I'm not trying to take up for Chuck. I have met him one time and exchanged a few emails with him. Like several of you, I have read the stuff on his Facebook page. I come from a family of attorneys and I'm not sure I would have posted all that on there. However, he has and from what I gathered reading the posts, the statement about knowing in his heart that he killed Wade stems from the fact that some time ago (two years is sticking in my mind for some reason), he introduced Wade to the herp hobby. Because Wade learned the hobby from Chuck, he delved deeper and deeper into snake-keeping, which ultimately led him to keeping venomous snakes. I *think* what Chuck is saying is that had he (Chuck) never introduced Wade to snake-keeping, Wade would have never progressed to keeping venomous snakes and therefore wouldn't have been fatally bitten.

I will, however, agree that even if the intent of the statement was innocuous, it probably wasn't a good thing to post. There are people on the board who know more about this than I do; maybe someone with more knowledge of the situation will chime in.

What interests me more than anything is the way the media has reported this story. I am in the journalism business myself and I feel as though the media has acted irresponsibly in the way the story has been covered.

[ Reply To This Message ] [ Subscribe to this Thread ] [ Hide Replies ]