for everyone if Heather Cook were never to be allowed to drive again is quite true.

[MattTuck]

I certainly don't view them that way...and that might be the difference in our approach. I'm not disappointed because I don't consider religious institutions to be arbiters of morality.

But they consider themselves to be leaders of moral thought. So, you have to ask (regardless of your own beliefs about the church), what should the response be from an organization that considers itself a moral authority. Where is the teachable moment, why do they not take this tragedy and make something positive out of it? If not something close to home that impacts their parishioners, then what?

That you don't consider them a moral authority shouldn't factor into your assessment. I'm with you, btw, but many people still look to churches for moral guidance and because of that, they need to hold themselves to a higher standard than a typical non-profit.

[Aaron O]

But they consider themselves to be leaders of moral thought. So, you have to ask (regardless of your own beliefs about the church), what should the response be from an organization that considers itself a moral authority. Where is the teachable moment, why do they not take this tragedy and make something positive out of it? If not something close to home that impacts their parishioners, then what?

That you don't consider them a moral authority shouldn't factor into your assessment. I'm with you, btw, but many people still look to churches for moral guidance and because of that, they need to hold themselves to a higher standard than a typical non-profit.

I'm not sure how to word what I'm trying to get across here, but what evidence is that to suggest that the church didn't do those things? That they didn't discuss this appropriately? I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did reflect on human nature, addiction, and social responsibility. If there's something I don't know, tell me. I'm assuming they did express how terrible this was, and expressed thoughts/prayers for the Palermo family. Human nature is what it is...but I'm willing to assume, and wager that, the majority of people in that church are just as upset about what happened as we are. They get the danger this woman represents...same as us.

What I'm seeing is a woman with an addiction issue who made some horribly awful choices, and who killed a man that we all can identify with, and many of us have reason to be fond of. She was tried and found guilty by a civil court and she's gotten her due. Whether she should have gotten more, or less, is honestly beyond my ability to determine.

[unterhausen]

if the church had made a statement about her at all, we would know. They didn't. It's telling. I feel that a significant number of church management knew she had a problem and did nothing about it. They were in a position to force her to seek treatment or lose her position, they didn't. Then there is her friend that paid her bail, was that a church official?

[adrien]

if the church had made a statement about her at all, we would know. They didn't. It's telling. I feel that a significant number of church management knew she had a problem and did nothing about it. They were in a position to force her to seek treatment or lose her position, they didn't. Then there is her friend that paid her bail, was that a church official?

Sort of. He was "her companion" who was a defrocked priest, who opposed the election of a gay bishop and was defrocked in the wake of an "unauthorized sabbatical and financial shortcomings." Murky, at best: https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2015/01/15/bishop-cook-bailed-out-by-her-companion-an-ex-episocpal-priest/

The church's only official statement on the matter was that they asked for and then accepted her resignation, 5 months after she killed Tom Palermo. No other commentary.

[Aaron O]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-cook-sutton-lent-20150218-story.html

A bit underwhelming...but something.

http://houseofdeputies.org/a-letter-from-president-jennings-the-death-of-thomas-palermo.html

There is a fund they established...and this certainly seems to address some of what was discussed above.

[Llewellyn]

meh, to me - it doesnt matter what her day job was.

she's just a terrible human being IMO, if you add up all the puzzle pieces.

she's nothing more than a booze hound old lady with no respect for human life, other than her own. so alcoholism is a disease, one than can be horribly addictive. i get that. getting boozed up, getting behind the wheel and texting is not one of the clinical symptoms of alcoholism.

leaving the scene of the crime and trying to cover up the accident is the worst part.

this woman sucks. let her rot in a prison cell, and throw away the key. the streets are safer and society is better off without her roaming around like a destructive moron.

Couldn't say it any better myself.

[joosttx]

I'm not trying to be objectionable here, but do we know they didn't condemn her behavior? Can't we just assume they condemn her behavior? I'm not seeing why it's important for them to some how take on responsibility for her actions.

I feel pretty certain that the folks in that church are awfully sorry that a man was killed. I'm not aware of any mis-deeds by the church, or anything they did that was offensive. I'm not seeing a moral duty that they didn't meet. I didn't follow every detail closely, so maybe there's something that I missed.

If someone of serotta forums ran someone over...would we all be on the hook for condemnations and apologies?

A woman with an addiction exhibited gross behavior and she killed a member of our circle. She's where she belongs - a cell. She belongs there for punishment and to keep her Subaru away from the rest of us. All of us know someone who knows someone that was friendly with Tom. All of us are, with good reason, furious.

Maybe my standards for religious leaders are different - I assume they're just human beings, and many of them are pond scum. This one is pond scum. Why is her entire church community on the hook? Should we be extending that to her neighbors? Her book club?

just to add to this, please read the comments of the lay people of the church in this article linked from an episcopal website. they are hardly circling the wagons...

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2017/05/09/former-bishop-convicted-of-automobile-manslaughter-denied-parole/

[benb]

just to add to this, please read the comments of the lay people of the church in this article linked from an episcopal website. they are hardly circling the wagons...

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/2017/05/09/former-bishop-convicted-of-automobile-manslaughter-denied-parole/

Wow... the comments on that page are required reading.

[merlincustom1]

The parole board basically told Heather Cook that they would see her next Tuesday.

[joosttx]

Wow... the comments on that page are required reading.

yeah, they are an educated lot.

[OtayBW]

I'm not sure how to word what I'm trying to get across here, but what evidence is that to suggest that the church didn't do those things?The Church withheld information about The Right Reverend Heather Cook's 2010 arrest and conviction for DUI and marijawaney from the voting membership who elected her to the (2nd) most high exalted position in the church that she occupied before the Tom Palermo killing. The Right Reverend Heather Cook should never have reached the leadership position that she was allowed to assume, IMO. The church acted as enablers prior to her second arrest and had her back all through the trial and beyond - particularly the Bishop, Eugene Sutton. They bear that responsibility.

if the church had made a statement about her at all, we would know. They didn't. It's telling. I feel that a significant number of church management knew she had a problem and did nothing about it. Correct.

[skijoring]

When she is released...she should only use a bike for travel. 18 months, though, is a not insignificant sentence.

[adrien]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-heather-cook-remorse-20170510-story.html

[donevwil]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-heather-cook-remorse-20170510-story.html

Excellent read, thanks for posting.

[adrien]

Excellent read, thanks for posting.

No problem. Interesting on the notion of ordination creating privilege for some.

Still can't fathom how a church that elevated her when she was openly drunk much of the time can't apologize or condemn her continuing behavior.

[Aaron O]

I don't know what Cook thinks, or what challenges she may have communicating it, but I am amazed that she wouldn't have been better prepped for a parole hearing. The drug addicted high school dropout who robbed our house knew what to say at his sentencing hearing.

I think the link above might be making a an erroneous conclusion based on its bias...it seems to indicate that the job can produce some hypocrisy and dishonesty in the clergy. An alternate conclusion might be that dishonest thieves and low lives are attracted to those roles, and naturally good at them.

[Seramount]

When she is released...she should only use a bike for travel. 18 months, though, is a not insignificant sentence.

for willfully committing multiple, serious violations that resulted in a fatality, 18 months seems to be a wrist-slap.

her lack of remorse is beyond galling. for being such a miserable human, Cook should be looking at a far longer sentence with driving privileges permanently suspended, mandatory detox program, community service, etc.