Originally Posted By Mr X Side note, my sister actually spent time as an intern in his office, and her praise of the man knew no bounds afterwards (beforehand, she was rather indifferent).
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Call me insensitive, but a murderer is a murderer and although they may redeem themselves later in life, the fact they killed someone should never be forgotten.>> There is a HUGE difference between vehicular manslaughter and premeditated murder. Labeling what Kennedy and Laura Bush did as "murder" is pejorative at best. Neither one of these individuals is a cold blooded killer. But using the term "murderer" certainly implies it. These were accidents. Accidents unfortunately happen to the best of people. We're all imperfect. To use such harsh judgement against decent people who really don't deserve it goes beyond the pale.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<So my attitude towards those who would poke fun at a horrible tragedy, one that the Senator fully admitted was the worst thing he'd ever done, is that there's a lifetime of dutiful atonement there if you would bother to look for it. Frankly I wonder if the haters feel they, personally, are better people than he was. I mean, to mock and judge like that, you must feel somehow morally superior I would say.>> I would tend to agree with this. It seems that no amount of penitence is ever enough. Perfection is mandatory. No mistakes are tolerated. EVER. There are no shades of grey. This is where I see the greatest differences between being a conservative and being a liberal. Conservatives rarely see those shades of grey, being mostly stuck in the "law and order" stage of moral development, expecting if not demanding perfect behavior from everyone, all the time, particularly those individuals whom they disagree with. Liberals are able to advance beyond this stage, and acknowledge those imperfections which make us human, expecting mistakes and accepting genuine contrition from individuals when the mistakes are made. Ted Kennedy and Laura Bush were genuinely contrite about their fatal accidents. I accept the contrition and look beyond those accidents to see the good in both individuals. Focusing on these accidents by calling them "murderers" negates any and all contributions they make to the greater good over the course of their lives. Such action berates them and continuously punishes them for being the imperfect individuals they have no other choice in being.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Man, this car accident sure has made me tired. I think I'll hit the hay.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 There is a HUGE difference between vehicular manslaughter and premeditated murder. << There is a huge difference in reporting a homicide to the police and waiting 12 hours to report it... I have lost someone close to me due to a drunk driver, when you are drunk as in Kennedy's case, and you get in a car accident and end up killing someone, it's murder... Being drunk isn't an excuse.... The fact that he basically left the scene of the crime without even thinking about contacting the police compounded his guilt.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"He should have just run his girlfriend into a lake....> There's no evidence she was involved romantically with Kennedy. Sure, you can say "well, it doesn't matter if she was or not," but then why posit it that way? It's like you want to imply there was something more sinister going on or that it was intentional, which is kind of revealing.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Let's face it... Kennedy was probably drunk as a skunk that night. He did not hide anything. He undoubtedly woke up the next morning with a vague memory that something terrible happened the previous night. Alcoholic blackout? Yes. Intentionally hiding what happened? No. I think more than a few of us have had a night like that. Fortunately for most it did not result in an accident that killed someone. There but for the grace of God..." Exactly. I'm certainly not bragging here, but in my 20's, I once woke up driving around the town of Escondido around 2:00 a.m., an incredibly stupid occurrence. It happens.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<There is a huge difference in reporting a homicide to the police and waiting 12 hours to report it... <<I have lost someone close to me due to a drunk driver>> So have I. The jerk was driving down the wrong side of the road with his wife and young son, drunk off his ass, going over 100 mph. He plowed head on into the car of our close family friends whom we had known for decades. Ginny was instantly killed; Jack was injured so badly, it took over a dozen surgeries for him to walk again, and that was with supportive crutches. I know precisely what this is like. Ginny and Jack were my second parents. I loved them dearly. And the jerk who was wasted on alcohol not only took the life of Ginny, but his wife and young son as well. The drunk survived and Jack survived, but just barely. It was a tragic accident. But it was not "murder." <<when you are drunk as in Kennedy's case, and you get in a car accident and end up killing someone, it's murder...>> No, it's not. It was neither premeditated nor intentional. The jerk had problems with sobriety. That's a mental illness. He didn't intend to get behind the wheel and deliberately kill his wife and young son and others along the way. That's what "murder" is, deliberately meaning to harm someone, whether it's a spontaneous eruption of anger when walking in on your spouse having sex with someone else, or fatally striking down a stranger, who's trying to abduct you, so you can escape. Those acts of violence are intentional. <<Being drunk isn't an excuse....>> I did not state it was an excuse. An excuse is an explanation presented to justify the action. The husband walking in on his wife who then strikes and kills her lover is charged with a "crime of passion." The 'excuse' for said action is violent spontaneous rage. The woman who strikes and kills her abductor in an effort to escape potential rape is charged with "justifiable homicide." The 'excuse' for her action is any means necessary to protect herself and prevent bodily harm and potential death. Both of these situations are murder because both parties intended to do harm against the other. They both had reasonable and justifiable excuses commonly recognized by courts of law. Being drunk behind the wheel does not always result in vehicular manslaughter. Most of the time, the drunks manage to survive without injuring their vehicles or other property. But on occasion, drunks do end up in horrendous accidents where deaths occur. The deaths were not intentional, which is why they aren't labeled as murder. Vehicular manslaughter by definition is stripped of intent. The drunk did not get behind the wheel with the intent of killing someone. Therefore, it is not murder. <<The fact that he basically left the scene of the crime without even thinking about contacting the police compounded his guilt.>> Did it ever occur to you that the man was too drunk to even realize what had happened? That it took hours for him to consciously realize what exactly had taken place? I've been in similar situations with prescription meds that had gone terribly bad on me. One particularly bad time, I wasn't behind the wheel of a car, thank goodness, but required a trip to the ER nevertheless. My mind was so out of it, I couldn't even follow simple directions from the nurses and doctor. To this day, I remember very little of the ordeal, it's like a dream. And the prescription med was working on the exact same receptors in the brain that alcohol does. In my body, the drug became the equivalent of a dozen martinis in someone else. I had zero control of my faculties, my ability to reason, and most importantly, my memory. It was complete and utter hell. I've never been drunk to that degree ever in my life, so that experience with the medication was quite enlightening. I have a great deal of empathy for individuals who become addicted to drugs and alcohol and cannot get off of them. Until you spend time in their shoes going through this shit, you have no idea what it's actually like. Kennedy did eventually sober up and realize what he had done and owned up to it fully. He didn't try to cover it up or excuse it. He did not set out intentionally to harm the woman. I believe his contrition was genuine. You can believe whatever you wish to believe. I just don't see his actions as intentional, which is how our society defines murder.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Shot a gun at the enemy yet, William? Be careful of the slippery slope you're helping to create here.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It was a tragic accident. But it was not "murder."" I don't want to derail this topic any further than it already has, but be careful here too with such sweeping generalizations. Here in California, murder is the killing of another with malice aforethough. That malice can be express or implied. The implied provision gives prosecutors a lot of leeway. For example, earlier this year, Angel pitcher Nick Adenhart and two others were killed by a drunk driver. The driver is facing murder charges. Each situation is evaluated on its own facts.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Shot a gun at the enemy yet, William? Be careful of the slippery slope you're helping to create here.<< I wasn't drinking at the time so I am good....
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder MY point is that anyone can take your line of reasoning and call you a murderer. I'm not saying they would be right, but don't open the door for them. Each case is fact-based, and while what Kennedy did was wrong, it wasn't murder.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 MY point is that anyone can take your line of reasoning and call you a murderer. I'm not saying they would be right, but don't open the door for them. Each case is fact-based, and while what Kennedy did was wrong, it wasn't murder.<< I understand what you are saying, just had to get a smart ass response in there... I just have alot of hate for drunk drivers and feel we as a country do not punish them enough. If I were to get wasted, and grab a gun and shoot someone, that would be murder without a doubt... The same should be said when it comes to driving a vehicle too because when you are drunk, the vehicle you are driving is one giant weapon...
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<The implied provision gives prosecutors a lot of leeway.>> There are many provisions that prosecutors can use to their benefit, such as this one. "Implied malice aforethought" is a crappy excuse to hang a murder charge on someone for a first time offense, but that doesn't apply to the Adenhart case. The driver was habitually DUI and driving with a suspended license. After running the red light and hitting the car Adenhart was in, he fled the accident and ran away. Since he was on probation with a suspended license, way past the legal blood limit, and had been through an "alcohol awareness" program as part of a previous DUI, the second degree murder charge might be justified in this particular case. But Kennedy was not on probation nor driving with a suspended license. He left the scene of the accident, but it's not known if he just walked away without trying to save her, which his critics still want to believe. I doubt in his drunkenness that he even realized she was still trapped in the car when he staggered away. Kennedy's situation was not like the Adenhart accident. The accused ran a red light and hit another vehicle, and was cognizant enough to realize what he did. He then fled on foot away from the wreckage and tried to hide from the police. Kennedy made a wrong turn in the dark and drove off a narrow wooden bridge with no guardrail. It's a completely different situation than driving around the lighted streets of Fullerton.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I do apologize for derailing this topic.... Does anyone think John Edwards can salvage his political career at this point?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Does anyone think John Edwards can salvage his political career at this point?< I would doubt it at this point. Then again, Newt Gingrich, who actually told his wife he was divorcing her WHILE she was sick in the hospital, kind of has. Like Gingrich, Edwards would probably have to essentially disappear for a while. And then, like Gingrich, he probably couldn't come back to elective office, but perhaps to "pundit" status. Still, I think it would be harder for Edwards, if only because the then-Mrs. Gingrich was not really a public figure the way Mrs. Edwards is, and thus any wrong done to her was more abstract in the public's mind than the wrong done to Mrs. Edwards, who has a concrete presence in the public imagination.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I'm not saying they would be right, but don't open the door for them. Each case is fact-based, and while what Kennedy did was wrong, it wasn't murder.>> You are correct, and I stand corrected. I can understand the prosecution wanting to go after Gallo for the Adenhart death. The guy is a habitual alcoholic and menace behind the wheel. I just do not see what happened at Chappaquiddick as being equal. <<I just have alot of hate for drunk drivers and feel we as a country do not punish them enough.>> That's where you and I differ. I had plenty of hate for drunk drivers after some habitual DUI idiot killed my "second Mom." I was feeling as you do, about wanting all DUIs to go to jail for the rest of their lives. Then I had some really bad experiences with prescription medications for my disability, one of which I became physically dependent on and could not stop taking without withdrawal symptoms straight from hell. It took six months to slowly wean myself completely off the drug, which was not a symptom free process. My heart goes out to anyone who has to take this crap for medical reasons, or anyone who's tried to get off and couldn't do it. It's difficult in ways you can't begin to imagine unless you've been there yourself. My life was radically altered during this bad experience with my legally prescribed meds. It left me feeling more compassion and empathy for those who live with these kinds of physical addictions continuously. As a result, I do not want "more punishment" for those who drive drunk. I want more TREATMENT. Being an alcoholic or drug addict is a mental illness and should be treated as such. Throwing users in jail solves nothing in the long run. It's just a quick and dirty band-aid fix for a deeper societal problem that needs more understanding. If someone cannot stop using and begins to engage in DUI behavior, then stick them in a hospital instead of a jail and treat them. Dry them out and keep them sober, possibly on an honor farm, for at least one full year, then return them to society and see what happens. If they start using again and end up DUI, then possibly consider lockup. But do not resort immediately to jail time only with a few "classes" about "alcohol awareness." That does little to address the deeper issues of the addiction. Our jail-happy society gets this wrong on so many levels. Treating addiction instead of punishing addiction is what advanced civilizations do. When are we going to finally advance?
Originally Posted By barboy Something looks incongruent...... Road Trip gave us: ""Kennedy was probably drunk as a skunk that night(the night his passenger died)."" And you agreed with RT's assessment, SingleParkPassholder, with your "Exactly" response. Then you wrote: ""Angel pitcher Nick Adenhart and two others were killed by a drunk driver. The driver is facing murder charges."" And finally you wrote ""what Kennedy did was wrong, it wasn't murder"" Are you saying that because in Mass. DUI collateral deaths aren't classified as 'murder' like here in California?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I would like to apologize as well for my derailing. I just feel very strongly about the subject matter that has been brought up. And WK99... I hope you've found some peace regarding losing your loved one by a drunk driver. It took me a very long time before I let my anger go. When I think about it now, I still call the guy a "jerk" and "idiot," but realize that he was in way over his head with an addiction he couldn't handle. And his poor young wife and preschool son had to pay the ultimate price for his failings. OK... as far as Edwards is concerned... his career is over and done with. I can admire what the man has accomplished professionally in dealing with issues of poverty in our country, as I can for certain creative types who produce great art while engaging in less-than-ethical behavior socially. (Yes, I love Woody Allen films and Mia got screwed. Love the art but not so much the man.) But Edwards has lost tons of credibility, which unfortunately, will hurt far more people than just himself or his dear and lovely estranged wife.
