The facts are what the facts are. But whatever bad decisions or stupidity was involved, he lost his life as a result, so piling criticism on top of that seems pretty callous.
I think ‘immature’ might be closer to the truth than ‘psychopathic’.
And I’ll point out that there’s a big difference in not being a fan of how someone ‘acts’ and actually knowing them. I like to think that none of us are one-dimensional cartoon characters and I am sure there was more to Dwayne Haskins than we are aware or willing to acknowledge.
It’s a sad story, regardless of anyone’s observations or criticisms.
I'll play Devil's Advocate, even if he was immature(a Peter Pan of sorts)...well he was immature enough to make sure he had no way to mature himself now. As when he was alive in Washington, Haskins had control of his situation and decided to not bother using it for his own benefit. He could have had more millions if he matured in time even as a "hardworking" backup qb. He'd still be alive if he matured at some point before he ultimately ended himself "accidentally". But now it's obvious that he was still up to his old shitck, as if not supplanting Rudolph, a bad qb, was already indicative of a lack of progress. Even for the more vain goals of making more money or humiliating those who "wronged" him, Haskins still did not mature and obtain "drive" in the workplace. Tom Brady has had an axe to grind since eternity and he himself mentioned the pick of Giovanni Carmazzi irking him then and still doing so now. Brady might be a bit of a psychopath too, but he's a workaholic, wanna prove people type of person.
There is nothing "sad" about Dwayne Haskins dying. Disappointing to some, shocking to others, but sad, nope. Not when he had control of his decisions and the resources to get a ride in some other way than trying to drive drunk on a busy highway.
This is not even taking account that he was a potent threat to others drinking and driving, and Haskins has already shown he...did...not...give...a...fuck if someone else is in danger with his head coach on chemo during a pandemic.
Not to mention he was technically down there for work, as Trubisky was hosting a camp of sorts to be some sort bonding experience. Getting drunk and impaired for the morning is not exactly conducive to work.
He died a fools death, and the only thing that is worth considering is how to protect fools from endangering himself or others the way he did without infringing on rights or triggering the taboo of presuming "guilty until proven not guilty". Preemptively mandating interlocks would not fly for those reasons. Haskins has dodged accountability until circumstances finally caught up to him.
Criticizing a dead person is only a violation of a social norm, not an establishment of something being non-factual.
Losing a life isn't worthy of full absolution, especially for psychopaths who are phsyically wired in a different way from everyone else so that they don't operate on the same planet as "normies" do. He was a drunk driver and a potential threat to someone else's life even if he didn't ended himself. No different than him hosting the little party when he got cut.
Someone like Noah Leotta is on the other side of people like Haskins: the ones who receive the hit from drunk drivers. Leotta happened to be a cop, and thus the public humiliation, along with being only 24, triggered a legislative change due to the public humiliation. Leotta was likely no saint, probably had a few skeltons in the closet, but in the end, he got ended by a drunk driver. The driver was "sentenced" to 10 years, but got out in half that time.
My conception of psychopath is not qutie whatever is the psychogoical definition. Psycopaths are charming, rational, and have superior social skills to those bound with conscience. The also are more "rational" about taking rewards irrespective of some moral obligation to not take that reward. The conduct of a car salesman or lawyer is representative of the "front" of the psychopath, but the difference between the psycho and just a trained piece of garbage is physical. The psychopath does not need to bury moral inhibitions because he has none to begin with.
The other aspect is that victims of his behavior are branded the "bad guys" and "immoral" for criticizing his misconduct while the psychopath wins the "moral high ground". Perhaps is a dentist "caring" about your health while misdiagnosing you with a straight face that you need root canal and crown when none is needed. To a neutral third party, the dentist has the favorable perception due to being a "professional" while the non-professional has the burden of proof to obtain another opinion.
Or simpler example is that someone shoplifts from a store with no inhibition. Then he gets caught and gets questioned. But the psycho will bring up a sob story such as poverty, difficult circumstances, etc.
This is why psychos get ahead, because social norms protects them at the expense of the potentially victimized.
Psychopaths are actually more likely to be nice guys and socially adept to others at the initial meeting. After all, since conscience is decoupled from conduct, it means everyone gets a nice smile, firm handshake, and full eye contact during the conversation, with lines that triggers the non-psycho to feel charmed and in awe.
The only thing Gil Brandt did wrong was violate social norms. Is he supposed to wipe his memory of all the actually scouting and observations he did on Haskins.
Psychopathy isn't about people murdering others. That's a grand fantasy people want to believe because most normal people do not want to admit most are nonviolent and actually "run the world" because they are actually more fit to do some of those jobs like politician, laywer, police, etc.
Yeah, there is some complexity. But I can grasp psychopathy because I likely have some wiring to it, but it's not active unless someone initially commits and immoral act against me.