Abysmal judgement gene rears it's ugly head again-Kennedy stupidity [Archive]

Cheesesteak

05-05-2006, 06:15 AM

I can theoretically accept that someone's judgement could be fucked up by taking a few prescription drugs. This is the part of the story that bothers me Baird wrote that patrol officers at the scene were prohibited from performing field sobriety tests.These people are not fucking royalty. (congressmen and Kennedys both) They crash their car at 2:45am with no headlights on after nearly clipping a police cruiser, then go staggering around about how they need to get to work at 9am, they get a mother fucking breathalyzer. Period, end of story. You don't drive their asses home to sleep it off.

I guess it's too much to ask that our lawmakers be subject to our laws as well.

ivylass

05-05-2006, 07:07 AM

I wonder how soon before Cynthina McKinney starts screeching about preferential treatment?

Annie-Xmas

05-05-2006, 07:12 AM

I dodn't know breaking the genetic code has discovered such a gene. :confused:
Still if it's 'bash the political family time':

- at least his wife hasn't killed anyone (using a car)

his father on the other hand.....

The son of Ted and Joan has a drinking problem. Who could have predicted that? (and anyone who thinks the Kennedys aren't the country's de facto royal family doesn't follow the news much).

madmonk28

05-05-2006, 07:44 AM

A friend of mine went to private school with Ted Kennedy's son and Ted would drive them to soccer practice or whatever, with a scotch and soda in hand complete with swizzle stick and this is after the bridge incident.

You have to give a family credit for consistency.

Evil One

05-05-2006, 07:54 AM

I was thinking about this thread after I heard about the accident. I could see the responses in my head already. Mocking Kennedy, then mocking Ted, moving on to the "but Bush is worse" comment...back and forth. All very predictable.

Now think about this....let's substitute Rick Santorum for Patrick Kennedy. All of the responses would be the same....just the posters would be different.

Ideology uber alles.

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 08:05 AM

This is the part of the story that bothers me These people are not fucking royalty. (congressmen and Kennedys both) They crash their car at 2:45am with no headlights on after nearly clipping a police cruiser, then go staggering around about how they need to get to work at 9am, they get a mother fucking breathalyzer. Period, end of story. You don't drive their asses home to sleep it off.

Perhaps a silly question, but prohibited by whom?

-Joe

El_Kabong

05-05-2006, 08:20 AM

...(and anyone who thinks the Kennedys aren't the country's de facto royal family doesn't follow the news much).

I imagine the Bushes will be disappointed to hear that.

Biggirl

05-05-2006, 08:54 AM

Maybe the ALL Kennedys should just stay away from motored conveyances. Horse buggies, row boats or maybe hot air balloons.

BobLibDem

05-05-2006, 08:58 AM

Great news for Republicans! ANY Democrat doing ANYTHING wrong is complete justification for ALL crimes, misdemeanors, and incompetence on the part of ANY Republican!

Qadgop the Mercotan

05-05-2006, 09:01 AM

Knowing what I do about the medications cited, his story is actually not that off-the-wall. More and more evidence is coming out that Ambien has some wicked disorientation side-effects including sleepwalking, sleep eating (great excuse, no?) and retrograde amnesia. Combined with the antinauseant he was on, I can see it making that scenario even more likely.

Having said that, I am very sad to hear that the standard evaluation for presence of alcohol in his system was not undertaken. Too convenient.

Evil One

05-05-2006, 09:08 AM

Great news for Republicans! ANY Democrat doing ANYTHING wrong is complete justification for ALL crimes, misdemeanors, and incompetence on the part of ANY Republican!

Case in point.

Squink

05-05-2006, 09:10 AM

Now, there's a man whose judgement I'd trust. Not.Cut the dude some slack.
He was probably out looking for early garage sales, and you know how hard that makes it to see road hazards.

mhendo

05-05-2006, 09:12 AM

Perhaps a silly question, but prohibited by whom?

-JoeAccording to this New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/05/washington/05kennedy.html?hp&ex=1146888000&en=6ea5903200b92177&ei=5094&partner=homepage):Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, said a police union official had written a letter to the Capitol police chief asserting that Mr. Kennedy appeared to be staggering when he left his car. But, it said, police officers at the scene were not allowed by their supervisors to perform a sobriety test. Roll Call quoted the letter as saying Capitol police officials gave Mr. Kennedy a ride home.If that's true, it's bad, IMO. Those circumstances surely mandate a sobriety test. If it does, in fact, turn out that the accident was the result of prescription drug side effects, then the person can be excused, but this is something to be determined later. The person should still be tested for alcohol.

I'm glad QtM has weighed in on the plausibility of the drug story, because it was my next question.

Also, if this is true:"At the time of the accident, I was instructed to park my car and was driven home by the United States Capitol police," Mr. Kennedy said. "At no time did I ask for any special consideration."then it seems that the people who need to be criticized here are the police themselves, not the Congressman.

We have had a doctor tell us that his story about the prescription drugs is, on its face and given the known side effects of his drug, completely plausible. And, in terms of police procedure, all we have been told is that the police themselves we prohibited from performing a field sobriety test by their superiors. That combination of circumstances leads me to wonder why it is that, in the absence of further evidence, this story is being touted as evidence of "Kennedy stupidity." But then i see who the OP is, and the knee-jerk idiocy makes complete sense.

Fear Itself

05-05-2006, 09:21 AM

Ideology uber alles.The only good thing is that our ideology is kicking your ideology's butt (http://www.scleroderma.org/medical/pulmonary_articles/sd_lungstudy_update.shtm):A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.

MsRobyn

05-05-2006, 09:27 AM

Now think about this....let's substitute Rick Santorum for Patrick Kennedy. All of the responses would be the same....just the posters would be different.

Ideology uber alles.

Nah. I got stuff for Santorum, too. He's a douchebag.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-05-2006, 09:28 AM

Nah. I got stuff for Santorum, too. He's a douchebag.

I must remember to log in when posting from school. :smack: That was me, not Robin.

bobkitty

05-05-2006, 09:32 AM

Having had the pleasure of being on Phenergan, I can say it does have some pretty wacky side effects; I could easily see someone thinking they needed to be somewhere and being functional enough to get in the car and drive (poorly). However..

My sister-in-law was recently pulled over for driving.. mmmm.. let's say in a manner not consistent with rules of the road. She'd clipped another driver and gotten out of the car to exchange information, but since there was no damage the other driver waved her on. Something about the way she drove off raised some red flags, and he called the police. She admitted to the police that she was "a little dizzy" and they immediately gave her a field sobriety test. Then arrested her, booked her, and held her until court that afternoon. She'd taken one and a half Xanax five hours before getting behind the wheel. She thought she was fine- so did my brother, because I know that if he didn't, he never, ever would have let their son get into the car with her. They're all lucky as hell no one was hurt.

I bring this up because I agree with the above poster- we shouldn't be blaming Kennedy, because if indeed he was taking those medications it's easy to see how and why his judgement was impaired. We should be questioning the Capital Police, who apparently have a very strange idea of protocol when it comes to our lawmakers. Now there will always be a question of whether he was drunk or not, when a simple test could have been done to remove all doubt.

Homebrew

05-05-2006, 09:33 AM

Concerning the field sobriety tests: I agree that a test should have been performed. He should have had to take a breathalyzer test to determine if his storyis true or he was drunk. Especially given his history, it seems a prudent test.

But the deference shown is unrelated to party affiliation, or even politics in general. Celebrities get special treatment. We can whine about it; but it's true and probably not going to change.

Cheesesteak

05-05-2006, 09:35 AM

We have had a doctor tell us that his story about the prescription drugs is, on its face and given the known side effects of his drug, completely plausible. And, thanks to police higher ups, we'll never know if it was the drugs, or alcohol or both. If I was Kennedy (and hadn't been drinking) I'd be supremely pissed off that I wasn't allowed to blow a 0.0 and have my name (relatively) clear. As it is, the shadow of drunk driving will hang over this event.

Ethilrist

05-05-2006, 09:47 AM

D_Odds

05-05-2006, 09:51 AM

The only good thing is that our ideology is kicking your ideology's butt:
EO: My ideology is better than yours! Nyah!

FI: No, my ideology is betther than yours! Brraapt!

EO: Mine is!

FI: Mine is!

D_Odds: Shut up kids, they both suck donkey testicles.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-05-2006, 09:56 AM

I just wanted to drop in and say that I've been preparing way too much for my next D&D campaign, because I read the title as "Abyssal Judgment Gene" and though this was going to be about some sort of fiendish magistrate prestige class for demons, which would be really cool, particularly if I gave it to the bad guy in chapter... and then I thought, no, wait... that's a different message board...
Mmm...the Kennedies as soldiers inthe Blood War....

Until this thread, I'd just assumed that Kennedy was driving drunk. More fool me. Certainly the police should follow normal procedure with lawmakers, and certainly they should face normal penalties for infractions. But it does seem that an alternate story is plausible--i.e., that Kennedy misjudged his legal medication's effects, and that the police screwed up with unnecessary deference. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

I draw a distinction between unethical acts that are job-related and those that are not job-related for politicians. Job-related sins are far worse, and have a lot more to do with how I vote.

Daniel

catsix

05-05-2006, 10:04 AM

The supervisors definitely shouldn't have stopped the officers on scene from performing field sobriety tests. It doesn't matter if the guy is a Kennedy or any other elected official, they are not above the law.

Also, isn't it supposed to be a monumentally bad idea to be driving after you have just taken Ambien?

I don't think this seems to be a case of 'sleep driving' since the people who do that stuff seem to all have the retrograde amnesia and can't remember it later, where Kennedy obviously does remember what was going on and seems to have consciously decided to go driving after taking a powerful sleeping pill and another medication that induces drowsiness.

Would a reasonable person do that?

Fear Itself

05-05-2006, 10:09 AM

If the politician involved had been a right-wing standard bearer, the response from conservatives would have been, "We don't have all the information, it's too soon to come to a conclusion, you people always rush to judgment." And you repeat this until everybody forgets about it, or enough times elapses that you can say, "That's old news, we are looking toward the future, not living in the past." Yeah, that's the ticket.

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 10:15 AM

D_Odds: Shut up kids, they both suck donkey testicles.

Because we all know that Elephants don't let theirs get sucked!

<rimshot>

Thank you! I'll be here all day. Tip your waitresses.

-Joe

SteveG1

05-05-2006, 10:19 AM

This all has nothing to do with party loyalties, and this entire thread is bullshit. If Teddy was drunk and driving, his pickled and wrinkled ass should be in jail. Party has not a damn thing to do with it.
This should not be a polticial issue. If he was drunk lock him up. Same goes for anyone else, on the left, right, Repub, Dem, whatever.

D_Odds

05-05-2006, 10:26 AM

Shodan

05-05-2006, 10:27 AM

But Rush is a drug addict!

Come on.....

Regards,
Shodan

Ferret Herder

05-05-2006, 10:35 AM

I don't think this seems to be a case of 'sleep driving' since the people who do that stuff seem to all have the retrograde amnesia and can't remember it later, where Kennedy obviously does remember what was going on and seems to have consciously decided to go driving after taking a powerful sleeping pill and another medication that induces drowsiness.

Would a reasonable person do that?
A reasonable person might also know that there almost certainly aren't going to be any votes scheduled at 2:45 am, however. So, that combined with QtM's statement above, I'm willing to give some credence to at least the plausibility that one could be taking both of those drugs, wake up enough in the middle of the night to groggily believe that they were due at work, get into the car and drive off.

That being said, we'll be hard-pressed to know what really happened because (allegedly) of the Capitol Police supervisors' actions, and that is despicable.

MLS

05-05-2006, 10:39 AM

Let's take a sleep med, and an anti-nausea drug which causes drowsiness, and go to Congress to vote at 0245. Headlights optional (http://www.wusatv.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=49033).

Now, there's a man whose judgement I'd trust. Not.

Joe Putz, having committed the same motor vehicle infraction would be in the holding cell downtown without a blink. :dubious:

Getting back to the OP, yeah, getting behind the wheel after taking a sleeping pill that you've taken before and not realizing it renders you unfit to drive is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

Weirddave

05-05-2006, 11:06 AM

But Clinton got a blow job!

I dodn't know breaking the genetic code has discovered such a gene. :confused:
Still if it's 'bash the political family time':

- at least he didn't invade Iraq
- at least his wife hasn't killed anyone (using a car)
- at least his daughters haven't regularly broken the drinking laws, while the Secret Service stand idly by
etc...

You know, I always see the left here screaming at the top of their lungs that "Your guy did a similar thing" is not a defense (even in threads where the SUBJECT is the conduct at hand, and "your guys did it too" *IS* a legitimate argument when bad behavior is being criticized as a partisan issue), yet it inevitably seems that it's not the right who brings these things up, but the left. I wonder why? Hmmmm. Could it be that deep in your black little hearts you actually realize that there in no real difference between the power hungry bastards on the left and the power hungry bastards on the right except that the ones on the right are better at getting elected? I hope this is so, it gives me hope for the future.

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 11:08 AM

That being said, we'll be hard-pressed to know what really happened because (allegedly) of the Capitol Police supervisors' actions, and that is despicable.

Next begging the question...is there any possibility of the Capitol Police officers involved being disciplined in any way?

-Joe

Mama Tiger

05-05-2006, 11:09 AM

I'm willing to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt that the meds, in combination, confused him to the point where he thought he needed to be on the Hill to vote at 2:45 a.m. I've known people to have powerful side effects from meds (like my sister, who ended up hallucinating for a week after taking the antibiotic zithromax). It's entirely possible that he knew what he was doing but, at the time, thought he was doing the right thing. Just because you can remember doing something really dumb later doesn't mean your judgment wasn't impaired.

But the Capitol police totally botched it. Giving preferential treatment to a congressman, especially when said congressman is a Kennedy, especially when said congressman is the son of one of the biggest drunks on the Hill, compounds idiocy upon idiocy. Of course, there's nothing new in Congress being exempt from the treatment most of us receive; their list of "what applies to the rest of you doesn't apply to me" rules is truly stunning.

ElvisL1ves

05-05-2006, 11:12 AM

Hear that sound of rapidly-moving air overhead?

You do know it wasn't Teddy who was stopped, right?Doesn't matter - just repeat the name "Kennedy" and those who think it matters will make the connection. If the congressman stopped had been named "Patrick Smith (R)", would it be front page news?

Shayna

05-05-2006, 11:18 AM

Especially given his history, it seems a prudent test. Given whose history? You do know this is Patrick Kennedy, not Ted, right?

But it does seem that an alternate story is plausible--i.e., that Kennedy misjudged his legal medication's effects. . . That's inferring that he was capable of making any kind of judgment at all. Based on what I've read about one of the drugs he was taking (Ambien), it's highly likely he had no idea what he was doing, in which case, it would be erroneous to call his actions a "misjudgment."

I don't think this seems to be a case of 'sleep driving' since the people who do that stuff seem to all have the retrograde amnesia and can't remember it later, where Kennedy obviously does remember what was going on and seems to have consciously decided to go driving after taking a powerful sleeping pill and another medication that induces drowsiness. That's inferring that he has any recollection of anything other than the obvious known facts; that he recalls having taken his prescribed medications and was later picked up by police after an accident and driven home. There is nothing to indicate he has any actual memory of any of his actions during the events.

Qadgop the Mercotan

05-05-2006, 11:25 AM

The trouble with the meds he took is that they often end up putting people in a state where they do such non-volitional inappropriate things, but only become cognizant of what they've done after the fact. Yes, it's a convenient excuse, but it's also a recognized side-effect of those meds, especially in combination.

So I won't jump on the bandwagon condemning his behavior. Even before this incident, the drug company that makes Ambien was doing a LOT of damage control over increasing reports of people walking, eating, driving, and all in a sleep-like state.

I do wish we had a serum blood alcohol to help complete the picture, though.

Weirddave

05-05-2006, 11:27 AM

Given whose history? You do know this is Patrick Kennedy, not Ted, right? That's inferring that he was capable of making any kind of judgment at all. Based on what I've read about one of the drugs he was taking (Ambien), it's highly likely he had no idea what he was doing, in which case, it would be erroneous to call his actions a "misjudgment." That's inferring that he has any recollection of anything other than the obvious known facts; that he recalls having taken his prescribed medications and was later picked up by police after an accident and driven home. There is nothing to indicate he has any actual memory of any of his actions during the events.
DANCE, PUPPET, DANCE!

Keep those excuses coming, bitch, they're amusing. So are you.

Biggirl

05-05-2006, 11:28 AM

etc...

You know, I always see the left here screaming at the top of their lungs that "Your guy did a similar thing" is not a defense (even in threads where the SUBJECT is the conduct at hand, and "your guys did it too" *IS* a legitimate argument when bad behavior is being criticized as a partisan issue), yet it inevitably seems that it's not the right who brings these things up, but the left. I wonder why? Hmmmm. Could it be that deep in your black little hearts you actually realize that there in no real difference between the power hungry bastards on the left and the power hungry bastards on the right except that the ones on the right are better at getting elected? I hope this is so, it gives me hope for the future.

I'm here to dim that small ray of hope, Dave. I, firmly intrenched in the Civil Libertarian Left, didn't bring up a "but they're worse" arguement from stupidity. In fact, I joked that all of the Kennedys should just stay away from engine driven vehicles. Yet I believe there is a laaaaarge difference between the power hungry bastards on the right and the power hungry bastards on the left. Especially when it comes to civil liberties.

Sorry about that quashing hope thingy.

El_Kabong

05-05-2006, 11:29 AM

You know, I always see the left here screaming at the top of their lungs that "Your guy did a similar thing" is not a defense (even in threads where the SUBJECT is the conduct at hand, and "your guys did it too" *IS* a legitimate argument when bad behavior is being criticized as a partisan issue), yet it inevitably seems that it's not the right who brings these things up, but the left. I wonder why?

I have no idea why you see things that aren't there. For one example, what the heck is "the left here"? For another, I for one would appreciate it if you could sketch out how one person or another typing a post to a message board, without even using so much as an exclamation point for emphasis, somehow constitutes "screaming at the top of their lungs." For still another, what might be the general political stance of the person who felt the need to post this frankly rather pointless and stupid thread?

Actually, I'll hazard a guess that the reason you seem to see things that aren't there may be that thick-lensed pair of ideological spectacles you are wearing.

Jackmannii

05-05-2006, 11:30 AM

Given whose history? You do know this is Patrick Kennedy, not Ted, right?.Patrick Kennedy has a history of substance abuse.

Local laws may vary, but I would think that one is reasonably expected to know that Ambien can cause drowsiness and other side effects (the endless ads on TV say that you should not drive until you know how the drug is affecting you). If one does not follow instructions and take precautions, I don't think that "the drugs did it" would be a satisfactory defense to driving while impaired.

I would be uneasy about being on the road with some other posters, as their serum tu quoque levels are probably extremely high. :dubious:

But hey, why not go there. I was wondering about what contingency plan the Capitol/D.C. police might have for handling a suspected drunk driving incident involving Cynthia McKinney. (For the sake of the officers I hope it includes SWAT, hostage negotiators and a special racial sensitivity team).

glee

05-05-2006, 11:31 AM

etc...

You know, I always see the left here screaming at the top of their lungs that "Your guy did a similar thing" is not a defense (even in threads where the SUBJECT is the conduct at hand, and "your guys did it too" *IS* a legitimate argument when bad behavior is being criticized as a partisan issue), yet it inevitably seems that it's not the right who brings these things up, but the left. I wonder why? Hmmmm. Could it be that deep in your black little hearts you actually realize that there in no real difference between the power hungry bastards on the left and the power hungry bastards on the right except that the ones on the right are better at getting elected? I hope this is so, it gives me hope for the future.

Actually I was appalled at the pseudo-science of suggesting there was a judgement gene.
Also please bear in mind that from a European perspective, both US parties are right-wing. :eek:

SteveG1

05-05-2006, 11:32 AM

You do know it wasn't Teddy who was stopped, right?
I automatically thought it was Teddy. Instead it was Patrick. It's now official, I am a fucking moron. :eek:

Shayna

05-05-2006, 11:43 AM

Local laws may vary, but I would think that one is reasonably expected to know that Ambien can cause drowsiness and other side effects (the endless ads on TV say that you should not drive until you know how the drug is affecting you). If one does not follow instructions and take precautions, I don't think that "the drugs did it" would be a satisfactory defense to driving while impaired. Again, you are inferring that he knew he was driving. Google the phrase Ambien sleepwalking (http://www.google.com/search?q=ambien+sleepwalking&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) and you'll find thousands of relevant hits. http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/viewcontent/78142.html

The most prescribed sleep medication in the United States, Ambien, may be linked to episodes of sleepwalking and related strange and dangerous behaviors, experts say--including incidents of nocturnal eating, phone conversations, shoplifting and even driving--of which the subject has no memory. http://www.wcpo.com/wcpo/localshows/healthyliving/337a899f.html

Updated: 03/10/06 08:46:38

News tonite of an alarming new trend creating problems on the roads: Drivers under the influence of a very popular sleeping pill.

Doctors have reported incidents of "sleep-driving"...Where *ambien* users get out of their beds and into a car and start driving!

Experts say those at greatest risk are women, people taking high doses, and those who combine ambien with medications for anxiety, depression, or other disorders. And so on. There is a very strong likelihood that even after having followed the instructions and taken all precautions, Kennedy had no idea he had gotten into a car and started driving at 2:45AM until after the fact.

Cheesesteak

05-05-2006, 11:45 AM

Ferret Herder

05-05-2006, 11:46 AM

There is a very strong likelihood that even after having followed the instructions and taken all precautions, Kennedy had no idea he had gotten into a car and started driving at 2:45AM until after the fact.
And especially considering that who in the hell holds a Congressional vote at 2:45 am I'm kinda suspecting that no, in fact he didn't have to be at work and his drugged-out brain only convinced him he did. According to the linked article he'd been at work earlier, he drove home, he took meds. Then at 2:45 am he got into his car, convinced he had a vote to cast, and drove off.

D_Odds

05-05-2006, 12:13 PM

And especially considering that who in the hell holds a Congressional vote at 2:45 am Actually, that might explain quite a bit..,

Evil One

05-05-2006, 12:20 PM

The only good thing is that our ideology is kicking your ideology's butt (http://www.scleroderma.org/medical/pulmonary_articles/sd_lungstudy_update.shtm):

What exactly is the position of the scleroderma foundation on political polls?

Do Not Taunt

05-05-2006, 12:33 PM

DANCE, PUPPET, DANCE!

Keep those excuses coming, bitch, they're amusing. So are you.
What the hell is this shit? Shayna makes a cogent, non-partisan argument that based on what we know, not only is Kennedy's explanation plausible, but seriously brings into question his culpability. And then this is the lame-ass, shrill, pathetic garbage you manage to generate in response? Weak, man, weak.

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 12:36 PM

What the hell is this shit? Shayna makes a cogent, non-partisan argument that based on what we know, not only is Kennedy's explanation plausible, but seriously brings into question his culpability. And then this is the lame-ass, shrill, pathetic garbage you manage to generate in response? Weak, man, weak.

I think we should wait till we have all the information. You know, we shouldn't comment on an ongoing investigation.

Anyone else want to add to the list?

-Joe

Fear Itself

05-05-2006, 12:40 PM

What exactly is the position of the scleroderma foundation on political polls?Sorry, wrong link. Enjoy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060505/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_ap_poll_4)

Jackmannii

05-05-2006, 12:40 PM

Again, you are inferring that he knew he was driving. From the USA Today article 5/5: "He (Kennedy) said he drove to the Capitol from his nearby home around 2:45 a.m..."

I think he knew he was driving.Google the phrase Ambien sleepwalking (http://www.google.com/search?q=ambien+sleepwalking&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official) and you'll find thousands of relevant hits. And so on. There is a very strong likelihood that even after having followed the instructions and taken all precautions, Kennedy had no idea he had gotten into a car and started driving at 2:45AM until after the fact.Given the limited number of severe adverse reactions reported, we'll have to disagree on the "strong likelihood". And since no blood was drawn, we'll never know just what mix of drugs might have been in Kennedy's system.

Just recently we had the dangerous drunk driving accident involving former Oklahoma State basketball coach Eddie Sutton. Immediately following the crash there was emphasis from supporters on the supposed role his physical problems played in the incident. Only later did it come out he was legally drunk, and apparently had been mixing pain pills and alcohol.

Was Ambien the villain in Kennedy's case, or a convenient scapegoat? Thanks to bad police procedure and/or favoritism, the truth will remain unknown.

Skald the Rhymer

05-05-2006, 12:42 PM

I dodn't know breaking the genetic code has discovered such a gene. :confused:
Still if it's 'bash the political family time':

- at least he didn't invade Iraq
- at least his wife hasn't killed anyone (using a car)
- at least his daughters haven't regularly broken the drinking laws, while the Secret Service stand idly by

I'm not a fan of President Bush--I think he's the most vile, incompetent president of the last 50 years--but WHY, exactly, would you think the Secret Service should intervene when his (formerly) underage daughters drank before the age of 21?

Jenna & Barbara's secret service detail exists to protect THEM from harm, not to enforce state & local laws. If the girls think they are going to rat them out for committing a minor crime, then the detail is less effective. It seems to me that for the SS to intervene in such instances (except as necessary to protect the girls' safety) would be both unprofessional and conter-productive.

Do Not Taunt

05-05-2006, 12:42 PM

I think we should wait till we have all the information. You know, we shouldn't comment on an ongoing investigation.

Anyone else want to add to the list?

-Joe
Call me dense, but I'm not getting what you're saying here. Try again?

RTA

05-05-2006, 12:42 PM

Shayna

05-05-2006, 01:48 PM

From the USA Today article 5/5: "He (Kennedy) said he drove to the Capitol from his nearby home around 2:45 a.m..."

I think he knew he was driving. I fail to see how you can have the vaguest idea what he knew or didn't know, other than the facts that we all know and which would have been obvious after the incident. And one of the most obvious facts is that "he drove to the Capitol from his nearby home around 2:45," which doesn't imply in any way, shape or form that he was actually aware he was doing so as he was doing it. Or that if he was, that he was in complete control of his actions at the time. Given the limited number of severe adverse reactions reported, we'll have to disagree on the "strong likelihood". And since no blood was drawn, we'll never know just what mix of drugs might have been in Kennedy's system. Define "limited number." Clearly the number of severe adverse reactions reported aren't unlimited and infinite -- that's kindof a no-brainer. But there are enough incidents that this has become not only a major news item in recent months, but a serious problem complete with lawsuits for the manufacturer.

The only thing I agree with you on is that we'll never know with any certainty, given the gross incompetence of the local police. But their behavior hardly speaks to the veracity or not of Kennedy's claims.

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 01:51 PM

Call me dense, but I'm not getting what you're saying here. Try again?

I'm sorry, but right now we're in the middle of a crisis. I think we should all stand behind Mr. Kenndy until such a time that we're not in the middle of this crisis.

-Joe

betenoir

05-05-2006, 01:52 PM

I imagine the Bushes will be disappointed to hear that.

Hmmm...more the Cromwells. But with just the fanaticisim, not the inspiration. Not that I would call that a compliment anyway.

Weirddave

05-05-2006, 01:54 PM

Actually, I'll hazard a guess that the reason you seem to see things that aren't there may be that thick-lensed pair of ideological spectacles you are wearing.
Which ideological glasses are they? I dislike both parties. And I didn't "See things that aren't there", 2 of the first 3 replies to the OP were from posters defending Kennedy's actions by introducing the straw man of a "But the left does it too" defense from the right.

ivylass

05-05-2006, 01:58 PM

A hostess at an area bar says he was drinking (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=137995&format=text) in the "hours" before.

Whether that's two hours or six hours before I don't know. My issue is that the police were waved off from doing an investigation the rest of us unwashed would have been subject to, and I'd like to know why.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-05-2006, 02:00 PM

Interesting. I suspect that more to the story will come out before we're done. Even though the police did something unprofessional, that doesn't end the investigation. Perhaps we'll find out who decided to give him a pass, and how that decision was reached. Did Kennedy place any calls, for example?

Daniel

catsix

05-05-2006, 02:03 PM

CNN Headline (http://www.cnn.com)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy is checking himself into a rehabilitation unit, CNN learns.

I wonder why he's so quick to go to rehab if it was just a side effect of Ambien?

Also on You can read about the capitol police probe relating to the handling of the crash. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/05/kennedy.accident/index.html)

SteveG1

05-05-2006, 02:05 PM

Ferret Herder

05-05-2006, 02:07 PM

Huh, interesting.

I haven't read that deeply into the Ambien literature - I wonder if alcohol reacts poorly with the medication.

(Not that I'm denying he might've been plain old drinking-and-driving, just that it'd be a potential interaction.)

Duke of Rat

05-05-2006, 02:10 PM

ivylass

05-05-2006, 02:16 PM

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 02:17 PM

Political back-biting aside, and forget his name or occupation, but isn't it still possible to get a DUI from being under only the influence of legal prescription medication? Does alcohol have to be figured into the mix for it to be a DUI?

Well, it is Driving Under the Influence, not Driving While Liquored up.

However, being a prescription med would be a mitigating factor.

Then again, I know one starlet who got a $500 fine and 5 days in jail for her 3rd DUI so you never know.

I have a hard time believing a Kennedy (or Bush) would ever do actual time barring a multiple murder on live TV.

-Joe

Do Not Taunt

05-05-2006, 02:18 PM

I'm sorry, but right now we're in the middle of a crisis. I think we should all stand behind Mr. Kenndy until such a time that we're not in the middle of this crisis.
Well, the sarcasm meter's going off, but it's not really working for me because I can't fathom what you're actually trying to say here. Because he's a Kennedy we should immediately crucify him, even if it's merely a case of completely disorientation resulting from the legal use of Ambien? (*)

(*) Not saying that's the case. Catsix and Ivylass have introduced contrary evidence. Weirddave, on the other hand, seemed content to bizarrely respond to a well-reasoned post with a lame-ass, knee-jerk, bullshit accusation of partisan hackery on Shayna's part. It was weak. I called him on it.

Jackmannii

05-05-2006, 02:22 PM

I wonder why he's so quick to go to rehab if it was just a side effect of Ambien?At least he's getting help, instead of just sticking to 'the Ambien and Phenergan made me do it".

Seems likely that Ambien in particular will be used as a potential get-out-of-jail-free card in a variety of crimes.

"I didn't realize I was strangling her - I just took an Ambien and next thing you know, I'm in this here prison cell." :rolleyes:

By the way Shayna, next time you reproduce a quote make it a complete one. As in, "he said he drove", not just "he drove". :dubious:

Squink

05-05-2006, 02:25 PM

...content to bizarrely respond to a well-reasoned post with a lame-ass, knee-jerk, bullshit accusation of partisan hackery on Shayna's part. It was weak. I called him on it.
After all, it could have been Colin Powell in that fender bender: Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC
November 5, 2003

QUESTION: So do you use sleeping tablets to organize yourself?

SECRETARY POWELL: Yes. Well, I wouldn't call them that. They're a wonderful medication -- not medication. How would you call it? They're called ambien, which is very good. You don't use ambien? Everybody here uses ambien.http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/26028.htm

I doubt Kennedy will be that last politician, of any stripe to wind up in trouble with sleeping pills.

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 02:25 PM

Well, the sarcasm meter's going off, but it's not really working for me because I can't fathom what you're actually trying to say here. Because he's a Kennedy we should immediately crucify him, even if it's merely a case of completely disorientation resulting from the legal use of Ambien? (*)

(*) Not saying that's the case. Catsix and Ivylass have introduced contrary evidence. Weirddave, on the other hand, seemed content to bizarrely respond to a well-reasoned post with a lame-ass, knee-jerk, bullshit accusation of partisan hackery on Shayna's part. It was weak. I called him on it.

Sorry, just borrowing pages from the playbooks of the likes of [b]Weirddave/b] and those he fanatically supports.

The lines I was reciting can be found in a good many of Scott McClellan's press conferences. Or at least the fun ones.

-Joe

Duke of Rat

05-05-2006, 02:27 PM

Well, it is Driving Under the Influence, not Driving While Liquored up.

However, being a prescription med would be a mitigating factor.

Then again, I know one starlet who got a $500 fine and 5 days in jail for her 3rd DUI so you never know.

I have a hard time believing a Kennedy (or Bush) would ever do actual time barring a multiple murder on live TV.

-Joe

Thanks, the anecdote about the starlet was just the thing I was trying to avoid, that's why I put the bit in there about forgetting his name and occupation.

The point was, it appears he was impaired, yet some seem to be fine with that since there was no test for or evidence of "evil alcohol". You can be too fucked up to drive and not be drunk (we are in agreement here).

Alcohol is such an bogeyman these days, I just wanted to point out that it's not the only bogeyman out there.

ivylass

05-05-2006, 02:33 PM

I can tell you that some medications can seriously fuck you up. You may know that taking it will affect you, and try to take precautions, but then you take it and when you wake up you realize you've spent $200 on Ebay with no memory of what you bought.

This one is especially frightening (http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-r04.html)

Alterations in behaviour, which have been variously reported as aggressiveness, argumentative behaviour, hyperactivity, agitation, depression, euphoria, irritability, forgetfulness and confusion. These behavioural reactions are particularly likely to occur in patients with a prior history of psychiatric disturbances and are known to occur in patients with chronic seizure disorders.

Other adverse reactions involving the CNS have included nystagmus, unsteady gait, slurred speech, dysarthria, vertigo, insomnia, and diplopia. Isolated reports of akinesia, hemiparesis, tremor, hypotonia, headache and choreiform movements have been received. Minor changes in EEG patterns specifically low-voltage fast activity.

Shayna

05-05-2006, 02:34 PM

By the way Shayna, next time you reproduce a quote make it a complete one. As in, "he said he drove", not just "he drove". :dubious: Ok, "He said he drove to the Capitol from his nearby home around 2:45 a.m..." Happy now? So please explain to me how that translates to "he knew what he was doing as he was doing it" and not just relating the obvious fact that "he drove to the Capitol from his nearby home around 2:45 a.m.," which we all know to be a simple, basic truth about the incident. Thanks.

And if I were taking such addictive drugs as he is, and found that I'd had one of the severe adverse reactions known to occur, and didn't feel I could simply stop taking it cold turkey, I'd check my ass into rehab, too. It's the only responsible thing to do. Good on him. That still doesn't negate the real possibility that the Ambien really did make him do it, as it has so many other people.

Qadgop the Mercotan

05-05-2006, 02:35 PM

Sleepers like Ambien and anti-nauseants like phenergan are not real good ideas for recovering alcoholics and addicts, frankly. IMNSHO. Zofran is a good choice for many recovering folks who have nausea issues (from chemotherapy or other things), and frankly if one is in recovery, they should really probably avoid sleepers completely.

And relapse sucks.

ElvisL1ves

05-05-2006, 02:43 PM

Well, the sarcasm meter's going off, but it's not really working for me because I can't fathom what you're actually trying to say here. It was clearly a commentary on the common Bushite response to all expressions of doubt in his judgment and leadership.

Shodan

05-05-2006, 03:07 PM

Everybody here uses ambien. This explains a great deal about Washington culture.

At what point does it become news when a scion of Camelot isn't acting like a fool when he's polluted?

Ah well. At least this one had his pants on. (http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller080103.asp)

Regards,
Shodan

mhendo

05-05-2006, 03:08 PM

And, thanks to police higher ups, we'll never know if it was the drugs, or alcohol or both. If I was Kennedy (and hadn't been drinking) I'd be supremely pissed off that I wasn't allowed to blow a 0.0 and have my name (relatively) clear. As it is, the shadow of drunk driving will hang over this event.Right, which is why i think that, given the information we currently have, the biggest fault in this situation lies with the police. If Kennedy does turn out to have been driving drunk (if there's even any way to establish that now), i'll be the first to condemn him. But if this incident really was caused by an uncontrollable response to prescription drugs, then i'm not interested in hanging him for it.A hostess at an area bar says he was drinking (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=137995&format=text) in the "hours" before.

Whether that's two hours or six hours before I don't know.You also don't know how much he drank. The woman in the story said he was drinking "a little bit." My issue is that the police were waved off from doing an investigation the rest of us unwashed would have been subject to, and I'd like to know why.Right, which is a point almost everyone—on both sides of the political spectrum—seems to agree on.

ivylass

05-05-2006, 03:22 PM

You also don't know how much he drank. The woman in the story said he was drinking "a little bit."

I mentioned that, when I said "Whether that's two hours or six hours before I don't know." I'm throwing it out there because it could be proof he was imbibing before getting in the car. But I also acknowledge this could be some waitress trying to insert herself in a big story by telling a fib.

Bottom line is, we don't know what his BAL was, and now we will never know.

I hope he gets the help he needs in rehab. I also hope he's doing it because he hit bottom and not for damage control.

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-05-2006, 03:27 PM

Text of his statement (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Kennedy-Text.html).

He mentions previous addiction to pain medication. How would that apply here?

Daniel

Weirddave

05-05-2006, 03:35 PM

Sorry, just borrowing pages from the playbooks of the likes of Weirddave and those he fanatically supports.

-Joe
Oh this is fascinating. Tell me good sir, who exactly is it that I "fanatically support"?

muldoonthief

05-05-2006, 03:39 PM

It certainly seems to be an unwritten rule that every time a member of the Kennedy family so much as farts in an elevator, some people bring up Chappaquiddick so fast you'd think Mary Jo was their mom.

Well this one's a little closer to home than the usual Kennedy fiasco. Say your famous dad (you know Patrick is Teddy's son, right?) was involved in a car accident where someone died and there was reasonable suspicion that he was drunk at the time but got off due to his fame. Many years later you were pulled over by police for driving erratically and there was reasonable suspicion you were drunk at the time, but you got off due to your fame. Wouldn't it be reasonable to compare the two cases?

Merijeek

05-05-2006, 03:39 PM

Oh this is fascinating. Tell me good sir, who exactly is it that I "fanatically support"?

Not playing that game, homey. If you want to pretend that you're an "independent" that's up to you.

I'm not going to further your delusions.

-Joe

danceswithcats

05-05-2006, 03:50 PM

Shayna

05-05-2006, 04:01 PM

I mentioned that, when I said "Whether that's two hours or six hours before I don't know." I'm throwing it out there because it could be proof he was imbibing before getting in the car. But I also acknowledge this could be some waitress trying to insert herself in a big story by telling a fib. This mystery woman who refuses to come forward or give her name, is actually a hostess, not even a waitress, let alone a bartender. Therefore she's in even less of a position to know whether or not he had any alcohol, seeing as how she didn't actually serve him.

Text of his statement (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Kennedy-Text.html). Thanks for the link. For the benefit of Jackmannii, in case he doesn't have an account and can't read the article (bolding mine), But in all candor, the incident on Wednesday evening concerns me greatly.

I simply do not remember getting out of bed, being pulled over by the police, or being cited for three driving infractions. That's not how I want to live my life, and that's not how I want to represent the people of Rhode Island.

The recurrence of an addiction problem can be triggered by things that happen in everyday life, such as taking a common treatment for a stomach flu. That's not an excuse for what happened Wednesday evening, but its a reality of fighting a chronic condition for which I'm taking full responsibility.

I am deeply concerned about my reaction to the medication and my lack of knowledge of the accident that evening. But I do know enough to know that I need to seek expert help.

ivylass

05-05-2006, 04:03 PM

Steve MB

05-05-2006, 04:05 PM

I'm willing to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt that the meds, in combination, confused him to the point where he thought he needed to be on the Hill to vote at 2:45 a.m.
I think it's more likely that Daddy taught him that "I have to go to the Hill for a vote" are the Words of Warding aginst police in this situation:
[Senators and Representatives] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same

Fear Itself

05-05-2006, 04:05 PM

As others have noted, the Kennedys seem to feel like they're above the law, time and again, which was part of my OP. Specifically, what was it about Patrick Kennedy's behavior in this case that could be construed as "above the law"?

Indygrrl

05-05-2006, 04:06 PM

mhendo

05-05-2006, 04:42 PM

To those who feel it was a partisan swipe, you're mistaken. Had Rick Santorum been involved in such an incident, I'd have Pitted him, on top of the other numerous reasons I've already got for loathing the guy. As others have noted, the Kennedys seem to feel like they're above the law, time and again, which was part of my OP. So, mhendo, suck it.You can dislike the Kennedys all you like. And Santorum for that matter.

I'm not criticizing your OP for being partisan; i'm criticizing it—and you—for being stupid. Once again, you provide us with a substance-free Pit thread, in which your pathetic eagerness to express indignance outruns your grasp of the facts.

Maybe you didn't realise that choie's script (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7203648&postcount=27) was not meant to be taken seriously.

ScoobyTX

05-05-2006, 04:57 PM

I think it's more likely that Daddy taught him that "I have to go to the Hill for a vote" are the Words of Warding aginst police in this situation:That was my first thought. I wonder if Pops drilled this into his head in the same way that a DWI lawyer will tell you that your first and only words regarding a breathalyzer is "I refuse to offer a sample of blood or breath for analysis."

Homebrew

05-05-2006, 05:01 PM

Given whose history? You do know this is Patrick Kennedy, not Ted, right? Patrick has been open and honest about his past drug problems. You are aware that he spent time in rehab before, right? He's also fairly open about his battles with depression and is an advocate on Capitol Hill concerning mental health issues.

El_Kabong

05-05-2006, 05:14 PM

Which ideological glasses are they? I dislike both parties.

Yeah, right. Given your posting history, I'm certain that last statement comes a something of a surprise to people here. I guess you just don't realize that you come off as some sort of Republican tool to many of those who read your posts. Well, now you've been informed.

And I didn't "See things that aren't there", 2 of the first 3 replies to the OP were from posters defending Kennedy's actions by introducing the straw man of a "But the left does it too" defense from the right.

Yeah, but the first one of those, in fact the first reply of any kind to the OP, is Airman Door's sophomoric and entirely predictable Chappaquiddick reference, which kind of makes it a bit less of a straw man, doesn't it?

If you would like to deny that there are many Republicans who who will take every opportunity they can to bash any political figure namedd "Kennedy" in any way they can, well, go right ahead. I don't think, however, that your argument will be very persuasive.

Mama Tiger

05-05-2006, 05:25 PM

The local DC news is practically wetting their pants with joy over this whole thing. I just saw a story on the local NBC station a little while ago in which they gleefully discussed whether there's a constitutional prohibition against arresting him (Article I, Section 6, "...They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;"), all turning on whether the session is the day's business or when Congress as a whole is not in recess; and they were quite thrilled about the fact that daddy's office immediately took over damage control as far as dealing with the press. Methinks this won't be the last we hear of all of this, whether or not he had any alcohol in his system or anything else.

Frankly, it's still not Wilbur Mills and Fanny Fox, but I guess they have to take their scandals where they can get them. :D

mhendo

05-05-2006, 06:05 PM

Which ideological glasses are they? I dislike both parties. Will you ever develop the intellectual acumen to appreciate the fact that disliking both major political parties does not automatically free you from ideological positions or make you a bastion of disinterested objectivity?

John Mace

05-05-2006, 06:48 PM

Man, CNN is going nuts over this. Congressman named Kennedy appears to get special treatment by the cops. Stop the presses! I guess the resignation of the CIA chief today isn't all that interesting...

I almost feel sorry for the guy, except his story is kind of bizarre*-- not just this story, but all the other stuff they're digging up about him. I also like the part where he claims he didn't drink, but he also claims he didn't remember getting into his car. No wonder he's hightailin' it to the Mayo clinic-- every reporter in town would be on his ass night and day to see if they catch him doing something.

It's true that the Kennedys are as close as you get to political royalty in the US, but you need to multiply that by 10x in New England (for those posters not from that part of the country). I can't believe this will affect his re-election bid. He's got one of the safest seats in the country, so count on seeing him back on the hill in January.

Yeah, yeah the police should treat us all equally, but you can't blame him if the cops gave him an out-- would any of us not have taken it if we could? I blame the cops for that, not Kennedy.

*or, biz-AHHHH, as we Rhode Islanders like to say

wring

05-05-2006, 06:52 PM

I also like the part where he claims he didn't drink, but he also claims he didn't remember getting into his car.
not inconsistent w/ the drugs he says he was taking.

that said, it was stupid of the cops to not do a BAL test. It was stupid of him to not insist on one (or have his blood drawn immediately - I assume he was smart enough to call his lawyer). that's of course, if he hadn't been drinking.

and, if reports are true that the drugs were prescribed and that he has a history of addiction (hell even just w/his family history which if I know about it, his dr. should have), the doctor should have been very hesitent about writing the script. I mentioned elsewhere that my son when a teen had a serious sleeping problem and our doc only wrote out the script for 6 or 8 pills w/lots of cautionary notes for us (and that was years ago).

ralph124c

05-05-2006, 07:10 PM

John Mace

05-05-2006, 07:15 PM

not inconsistent w/ the drugs he says he was taking.
My point was that if he had black-outs during that time, how does he know he didn't drink anything? Did he say he didn't remember if he drank or not or did he state that he did not drink? If the latter, I just think that sounds kind of funny. Officer, I can't remember much, but I know I didn't drink! Yeah, right.

Shayna

05-05-2006, 07:43 PM

My point was that if he had black-outs during that time, how does he know he didn't drink anything? Did he say he didn't remember if he drank or not or did he state that he did not drink? If the latter, I just think that sounds kind of funny. Officer, I can't remember much, but I know I didn't drink! Yeah, right. I think you need to consider the timeline here. He can remember everything that happened up to and including leaving work, going home, taking a sleeping pill and going to bed for (what he thought would be) the night. What he can't remember (and what is consistent with other users' complaints about adverse side effects of Ambien use) is anything that happened after he went to bed, including getting out of bed, getting in his car, driving, having the accident, or even his interactions with the police (since he can't even remember being cited). He says he had not had any alcohol that evening, and that statement would be consistent with the above timeline.

Now, could he have gotten out of bed, stumbled to the liquor cabinet on his way to the garage and downed a pint just before getting in the car? Could he have gotten up, stumbled to the liquor cabinet, poured a drink and imbibed for an hour before leaving the house to go "back to work for a vote"? I guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem very plausible to me. And even if he had, was that the direct cause of his actions or his blackout, or is it more likely that it was the Ambien, as he claims?

mhendo

05-05-2006, 08:11 PM

Yeah, yeah the police should treat us all equally, but you can't blame him if the cops gave him an out-- would any of us not have taken it if we could? I blame the cops for that, not Kennedy.Exactly. The cops, of all people, need to be aware of the old adage that justice only needs to be done, it needs to be seen to be done.

SteveG1

05-05-2006, 08:12 PM

BobLibDem

05-05-2006, 09:14 PM

Patrick has to learn that if you want to get special treatment and sleep off your bender with no questions asked, you better shoot a lawyer in the face.

Weirddave

05-05-2006, 09:35 PM

Not playing that game, homey. If you want to pretend that you're an "independent" that's up to you.

I'm not going to further your delusions.

-Joe
You made the allegation that I "fanatically supported" some person or cause. Surely if you're not just talking out of your ass you can present whatever this person or cause is, right? Or is innuendo without facts going to be your stock in trade?
Yeah, right. Given your posting history, I'm certain that last statement comes a something of a surprise to people here. I guess you just don't realize that you come off as some sort of Republican tool to many of those who read your posts. Well, now you've been informed.
Oh, certainly I know how people like to try and pigeonhole me, but that doesn't make what they say true, nor does opposing some of the wackier schemes of Democrats automatically make me a Republican, a simple enough concept, but one that seems beyond the ken of a lot of the far left posters on this board.

Yeah, but the first one of those, in fact the first reply of any kind to the OP, is Airman Door's sophomoric and entirely predictable Chappaquiddick reference, which kind of makes it a bit less of a straw man, doesn't it?

Murdering someone while drunk and then using your influence to skate the consequences does have a way of following a man around, no matter how many years ago it happened. The surprising thing is that so many posters on the left seem to think that this is somehow unfair. And Door's reply was the one that I wasn't counting in the two out of three I mentioned earlier.

If you would like to deny that there are many Republicans who who will take every opportunity they can to bash any political figure namedd "Kennedy" in any way they can, well, go right ahead. I don't think, however, that your argument will be very persuasive.
I wouldn't take that opportunity myself, nor am I a Republican, so I fail to see what this has to do with me.

Will you ever develop the intellectual acumen to appreciate the fact that disliking both major political parties does not automatically free you from ideological positions or make you a bastion of disinterested objectivity?
I never said that it did, although I do certainly believe that it's a starting point a lot closer to objectivity than the blind partisan loyalty which so many posters flaunt. In any event, the question at hand is which person or cause I "fanatically support", a question which has yet to be answered. Personally, the only thing that comes to mind is my conviction that government is a fundamentally bad, evil and flawed institution, and that we should have a little of it as humanly possible.

mhendo

05-05-2006, 10:26 PM

I never said that it did, although I do certainly believe that it's a starting point a lot closer to objectivity than the blind partisan loyalty which so many posters flaunt. Really?

I also dislike both major parties, although i do so for different reasons than you. Does this, therefore, make me less predisposed to ideology and more predisposed to objectivity than, say, a moderate Democrat?

Salem

05-06-2006, 07:01 AM

Getting back to the actual OP and the incident it involves.........

Here's a link on the effects of Ambien (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=340837&highlight=Ambien) posted by our very own lieu and followed up with similar stories that seem (anecdotally, of course) to support the plausibility of Kennedy's story.

El_Kabong

05-06-2006, 07:11 AM

I wouldn't take that opportunity myself, nor am I a Republican, so I fail to see what this has to do with me.

in the same post with:

Murdering someone while drunk and then using your influence to skate the consequences does have a way of following a man around, no matter how many years ago it happened. The surprising thing is that so many posters on the left seem to think that this is somehow unfair. And Door's reply was the one that I wasn't counting in the two out of three I mentioned earlier.

You are a very dishonest person, aren't you?

Weirddave

05-06-2006, 07:22 AM

in the same post with:

You are a very dishonest person, aren't you?
What, you have to be a Republican to believe that Kennedy murdered Mary Jo by getting drunk and driving her into the river? News to me, I thought all you had to be was honest with just a teensy bit of common sense and intelligence.

Fear Itself

05-06-2006, 07:33 AM

What, you have to be a Republican to believe that Kennedy murdered Mary Jo by getting drunk and driving her into the river? News to me, I thought all you had to be was honest with just a teensy bit of common sense and intelligence.You don't even know the legal definition of murder (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1303&bold=||||), do you?

Weirddave

05-06-2006, 07:53 AM

You don't even know the legal definition of murder (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1303&bold=||||), do you?
Killing someone in a drunk driving accident isn't murder? Especially if you try to conceal the crime and flee the scene? I've seen it charged as such before, I'm sure. However, if it's not, than I'm wrong on this, please change "murder" in my previous posts to whatever term is technically the most accurate (neglent homicide maybe? In any event you're splitting a mighty fine hair).

Bricker

05-06-2006, 08:17 AM

In the same sense that only Nixon could go to China, I believe I should be above suspicion of pandering to the Kennedy name.

I don't see one scintilla of evidence that Rep. Kennedy did anything improper with regard to using his influence to change how he was treated. The Capitol Police did not act properly, and they may well have been motivated by the Kennedy name... but that's not Patrick's fault, and that doesn't imply any guilty knowledge or conscience on his part.

There is virtually no evidence that he was drinking. It's well documented that Ambien can have such effects as amnesia. We're talking about a crime here -- this means that the people bringing the accusation must have SOMETHING in the way of proof that rises higher than mere speculation.

If it should develop that he had been drinking somewhere, and there are actual witnesses to that drinking, THAT is evidence. Right now, there is none. The man took some sleeping pills, got disoriented, and crashed his car. Now he's seeking expert advice about the use of sleeping pills; very reasonable for a recovering addict.

Sorry - unless and until more damning evidence comes along, I'm willing to skewer the Capitol Police for not following procedure, but not Patrick Kennedy for being the recipient of that largess. Show me he asked for it, or show me he needed it, and I'm a convert to the "hang 'im high" corner. But if the only reasoning you have is "Isn't it obvious?" then my answer is no. It's not.

Mama Tiger

05-06-2006, 08:43 AM

I saw an interview on local news this morning -- sorry, can't remember who, was just sucking on my first cup of coffee and the brain wasn't entirely functioning yet -- that described the Capitol police as having traditionally acted more in a chaperone role for members of Congress -- hence no field sobriety test and the ride home. Since the shooting of two Capitol policemen ten years ago, however, they've tried to turn into a more traditional police force, especially the younger members, who want to arrest anybody who deserves it, hence the outing of the failure to act.

The interviewee also pointed out that there's another member of Congress named Kennedy, a guy from Minnesota who's a Republican and in line for a committee chairmanship next session. If it had been him? It was the interviewee's contentiono that this would have been strictly an item of local interest, not national. But with the famous Kennedy clan involved? Bingo.

I'm still firmly convinced that the major problems with this whole incident lie with the Capitol police, acting in their nanny role. They can't have it both ways, be treated as a serious police force while simultaneously failing to act like one.

El_Kabong

05-06-2006, 09:32 AM

What, you have to be a Republican to believe that Kennedy murdered Mary Jo by getting drunk and driving her into the river? News to me, I thought all you had to be was honest with just a teensy bit of common sense and intelligence.

I really have no idea why you've made it your personal mission to mention Chappaquiddick every.single.time the name "Kennedy" comes up on this board, nor am I all that interested in why you have acquired this bizarre obsession. I think we all get that you believe the failure to prosecute Mr. Kennedy for murder is one of the greatest injustices in history; you've certainly commented on it enough times. In fact, I am quite certain that should you reply to this post, you'll mention it again, as if nobody might have seen the other 3 or four times you've mentioned it in this thread alone.

If you have a problem with Sen. Ted Kennedy and feel he is unfit for office, make your case to the voters of Massachusetts, as they are the ones who keep re-electing him, or take it to his peers in Congress, none of whom, apparently, feel the need to censure him or hound him from office. If you feel he should have been charged with and jailed for murder, make your case to the appropriate authorities and see if you can get some justice done. Me, I'm from Pennsylvania and live in Texas, so I don't get to vote for or against the man, and IMO your use of the term 'murder' simply does not fit the case.

Lastly, I suggest that if you have something in particular to say about Patrick Kennedy, perhaps you should do so, since he, not Ted, is the subject of this thread.

Fear Itself

05-06-2006, 10:21 AM

Killing someone in a drunk driving accident isn't murder?No, it's vehicular manslaughter (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2212&bold=||||). In any event you're splitting a mighty fine hair).In most states, it is the width of that hair that keeps the accused off death row or a life sentence, so I would say it is significant. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders, no matter how much they offend your self-righteous partisanship.

SteveG1

05-06-2006, 10:43 AM

John Mace

05-06-2006, 11:39 AM

I think you need to consider the timeline here. He can remember everything that happened up to and including leaving work, going home, taking a sleeping pill and going to bed for (what he thought would be) the night. What he can't remember (and what is consistent with other users' complaints about adverse side effects of Ambien use) is anything that happened after he went to bed, including getting out of bed, getting in his car, driving, having the accident, or even his interactions with the police (since he can't even remember being cited). He says he had not had any alcohol that evening, and that statement would be consistent with the above timeline.

Now, could he have gotten out of bed, stumbled to the liquor cabinet on his way to the garage and downed a pint just before getting in the car? Could he have gotten up, stumbled to the liquor cabinet, poured a drink and imbibed for an hour before leaving the house to go "back to work for a vote"? I guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem very plausible to me. And even if he had, was that the direct cause of his actions or his blackout, or is it more likely that it was the Ambien, as he claims?
You still don't get it. How can you deny having done anything (whether it's drinking or taking a leak) when you have no memory of what happened? I'm not saying he did drink, or even whether it was likely or not. Just that I thnk it sounds funny to claim amnesia as your excuse and then state with certainty that "x" did not happen, whatever "x" is. You are reading waaaaaaay too much into my comment.

black rabbit

05-06-2006, 12:45 PM

Ambien is crazy shit, I can vouch for that. I love it, but it's crazy. It's like a psychedelic or something, you feel really good, but everything takes on a surreal quality. Then if you stay awake on it you don't remember what you did after it took effect. I've never felt any effects the next morning though.

Word.

My mom gained fifteen pounds in about two months, and she had no idea why. Turns out she was getting up in the middle of the night, on Ambien, and working her way through most of a half-gallon of ice cream.

My wife also takes it, and she used to routinely order crap from HSN and QVC in the middle of the night without any recollection of having done so. We finally put parental controls on those particular channels.

Shodan

05-06-2006, 03:55 PM

You still don't get it. How can you deny having done anything (whether it's drinking or taking a leak) when you have no memory of what happened? I'm not saying he did drink, or even whether it was likely or not. Just that I thnk it sounds funny to claim amnesia as your excuse and then state with certainty that "x" did not happen, whatever "x" is. You are reading waaaaaaay too much into my comment.
Actually, it sounds like this particular Kennedy is ringing the changes on whatever mental health diagnosis is fashionable. First it was alcoholism, then cocaine addiction, then bipolar disorder, now it is addiction to pain pills.

Is this a medical history, or a TV Guide listing of "Movie of the Week" for the last decade or so?

Maybe it's all true. Or maybe he read the same stuff I did about Ambien blackout, and dredged it up when the DC cops neglected to take a breathalyzer. Mighty convenient either way.

Didn't he punch out a security guard or something last time, when he decided he was bipolar? I think the family bought his way out of that one. Maybe they can do it again, since nobody died. This time.

Regards,
Shodan

wring

05-06-2006, 04:00 PM

Maybe it's all true. Or maybe he read the same stuff I did about Ambien blackout, and dredged it up when the DC cops neglected to take a breathalyzer. Mighty convenient either way.
Regards,
Shodan
and if he was on it, would you still call it 'convenient'? or would you believe that he'd have the precognition to know that he'd need an 'out' in the future, so would fake symptoms to a doctor and get the script written, toss a few out so it would seem like he'd been taking them etc etc etc.

Fear Itself

05-06-2006, 04:06 PM

I think the family bought his way out of that one. If you would please share the evidence that led you to this well reasoned conclusion, I am sure we will all find it as persuasive as you did.

ElvisL1ves

05-06-2006, 04:07 PM

Proof? Didn't you see the name "Kennedy"?

Weirddave

05-06-2006, 06:05 PM

In most states, it is the width of that hair that keeps the accused off death row or a life sentence, so I would say it is significant. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders, no matter how much they offend your self-righteous partisanship.
I'm getting tired of idiots like you saying the same thing over and over again hoping that by repetition you'll make it true. Tell me, since I am a lifelong registered Democrat who would be an independent if Md didn't have closed primaries, what or who, pray tell, am I supposed to be a self-righteous partisan for?

jsgoddess

05-06-2006, 07:53 PM

Tell me, since I am a lifelong registered Democrat who would be an independent if Md didn't have closed primaries, what or who, pray tell, am I supposed to be a self-righteous partisan for?

I'm a lifelong registered Republican, mainly because I didn't much care in the first place and have never bothered to change it. A person's voter registration often has nothing to do with their partisanship.

And the only times I ever remember you screaming about anything, it was against the left.

While I agree that Bricker's approach is the wisest, I definitely did some major eyerolling when I heard the story. Let me just say that I hope that he didn't use his influence, as that would turn what looks like plain incomptetence into conspiracy.

Fear Itself

05-06-2006, 08:25 PM

I'm getting tired of idiots like you saying the same thing over and over again hoping that by repetition you'll make it true. Tell me, since I am a lifelong registered Democrat who would be an independent if Md didn't have closed primaries, what or who, pray tell, am I supposed to be a self-righteous partisan for?There are conservatives who register as Democrats just to ratfuck the Party in closed primaries, by voting for the weakest candidate they would like to see go up against the Republican candidate. Judging by your track record here, if you are indeed registered as a Democract, I suspect that is the case. I don't believe it when you say otherwise.

Salem

05-06-2006, 09:17 PM

Gentlemen, could you please return us to our regularly scheduled thread? Although I could see the confusion considering the first part of the title, "Abysmal judgement gene...." , the name at the end is actually Kennedy, not weirddave. If you want to continue to make this thread all about dave, how about opening a brand new one where you can discuss dave and his political leanings to your heart's content, maybe even throw in a MaryJo and Ted joke, leaving this thread devoid of your consistent dave-centered hijacks.

Anyway, from what I've read, from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/05/kennedy.accident/index.html)

'Corrective' action taken
The Capitol Police statement said an investigation of the crash was still under way.

"Upon review, it has been determined that in the initial stages supervisors employed improper judgment," it said.

"Corrective administrative and personnel action has been taken. The Capitol Police remain committed to impartial and fair enforcement of laws and impartial and fair treatment of all citizens."

A congressional source who was briefed by police told CNN the watch commander on duty early Thursday has been reassigned for allowing two sergeants to drive Kennedy home soon after the crash, while ordering two officers at the scene to return to duty.

So far nothing that says that Kennedy requested preferential treatment nor evidence that he had been drinking. Not that it didn't happen, but just that there's no evidence to show it did. I know that the "ambien defense" could be a ploy, but clearly, given the numerous accounts of the effects of the drug, he could very well have taken lots of drinks and never known he did it if it was after he took the medication. If you are completely not aware of what you are doing, are you guilty?
What is the sound of one hand drinking? :D

danceswithcats

05-06-2006, 09:39 PM

If you are completely not aware of what you are doing, are you guilty?
Yes, in my opinion, you are. Blame the drugs, blame your doctor, blame your harsh toilet training, it's all bullshit. How about some personal responsibility? Mr. Kennedy is an elected official and owes some measure of responsibility to his electorate, as well as his elected peers. The real addiction here is addiction to victim status which supposedly mollifies the charges extant.

Maybe I'm the odd fellow, but I read the paperwork on a prescribed medication before I take it. If there's a likelihoood that taking Fuckwitase will cause me to dance in the street with a Samurai sword, I'll choose another med, or make sure a big and strong enough friend is nearby to keep me from engaging in stupitude.

Here's what you folks aren't grasping-Mr. Kennedy is a lawmaker, yet he isn't capable of managing his own person, apparently. Like his father, the stupid SOB can't handle himself and his substance issues, but so many want to give him a pass. When he's a private citizen, I don't really give a shit what he drinks, smokes, or snorts, but when he's allegedly working for the US as a representative, he ought to clean up his fucking act or get out.

Weirddave

05-06-2006, 10:00 PM

There are conservatives who register as Democrats just to ratfuck the Party in closed primaries, by voting for the weakest candidate they would like to see go up against the Republican candidate. Judging by your track record here, if you are indeed registered as a Democract, I suspect that is the case. I don't believe it when you say otherwise.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny! All by my lonesome, I'm fucking the Democratic party over! Go me! Persecution complex much? (All this aside from your monumental ignorance concerning how Maryland politics actually work).

Fear Itself

05-06-2006, 10:10 PM

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You funny! All by my lonesome, I'm fucking the Democratic party over! Go me! Persecution complex much? (All this aside from your monumental ignorance concerning how Maryland politics actually work).The point is, no one here believes a word you say. You can spew your silly story about hating Pubs and Dems equally, but nobody's buying. We know you, and independent, you ain't.

Salem

05-06-2006, 10:15 PM

I completely agree with people taking responsibility for their behavior, especially when it could involve the safety of others, and not serving up a platter (especially a sterling-silver one) full of excuses. I also see from reading a few articles on Ambien that it is addictive and certainly anyone with prior history of addictions should never have been prescribed the med to begin with, and if he was serious about facing his addictions, he certainly should have read the literature and chosen NOT to take it. I'm not giving the guy a free pass by any means. BUT, nowhere on the company website do I see anything that would indicate that a person could get up out of a sound sleep and jump in their car for a ride. I didn't even see any mention of sleepwalking. If I looked at the list of indications and side effects, I would not in a million years think that I would be capable of doing something like that with no conscious awareness. It talks about amnesia and (obviously drowsiness) but says as long as you go to bed right away and don't have to be awakend before 7-8 hours sleep has passed, that amnesia won't be an issue cause you'll be asleep.

Again, this may all just be a great excuse for the guy, and given his addictive history, I think he was irresponsible in taking it to begin with, but just say for a minute that it was someone else -no history, no position to uphold- if the same thing happened, how would you view the situation? I'm an average Joe (or Joe-ette, in this case). I'm prescribed a sleep med, I take it and end up driving my car into a phone pole, taking three cars out on the way. After 8 hours, the med wears off and I have no clue what happened. Am I guilty of the traffic violations?

(And I do believe the police were absolutely wrong in not doing any kind of alcohol testing.)

Airman Doors, USAF

05-06-2006, 10:40 PM

Airman Doors, USAF

05-06-2006, 10:54 PM

Yeah, but the first one of those, in fact the first reply of any kind to the OP, is Airman Door's sophomoric and entirely predictable Chappaquiddick reference, which kind of makes it a bit less of a straw man, doesn't it?

Sohpmoric? Sure. Easy cheap shot? Absolutely.

True? Sure is.

danceswithcats

05-06-2006, 11:56 PM

Salem

05-07-2006, 06:49 AM

Does that account for the cop that said that he smelled hooch, or the woman at the bar who claimed to have seen him there for a few hours?

No, and reading the warnings on the Ambien website, they specifically caution not to use alcohol with the medication. And that goes back to the issue that the cops at the scene didn't do a breathalyzer, which was totally wrong since we will never know his BAL. My guess would be that if Kennedy(or anyone else taking the medication) had had even just a couple of drinks over the course of a few hours -nothing that would put him over the legal limit - it would exacerbate the effects of the medication and could have caused the escalation in the side effects. In that case, I would see that as HIS culpability, having made the decision to use the medication after drinking any amount of alcohol or enough that it was still in his system (If and) when he took the Ambien. We really don't even have conclusive evidence, that I've seen, at least, that he DID take the medication. If the cops had done their job, we'd at least have some of those variables defined.

A couple of years ago I had some dental work done and was given an rx for percocet. Since I had taken it in the hospital years before when I'd had my first daughter and I knew it could knock me for a loop, I didn't take it until there was someone else there that would be responsible for my kids. (Good thing, too, cause I tripped over a piece of bread and they laughed at me. Rotten kids.) But if my kids hadn't been home, I wouldn't have had someone stay with me figuring I'd take it and just go to bed. What if I had some bizarre reaction that had not been in the 'possible side effects' literature, that I had not experienced in prior use of the same medication, and got up and drove my car without knowing it? Whether I was a private citizen or a member of Congress, wouldn't make a difference. That's some pretty scary stuff.

Bricker

05-07-2006, 08:24 AM

I'm an average Joe (or Joe-ette, in this case). I'm prescribed a sleep med, I take it and end up driving my car into a phone pole, taking three cars out on the way. After 8 hours, the med wears off and I have no clue what happened. Am I guilty of the traffic violations?

(And I do believe the police were absolutely wrong in not doing any kind of alcohol testing.)
You bet you are. You or your evil twin.

Under what legal theory?

This is not drunk driving. You didn't have the requisite mens rea. You did not have any knowledge, actual or constructive, about what the medication might do to you.

So why would you be guilty? Explain your reasoning, please.

ElvisL1ves

05-07-2006, 08:38 AM

Why do you think someone prescribed a med would not be informed as to what the side effects are?

Revtim

05-07-2006, 08:58 AM

Also, don't they usually have written warnings about operating motor vehicles on the bottle?

Bricker

05-07-2006, 09:41 AM

Also, don't they usually have written warnings about operating motor vehicles on the bottle?

I have an acquaintence who was given Ambien. There was no warning about amnesia, sleep-walking or other sleep-active activities. Yes, there was a warning about operating a motor vehicle.

But you miss the sequence here... the "decision" to use a motor vehicle was itself the result of the confusion brought on by the drug.

Salem

05-07-2006, 09:49 AM

But you miss the sequence here... the "decision" to use a motor vehicle was itself the result of the confusion brought on by the drug.

Exactly. If you have taken precautionary measures and gone to bed as directed, but then, because of an unknown effect of the medication, you get up and drive your car without being conscious of doing so - you are not making a conscious decision to drive your car while taking the medication. You don't even know you're doing it.

I don't claim to know that that is what happened - only that the possibility exists and it doesn't seem very far-fetched.

As far as being told of the potential side effects, who knows? If you look at the manufacturer's website, they do not list anything like this as a precaution or potential side effect. Would the doctor have different knowledge and share it? One would hope so. But then again, one would hope that a doctor would not prescribe a potentially addictive medication to someone who has a history of addiction to prescription drugs.....(and, as I said before, someone serious about maintaining their control over an addiction wouldn't take the drug even if it was prescribed.)

mhendo

05-07-2006, 09:56 AM

Also, don't they usually have written warnings about operating motor vehicles on the bottle?Sure, but if the medicine itself causes you such confusion that you operate a motor vehicle without even realizing it, then you can hardly be said to have wilfully ignored the warning.

As Bricker says, "the 'decision' to use a motor vehicle was itself the result of the confusion brought on by the drug."

All of this asumes, of course, that the Ambien really was the cause of the Kennedy's disorientation, which is something we can probably never know now. If the Capitol Police had done their jobs, there wouldn't need to be such speculation on the issue. I tend to agree with Mama Tiger's position that "[the Capitol Police] can't have it both ways, be treated as a serious police force while simultaneously failing to act like one."

El_Kabong

05-07-2006, 11:08 AM

Sohpmoric? Sure. Easy cheap shot? Absolutely.

True? Sure is.

I don't recall anyone in this thread denying that the incident happened, nor have I noted anyone claiming that Ted Kennedy doesn't have a heavy moral burden to live with for the rest of his life. Now, since your self-confessed 'cheap shot' took place in the very first reply to the OP, in other words before anyone said anything at all on this subject, what was your point in making it?

Weirddave

05-07-2006, 11:28 AM

The point is, no one here believes a word you say. You can spew your silly story about hating Pubs and Dems equally, but nobody's buying. We know you, and independent, you ain't.
Why do you think I care what you think? You've demonstrated repeatedly that you have no interest in the truth of the matter, you just want to categorize and dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you into a convienent pigeonhole so you don't have the burdon of being required to think about their positions. You can glibber and rave all you want about "stealth conservatives" looking to "sabatoge" the Democratic party (snicker), it makes no difference to me. I know what I believe and where I fit in. You've asked so I've told you, if you chose not to believe me....*shrug* OK.

Revtim

05-07-2006, 11:42 AM

But you miss the sequence here... the "decision" to use a motor vehicle was itself the result of the confusion brought on by the drug.Interesting. I assume the legal difference between this and deciding to drive after a few drinks is that there's laws specifically to address alcohol? And unless there's a law specifically against driving while under the influence of a particular drug, the defence that the decision was made under the influence of said drug can be made?

SteveG1

05-07-2006, 11:52 AM

This question is mostly directed to Bricker.

Am I correct in thinking that there are differences or extenuating circumstances that apply?

If someone drinks to excess (or whatever the legal limit is) and drives, he is guilty because he was aware of the DUI laws, chose to drink and chose to drive, knowing the effects of alcohol. If someone fires up a bong and goes driving, he is DUI because again, he knows what the effects and the law are.

If someone is taking a prescribed medication and nobody made him aware of the side effects, he may reasonably be considered to be not at fault. If this same medication is later shown to cause such things as sleepwalking (or sleep driving), would it be reasonable to say it is not the person's fault?

Am I correct, or out in left field somewhere?

mhendo

05-07-2006, 12:19 PM

I, too, would like to add my ??? to the comments made by Revtim and SteveG1, partly from mere interest and partly because i'm trying to sort out my own feelings on this subject.

Morally, i've never supported any leeway being given to people because of actions taken when drunk. I've always believed that, because people know what the effects of alcohol are and choose to drink anyway, and because drunkenness generally takes a few drinks or more, people should be held responsible for what they do when drunk, even if they are so drunk they didn't really know what they were doing.

The reason i feel differently about prescription drugs is that, despite the warnings and advertised side-effects, these drugs affect people in markedly different ways. Also, unlike drinking, there is often no gradual progression; a single pill can often have bad side-effects. Finally, achieving a level of drunkenness that causes complete loss of control generally requires not just use of alcohol, but abuse, whereas some pharmaceuticals can have such effects even when taken in doctor-recommmended doses.

i realise that there might be some inconsistencies in my position on these issues, particularly where issues of alcoholism and drug addiction are involved.

danceswithcats

05-07-2006, 02:38 PM

Under what legal theory?

This is not drunk driving. You didn't have the requisite mens rea. You did not have any knowledge, actual or constructive, about what the medication might do to you.

So why would you be guilty? Explain your reasoning, please.
Having witnessed the effect some drugs have on the body, I prefer to err on the side of caution and read before ingesting. That said, it is my belief that all responsible adults should do the same. Ask your prescribing physician, ask your dispensing pharmacist, or go online and educate yourself about what you're about to put in your body and what it is intended to do, along with possible untoward actions and reactions.

Persons who fail to obtain that level of information, or who willfully ignore contraindications are on a level with Alice, who opens the bottle marked "Drink Me", and downs the contents. Negligence, IMHO.

choie

05-07-2006, 04:10 PM

Persons who fail to obtain that level of information, or who willfully ignore contraindications are on a level with Alice, who opens the bottle marked "Drink Me", and downs the contents. Negligence, IMHO.

So you're telling us that you don't ingest anything that might, no matter how infrequently or unpredictably, give a human being some kind of negative reaction? You don't take Aspirin, Tylenol, cough medicine, milk, meat, gluten, sugar, even water? (After all, it might have some of those pesky bacteria in it!)

Wow. More power to ya. Most of us sometimes take risks because the likelihood of benefit is greater than that of detrimental result.

jsgoddess

05-07-2006, 04:23 PM

Persons who fail to obtain that level of information, or who willfully ignore contraindications are on a level with Alice, who opens the bottle marked "Drink Me", and downs the contents. Negligence, IMHO.

You can read all you want. In the end, you'll still have to balance risks and rewards. How rare does a side effect have to be before you'll allow that people are taking a drug responsibly?

mhendo

05-07-2006, 04:37 PM

You can read all you want. In the end, you'll still have to balance risks and rewards. How rare does a side effect have to be before you'll allow that people are taking a drug responsibly?My question exactly.

Maybe we should have the FDA refuse to license any drug until it is proved to be free of any and all possible side effects.

Mama Tiger

05-07-2006, 04:52 PM

You know, sometimes you do talk to your doctor about side effects and yet you still don't get full information. It wasn't till a month after I'd taken an anti-itch medication for the shingles along with small doses of pain medication that I learned by reading another thread here on the Dope that the anti-itch medication is an opiate potentiator, which explained why even though I only took prescribed doses of everything, there's a whole weekend I can barely remember; the combination of the two knocked me flat on my ass. I felt like I'd taken 12 of the pain pills a dayinstead of the 1.5 a day I'd actually taken. Nobody warned me -- not the doctor, not the pharmacist. It took a random comment on the Dope for me to learn of the unexpected side effect of an otherwise innocuous medication. So doctors don't always know or connect up with everything, and neither do pharmacists. And we had a great pharmacist, who knew me well and knew everything I was taking, and who I could talk to about any medication. Even had I spent four hours researching it online, I might not have caught it.

Again, I cannot fault Kennedy for not being aware of his actions if it's a side effect that the manufacturer isn't willing to 'fess up to on its website. I do have to question his doctor prescribing it for him. But most of all I still assert that the major blame in this situation lies with the Capitol police. If they hadn't acted like a chaperone by hustling him home and instead at least followed basic procedure, it would have lessened the consequences for everyone. And it would have lessened the negative publicity for everyone, too.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-07-2006, 05:08 PM

I don't recall anyone in this thread denying that the incident happened, nor have I noted anyone claiming that Ted Kennedy doesn't have a heavy moral burden to live with for the rest of his life. Now, since your self-confessed 'cheap shot' took place in the very first reply to the OP, in other words before anyone said anything at all on this subject, what was your point in making it?

Because I could. For the same reason that other people make inane comments, because they want to. Big deal. It was obvious, timely, and apropos to the OP who said that this behavior must be genetic (which, of course, it's not).

Big deal.

Shodan

05-07-2006, 05:10 PM

If you would please share the evidence that led you to this well reasoned conclusion, I am sure we will all find it as persuasive as you did.
I doubt it - you're stupid.

But here's the cite (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/07/a_legacy_of_politics_and_pain/?page=2) anyway.

:)

Regards,
Shodan

Fear Itself

05-07-2006, 06:18 PM

I doubt it - you're stupid.

But here's the cite (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/07/a_legacy_of_politics_and_pain/?page=2) anyway. For the record, Shodan's cite provides absolutely no support for the statement I called him on:I think the family bought his way out of that one. Stupid is as stupid does.

SteveG1

05-07-2006, 07:38 PM

For the record, Shodan's cite provides absolutely no support for the statement I called him on:Stupid is as stupid does.
Nothing in the cited article supports any claim of bailouts or buy-offs.

danceswithcats

05-07-2006, 11:45 PM

You can read all you want. In the end, you'll still have to balance risks and rewards. How rare does a side effect have to be before you'll allow that people are taking a drug responsibly?
Apparently the side effects of Ambien aren't a secret, nor are they rare, as QtM, other lay dopers and Bricker are knowledgeable thereof. Mr. Kennedy isn't disadvantaged with respect to his ability to obtain information about drugs he's taking, so we're back to my original posit that he's stupid and his judgement sucks.

Squink

05-08-2006, 04:52 AM

Apparently the side effects of Ambien aren't a secret, nor are they rare,, as QtM, other lay dopers and Bricker are knowledgeable thereof.
Mr. Kennedy isn't disadvantaged with respect to his ability to obtain information about drugs he's taking, so we're back to my original posit that he's stupid and his judgement sucks.
Did YOU know, or are you also stupid like Mr. Kennedy and the teeming millions who rely on the FDA to prescreen your drugs?
FDA approves a drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by the drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective. http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:K7yAy2boppIJ:www.fda.gov/cder/warn/cyber/2001/Cyber101.pdf+ambien++%22safe+and+effective%22+site:gov&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a

crowmanyclouds

05-08-2006, 07:18 AM

...Didn't he punch out a security guard or something last time...I think the family bought his way out of that one...From your cite,...a clearly frustrated Kennedy was videotaped in 2000 shoving a female security guard. The guard sued, and Kennedy paid a settlement... (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/07/a_legacy_of_politics_and_pain/?page=2)Shoved = punched out and settling a lawsuit = "family bought his way out"?

While were at it,
...The fact is, he has wrecked a lot of cars (and boats) over the years. Most of the time, ways are found to hush things up...If they "hush things up" how do you know that it happened?

So, neither of you will object if I say this,

"GW Bush hushed up his drunk driving incident and his family bought his way out of it."

After all,
...Bush pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor DUI charge, paid a $150 fine.. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html)
CMC fnord!

Cheesesteak

05-08-2006, 07:52 AM

Apparently the side effects of Ambien aren't a secret, nor are they rare, as QtM, other lay dopers and Bricker are knowledgeable thereof. Mr. Kennedy isn't disadvantaged with respect to his ability to obtain information about drugs he's taking, so we're back to my original posit that he's stupid and his judgement sucks.Is your opinion, then, that all users of Ambien are stupid and exercise bad judgement? They all are at risk for these side effects. I may be wrong, but cars that can operate at night tend to be fairly common, and most people don't have time locks on their bedroom doors.

AFAICT, Mr Kennedy is not at any greater risk to have an episode like this one than anybody else who uses Ambien. Therefore, I would not expect him to take more precautions than anybody else using this very popular drug.

If the drug is so dangerous that people need to take extraordinary precautions to keep the populace safe, then it should not be on the market. I can't fault Kennedy for that, it is the FDA's job. I feel weird saying that taking an FDA approved medicine is, in an of itself, an irresponsible act.

Shodan

05-08-2006, 08:03 AM

Stupid is as stupid does.There speaks the voice of experience.

Like I said, you and crowmanyclouds aren't going to come to the same conclusions as non-stupid people do.

Regards,
Shodan

Bricker

05-08-2006, 11:14 AM

Interesting. I assume the legal difference between this and deciding to drive after a few drinks is that there's laws specifically to address alcohol? And unless there's a law specifically against driving while under the influence of a particular drug, the defence that the decision was made under the influence of said drug can be made?

This question is mostly directed to Bricker.

Am I correct in thinking that there are differences or extenuating circumstances that apply?

If someone drinks to excess (or whatever the legal limit is) and drives, he is guilty because he was aware of the DUI laws, chose to drink and chose to drive, knowing the effects of alcohol. If someone fires up a bong and goes driving, he is DUI because again, he knows what the effects and the law are.

If someone is taking a prescribed medication and nobody made him aware of the side effects, he may reasonably be considered to be not at fault. If this same medication is later shown to cause such things as sleepwalking (or sleep driving), would it be reasonable to say it is not the person's fault?

Am I correct, or out in left field somewhere?

Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense. That is... if you get drunk, you cannot then use your drunkeness to say, "Hey, I was so drunk, I didn't know what I was doing, so I couldn't form the requisite intent to commit a crime!"

As you might imagine, though, it's not voluntary intoxication if someone slips you a drug in your Shirley Temple.

The question is whether you knew, or should have known, that what happened could result from what you took. In this case, it's quite a stretch to say that Rep. Kennedy should have known that taking a legal sleep aid could result in this sort of result. NOW, of course, he knows; if he drives into some concrete barriers next month and points at the Ambien, it's not reasonable. But to expect him to know about this somewhat rare potential side-effect ahead of time is not reasonable. And legally speaking, if it's not reasonable for him to have known, then his actions cannot be criminal.

John Mace

05-08-2006, 11:52 AM

SteveG1

05-08-2006, 12:07 PM

Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense. That is... if you get drunk, you cannot then use your drunkeness to say, "Hey, I was so drunk, I didn't know what I was doing, so I couldn't form the requisite intent to commit a crime!"

As you might imagine, though, it's not voluntary intoxication if someone slips you a drug in your Shirley Temple.

The question is whether you knew, or should have known, that what happened could result from what you took. In this case, it's quite a stretch to say that Rep. Kennedy should have known that taking a legal sleep aid could result in this sort of result. NOW, of course, he knows; if he drives into some concrete barriers next month and points at the Ambien, it's not reasonable. But to expect him to know about this somewhat rare potential side-effect ahead of time is not reasonable. And legally speaking, if it's not reasonable for him to have known, then his actions cannot be criminal.
Thanks for your answer. So, if Kennedy didn't know, then he can't / shouldn't be roasted. If he did know, then that's a whole different situation.

mhendo

05-08-2006, 12:09 PM

You could be right, but there just isn't any way of knowing. Ambien is a legal sleep aid, prescribed (I assume) by Kennedy's doctor. Now, if he slipped himself an ambien after he got behind the wheel, that might be another matter. I just don't see how you can fault the guy for taking it at home, though.Maybe you missed what the moron said in Post #130.Maybe I'm the odd fellow, but I read the paperwork on a prescribed medication before I take it. If there's a likelihoood that taking Fuckwitase will cause me to dance in the street with a Samurai sword, I'll choose another med, or make sure a big and strong enough friend is nearby to keep me from engaging in stupitude.Apparently drugs like Ambien should only be taken in the presence of someone who is available to watch you around the clock.

Unfortunately, dansewithcats has clearly demonstrated that he is perfectly capable of "engaging in stupitude" without the aid of pharmaceuticals.

John Mace

05-08-2006, 12:10 PM

NOW, of course, he knows; if he drives into some concrete barriers next month and points at the Ambien, it's not reasonable..
So, are you saying that he can be criminally charged if he takes ambien again and ends up in a similar situation? That's basically saying that he can't ever take ambien again.

Bricker

05-08-2006, 12:44 PM

So, are you saying that he can be criminally charged if he takes ambien again and ends up in a similar situation? That's basically saying that he can't ever take ambien again.

No - but having had this effect once, he needs to take reasonable precautions -- car keys secured with a trusted family member, for example.

Bricker

05-08-2006, 12:46 PM

Thanks for your answer. So, if Kennedy didn't know, then he can't / shouldn't be roasted. If he did know, then that's a whole different situation.

Right. If, for example, evidence should come to light that last month, he had a blackout-driving episode on Ambien and it was hushed up, then the whole picture changes. And, as I suggested above, if he NOW has an episode of some kind, he can't raise the Ambien issue as a defense.

But so far as I'm aware, this is the first and only instance of the medication causing him problems.

UncleBeer

05-08-2006, 01:00 PM

This mystery woman who refuses to come forward or give her name, is actually a hostess, not even a waitress, let alone a bartender. Therefore she's in even less of a position to know whether or not he had any alcohol, seeing as how she didn't actually serve him. Thanks for the link. For the benefit of Jackmannii, in case he doesn't have an account and can't read the article (bolding mine),
If we accept that Patrick has no memory of anything that happened after he got home and took his Ambien, how do we account for the glaring discrepancy between his statement that he drove home after the votes on Capitol Hill and his presence in the Hawk & Dove that evening?

Shodan

05-08-2006, 01:18 PM

If we accept that Patrick has no memory of anything that happened after he got home and took his Ambien, how do we account for the glaring discrepancy between his statement that he drove home after the votes on Capitol Hill and his presence in the Hawk & Dove that evening?
Well, let's see -

Either he drove home, took an Ambien, went to bed, and then by purest coincidence became one of the not-exactly-commonplace-but-still-not-all-that-common people who suffered from the publicized effects of Ambien. So he involuntarily got up and drove to the Capitol (nearly crashing his car) under the impression that there was a vote scheduled at 2:30 in the morning. He has absolutely no memory of the evening, except that he wasn't drinking and went straight home, and that the hostess who saw him drink and the cop who arrested him are both mistaken that he had been drinking,

or

A cocaine addict/alcoholic/pain pill addict suffering from bipolar disease and whose family of origin has a long history of chemical addiction and dependency and who has a history of bizarre behavior had a relapse and blackout.

Hmmm...

Incidentally, is there any hard evidence that he did take an Ambien that night?

Regards,
Shodan

Fear Itself

05-08-2006, 01:45 PM

Like I said, you and crowmanyclouds aren't going to come to the same conclusions as non-stupid people do. Your name calling is not important, now that we have your admission that you lied about a cite that the Kennedy family bought off the authorities.

One would hope this would serve as a lesson to you, but somehow I doubt it. Once a liar always a liar.

Shodan

05-08-2006, 02:37 PM

Your name calling is not important, now that we have your admission that you lied about a cite that the Kennedy family bought off the authorities.
If you are merely going to make things up, it might save server resources if you didn't bother quoting me. Especially if the words are too hard for you, containing as they do more than two syllables.

It is entirely clear (as if there were any doubt) that you are too stupid to understand normal conversation, or indeed any concept beyond potty training.

If that.

Fortunately, it serves to demonstrate the depths to which mouth-breathers such as yourself must descend to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts.

Regards,
Shodan

El_Kabong

05-08-2006, 03:38 PM

Well, there you have it. Shodan's insults are bigger and angrier, he must be right!

BTW, count me amongst the persons who is unable to find support for the notion of the Kennedy family buying influence in the linked article. A little help would be appreciated.

Fear Itself

05-08-2006, 03:47 PM

Fortunately, it serves to demonstrate the depths to which mouth-breathers such as yourself must descend to insulate themselves from inconvenient facts.Of which you have provided precisely none. You made a claim, I called you on it, and you provided a bogus cite which did not support the claim you made. Everyone is waiting for you to put up or shut up. Being incapable of doing the former, the interests of this board would be far better served if you did the latter.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-08-2006, 04:00 PM

Of which you have provided precisely none. You made a claim, I called you on it, and you provided a bogus cite which did not support the claim you made. Everyone is waiting for you to put up or shut up. Being incapable of doing the former, the interests of this board would be far better served if you did the latter.

I wouldn't call it a bogus cite. Here's the revelant quote:

There was what former DCCC aide Erik Smith refers to as ''the airport episode," when a clearly frustrated Kennedy was videotaped in 2000 shoving a female security guard. The guard sued, and Kennedy paid a settlement.

How, if he clearly assaulted a security guard, did he not get charged with anything? How was he allowed to make a settlement?

Fear Itself

05-08-2006, 04:10 PM

How, if he clearly assaulted a security guard, did he not get charged with anything?Since it didn't go to trial, it is certainly not clear that he assaulted anybody. How was he allowed to make a settlement?Uh, because he was not charged with a crime. He was sued in civil court, which more often than not ends in a settlement between the parties. NOthing untoward here at all.

Now, if Shodan can prove that he was not charged because the authorities were paid off by the Kennedys, as he alleged, then we would be getting somewhere. I won't hold my breath.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-08-2006, 04:18 PM

Since it didn't go to trial, it is certainly not clear that he assaulted anybody.

If they had tape of it I'd say that would be pretty clear.

Uh, because he was not charged with a crime. He was sued in civil court, which more often than not ends in a settlement between the parties. NOthing untoward here at all.

How is it that he wasn't charged with assault? If I were taped shoving a security guard I would be.

Now, if Shodan can prove that he was not charged because the authorities were paid off by the Kennedys, as he alleged, then we would be getting somewhere. I won't hold my breath.

He didn't exactly allege anything. he said "I think", therefore he was offering an opinion.

Fear Itself

05-08-2006, 04:24 PM

He didn't exactly allege anything. he said "I think", therefore he was offering an opinion.And I asked him what led him to believe that, besides blind hatred for all things Kennedy. And here we are.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-08-2006, 04:27 PM

My point is that you can't lie about an opinion, by its very nature. If I say that I think OJ did it I'm giving my opinion on the information, I don't think that if someone asked me for a cite I would have to substantiate it because it's my opinion.

Anyway, the bottom line is that what went down appears to be shady, which is not unheard of with the Kennedys (my opinion).

Fear Itself

05-08-2006, 04:41 PM

My point is that you can't lie about an opinion, by its very nature. But Shodan can, and did, lie about the cite which he based his opinion on. There was nothing in it to support his belief that the Kennedys bought anyone off to avoid prosecution. The lie occurs when you state that your site contains information that supports your belief. If I said, "I believe George W. Bush wants to abolish the Constitution and institute a dictatorship," then cited one of his state of the union addresses as containing statements that supported that contention, I would expect to be called a liar as well.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-08-2006, 04:49 PM

He assaulted someone (on video, no less) and wasn't charged. That's what his cite says. How does that happen?

He thinks that the Kennedy family paid hush money to make it go away. That's not a lie. That's an opinion based upon the facts. The fact is that Kennedy did something, wasn't charged, and settled out of court. It's somewhat reminiscent of Michael Jackson, and people have no problem whatsoever believing that he paid hush money, so why is it a big deal here?

Fear Itself

05-08-2006, 05:09 PM

He thinks that the Kennedy family paid hush money to make it go away. That's not a lie. That's an opinion based upon the facts. That's right, and had it ended there, there is no lie. If he had said, "It's my opinion, I don't have anything concrete to base it on, other than it was a Kennedy", I would just chalk it up to more anti-Kennedy bluster. But when I asked what led him to believe that, he lied when he posted a cite that he said contains information that would support such a belief, and lead others to do so as well. When he points to a website and says, "Here's the cite," as if it refutes any contradiction, then that is dishonest.

Miller

05-08-2006, 05:42 PM

He assaulted someone (on video, no less) and wasn't charged. That's what his cite says. How does that happen?

Doesn't the person who got shoved have to press charges, first? Did the guard he shoved ever try to do that? Or did she just go straight for the civil suit, which was settled before it went to trial, as happens with most such suits?

Left Hand of Dorkness

05-08-2006, 06:11 PM

He assaulted someone (on video, no less) and wasn't charged. That's what his cite says. How does that happen?
There are plenty of ways:
1) She may have done something to him first that would make the case difficult to prosecute.
2) The tape may be unclear as to whether he was deliberately shoving her or, say, drunkenly off-balance and stumbled into her (I've not seen the tape; I don't know).
3) The shove may have been so minor that it'd fall under De minimis non curat lex.
4) The DA may have decided that pressing charges against a Kennedy would mean that he had no chance of winning re-election in his heavily Democratic district.
5) The Kennedys may have bribed the DA.
6) The security guard may have begged not to have charges pressed, because she didn't want to be a centerpiece of a celebrity trial.

That's off the top of my head. I'm not saying which of these is most likely. But concluding that it's #5 is tinfoil hat territory.

Daniel

HeelB4Zod

05-08-2006, 06:18 PM

Once again, you provide us with a substance-free Pit thread, in which your pathetic eagerness to express indignance outruns your grasp of the facts.

:rolleyes: Whatever.

Pretty weak rebuttal on your part, though, mhendo. Providing us substance-free threads in which one's eagerness to express indignance outruns one's grasp of the facts is the entire point of the Pit.

Airman Doors, USAF

05-08-2006, 06:23 PM

That's off the top of my head. I'm not saying which of these is most likely. But concluding that it's #5 is tinfoil hat territory.

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that an opinion is not a lie. The cited article referenced an incident that usually results in some charges, but they didn't charge him and he was allowed to settle. That looks shady, if nothing else, and Shodan is allowed to have his opinion in the samw way that some of you opine that Bush is fattening his oil cronies at the expense of the little guy (which is a common opinion here).

samclem

05-08-2006, 06:52 PM

Random quotes from news sources at the time of the LAX airport incident. This was in 2000. These are random and chosen by me to offer a general opinion of the incident.

Representative Patrick J. Kennedy called last night for the release of an airport surveillance videotape of an altercation with a security guard, saying the tape would show how innocent the argument was.

The guard, Della Patton, 58, filed a complaint with the Los Angeles Police Department after her dispute with Kennedy on March 26, saying the Rhode Island Democrat had hurt her as he tried to pass through security clearance.

The guard made her story public in the National Enquirer. It was there that Kennedy's lawyer learned she had filed a complaint.

According to sources familiar with the investigation, the tape shows Kennedy walking toward the clearance area near Gate 7 of the Los Angeles International Airport carrying two bags. When the larger bag, a garment bag on wheels, did not fit easily onto the X-ray scanner, Kennedy was seen trying to lift the metal covering on the machine. Patton was then seen approaching him. The two began to talk.

After pulling his wallet from his pocketKennedy was seen trying to bypass the guard, who was blocking his path through the airport metal detector. With his right hand, Kennedy tried to move Patton aside by pushing on her right arm, sources familiar with the videotape said.

At no point did the tape show him hitting or grabbing Patton, as she alleged in a police report, the sources said.

After failing to fit his bag through the X-ray scanner, Kennedy returned to the baggage counter to check the garment bag. On the videotape, Kennedy was seen returning to the security clearance a second time carrying only the smaller bag - and Patton did not appear frightened of him, the sources said.

It also looks like the guard, Della Patton, 58, has ideas about shooting down some of the Kennedy wealth, too: He says her lawyer has asked for a financial settlement of more than $ 200,000.

That mouthpiece, George L. Mallory Jr., confirmed discussing a possible suit with Kennedy's attorney but denied asking for a specific amount.

"We talked generally about what my client's options were in the civil arena," Mallory said. "Necessarily, there would have to be some type of financial settlement at some point.'

Otherwise, Mallory's client would run the civil lawsuit down a legal runway to see if it will take off.

Kennedy and Patton met Friday in L. A. in a hearing with a representative of the city attorney, who will decide this week whether to file a misdemeanor charge in the case. Most cases that go through such hearings are settled without charges filed, the city attorney's office has said.
. They settled in 2002.

A later story said that after Kennedy was NOT indicted by the LA police, the Airport Police released the videotape and it DID show Kennedy mildly shoving the woman, though not in any way hurting her. He was just being a jerk.

wring

05-08-2006, 07:02 PM

He was just being a jerk.
well and bein' a Kennedy.

magellan01

05-08-2006, 07:02 PM

But when I asked what led him to believe that, he lied when he posted a cite that he said contains information that would support such a belief, and lead others to do so as well. When he points to a website and says, "Here's the cite," as if it refutes any contradiction, then that is dishonest.

Why couldn't he simply have been wrong? Maybe he thinks it and believes it, but is, you know, wrong? Why is it necessarily a lie? Why is it dishonest?

SteveG1

05-08-2006, 07:10 PM

Random quotes from news sources at the time of the LAX airport incident. This was in 2000. These are random and chosen by me to offer a general opinion of the incident.

. They settled in 2002.

A later story said that after Kennedy was NOT indicted by the LA police, the Airport Police released the videotape and it DID show Kennedy mildly shoving the woman, though not in any way hurting her. He was just being a jerk.
From those quotes, yes he was just being an arrogant and pushy jerk. It doesn't sound like an attack at all. More like brushing someone aside, and the guard trying to cash in on some deep pockets.

Kennedy mad. Kennedy smash. ??

Nope, doesn't even sound close to that.

Fear Itself

05-08-2006, 08:00 PM

Why is it necessarily a lie? Why is it dishonest?I explained my accusation to Airman Doors in posts #181 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7374948&postcount=181) and #183 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7375074&postcount=183). It thas nothing to do with his opinion. It has do do with dishonest debate.

Shodan

05-09-2006, 07:28 AM

I explained my accusation to Airman Doors in posts #181 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7374948&postcount=181) and #183 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7375074&postcount=183). It thas nothing to do with his opinion. It has do do with dishonest debate.No, you're just - well, I've already explained.
Why couldn't he simply have been wrong? Maybe he thinks it and believes it, but is, you know, wrong? Why is it necessarily a lie? Why is it dishonest?Because it is not a lie, not wrong, and not dishonest. It's not even an opinion.

Kennedy assaulted a security guard. She filed a complaint. They paid her off, and she dropped the complaint. Which is what I said in the first place, and what my cite establishes.

Fear Itself, being what he is, interpreted my remarks in a way that a person of normal intelligence would not have done. Equating "paid to make it go away" as bribery is, well, exactly what I said it was.

Not unexpectedly, unfortunately.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

Fear Itself

05-10-2006, 07:15 AM

Kennedy assaulted a security guard. She filed a complaint. They paid her off, and she dropped the complaint. Which is what I said in the first place, and what my cite establishes.

Fear Itself, being what he is, interpreted my remarks in a way that a person of normal intelligence would not have done. Equating "paid to make it go away" as bribery is, well, exactly what I said it was.Only an ignorant, uninformed fool would equate all legal settlements with bribery. It suits your rabid political agenda to do so, but it makes you look like an idiot. If you represent normal intelligence, the rest of us would be able to levitate a battleship with a mere twitch of our intellect.

Merijeek

05-10-2006, 07:33 AM

Oh, I agree. I'm just saying that an opinion is not a lie. The cited article referenced an incident that usually results in some charges, but they didn't charge him and he was allowed to settle. That looks shady, if nothing else, and Shodan is allowed to have his opinion in the samw way that some of you opine that Bush is fattening his oil cronies at the expense of the little guy (which is a common opinion here).

...and Bricker disease strikes down another.

Too bad.

-Joe

Shodan

05-10-2006, 07:50 AM

Only an ignorant, uninformed fool would equate all legal settlements with bribery. It suits your rabid political agenda to do so, but it makes you look like an idiot. If you represent normal intelligence, the rest of us would be able to levitate a battleship with a mere twitch of our intellect.
I need only point out that you are the one who equated a settlement with bribery.

Accordingly, I agree with your post entirely. Anyone who would do that is an ignorant, uninformed fool with a rabid agenda.

Regards,
Shodan

Fear Itself

05-10-2006, 07:56 AM

I need only point out that you are the one who equated a settlement with bribery. You are such a fucking liar. Do you kiss your children with that mouth?

Shodan

05-10-2006, 09:15 AM

A devastating rebuttal indeed.

Like I said, it would be too much to expect that you could comprehend things from a non-stupid point of view.

Regards,
Shodan

Fear Itself

05-10-2006, 09:18 AM

Heh. The old "I know you are but what am I" riposte. I haven't heard that since I was in the fourth grade. What's next Shodan, "I'm rubber you're glue"? I will, however, concede that you are of normal intelligence; for a nine-year-old.

Bricker

05-10-2006, 10:08 AM

...and Bricker disease strikes down another.

Too bad.

-Joe

Excuse me - but I am in this thread defending Rep. Kennedy, which is certainly contrary to the position I would take if motivated by partisan concerns.

Woiuld you care to point out, anywhere on this board, a time when you have taken a position that would be fairly described as contrary to your partisan concerns?

So what, exactly, is "Bricker disease?"

SteveG1

05-10-2006, 10:25 AM

Right. Bricker defended Kennedy, based on the possibly unknown or unpredictable effects of Ambien. He did so in an answer to my questions, according to how the law would treat it, and his answer sounded right and fair. I'm no Bricker fanatic, neither am I a Bricker enemy. He gave an honest answer. Don't trash him for that.

He said, if Kennedy did not know of the effects of Ambien, and was not conscious and aware that he was driving (just like sleepwalking), he is not at fault. He said if Kennedy did know the effects, and was aware he was driving under the influence, that would be a different story.

Funny though. If my memory serves, in general the people damning Kennedy are the same group who defended Limbaugh, and demanded that he should get some slack, and some "wait until the facts are in" something or other. If you just want to go down the "smash the druggies" road, why not be more consistent and condemn them both?

Shodan

05-10-2006, 03:22 PM

Heh. The old "I know you are but what am I" riposte. I haven't heard that since I was in the fourth grade.Oh good, you can remember back at least a year.

There may be hope for you yet.

:D

Regards,
Shodan

UncleBeer

05-10-2006, 03:32 PM

So what, exactly, is "Bricker disease?"
Dunno exactly what it might be, but apparently displays of critical thinking and logical thought patterns are symptoms.

Fear Itself

05-10-2006, 05:07 PM

There may be hope for you yet. ¯ Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. ¯

:D

whole bean

05-10-2006, 05:12 PM

Excuse me - but I am in this thread defending Rep. Kennedy, which is certainly contrary to the position I would take if motivated by partisan concerns.

Woiuld you care to point out, anywhere on this board, a time when you have taken a position that would be fairly described as contrary to your partisan concerns?

So what, exactly, is "Bricker disease?"
Here's my guess:
Often times laypeople accuse lawyers of finding a distinction without a difference. Merijeek has dubbed this supposed “lawyerly” tendency "Bricker disease."*

Here Airman has argued that when Shodan expresses the opinion that PK has gotten some breaks because of family ties and then cites the LAX incident Shodan is not "wrong" even if the cited incident doesn't support the opinion; rather the proper criticism to lodge at Shodan would be that he is unintelligent for having arrived at the conclusion based on the evidence (this is of course assuming the evidence doesn’t support the opinion).**
I think Merijeek is calling him for recognizing a distinction without a difference.
In this instance, I think Merijeek is probably correct.*** Shodan hasn't stated an opinion of preference (e.g. PK smells funny) rather he has stated an opinion concerning a question of fact (PK has bought his way out of tight spots). One can be wrong about such "opinions," though often times we never really know. The OJ example Airman cited is perfect, though it works against him. I can think OJ did it -- that's my opinion, but it's also either right or wrong, I'll just never know.

*In reality, I think there is often a very material difference some folks just don’t see, whether it be due to a lack of knowledge or a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what is or is not relevant to a conclusion
** I have no dog in this fight, so if I have gotten it wrong or mischaracterized an argument, I apologize in advance.
***Not with respect to the epithet or the correctness of Shodan’s opinion, but the falacy in Airman's argument

whole bean

05-10-2006, 05:18 PM

Dunno exactly what it might be, but apparently displays of critical thinking and logical thought patterns are symptoms. emph. mine
Were it appropriately named, I would agree. I don't think I made that clear in my last post. Not that it matters to you, Bricker, but having read many of your posts, I don't think it's fair to accuse you of pedantry or dwelling on meaningless techinicalties. Your posts are well thought out and logically consistent.

whole bean

05-10-2006, 05:21 PM

Here's my guess:
Often times laypeople accuse lawyers of finding a distinction without a difference. Merijeek has dubbed this supposed “lawyerly” tendency "Bricker disease."*

Here Airman has argued that when Shodan expresses the opinion that PK has gotten some breaks because of family ties and then cites the LAX incident Shodan is not "wrong" even if the cited incident doesn't support the opinion; rather the proper criticism to lodge at Shodan would be that he is unintelligent for having arrived at the conclusion based on the evidence (this is of course assuming the evidence doesn’t support the opinion).**
I think Merijeek is calling him for recognizing a distinction without a difference.
In this instance, I think Merijeek is probably correct.*** Shodan hasn't stated an opinion of preference (e.g. PK smells funny) rather he has stated an opinion concerning a question of fact (PK has bought his way out of tight spots). One can be wrong about such "opinions," though often times we never really know. The OJ example Airman cited is perfect, though it works against him. I can think OJ did it -- that's my opinion, but it's also either right or wrong, I'll just never know.

*In reality, I think there is often a very material difference some folks just don’t see, whether it be due to a lack of knowledge or a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what is or is not relevant to a conclusion
** I have no dog in this fight, so if I have gotten it wrong or mischaracterized an argument, I apologize in advance.
***Not with respect to the epithet or the correctness of Shodan’s opinion, but the falacy in Airman's argument

dammit, change wrong to lying and I think it can still work. If you say, "this supports that conclusion" and it clearly doesn't then you're lying.