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).
Well, just 3 weeks ago, Rep. Kennedy crashed his car in Portsmouth RI. His accident report looked like it was written by someone having difficulty thinking. 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…but not in this case.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I wouldn’t take that opportunity myself, nor am I a Republican, so I fail to see what this has to do with me.
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.
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?
Getting back to the actual OP and the incident it involves…
Here’s a link on the effects of 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.