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?
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
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.
