so Ted Kennedy is dead...
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=182775
Printed Date: 30 December 2025 at 8:37am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: so Ted Kennedy is dead...
Posted By: Ceesman762
Subject: so Ted Kennedy is dead...
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 10:14am
|
comments? ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Replies:
Posted By: pntbl freak
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 10:38am
|
comment
-------------  |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 10:43am
|
another comment
------------- 
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 11:22am
|
I think that about sums it up.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 11:27am
|
Good. We are all on the same page. Now we wait for Jmac and his input. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 11:32am
|
Meh.
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 12:34pm
------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Benjichang wrote:Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 12:54pm
|
Posted By: Neothesmurf
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 12:55pm
| RIP Ted Kennedy. whether he did his job well or not. or lived his life the way he should have or not. he still deserves a rest in peace. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 1:02pm
You forgot to add "Fixed".  but it will be amusing to see what FE will come up with and who will argue with him.------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 3:29pm
|
A great man who contributed greatly to society. His death is a tremendous loss to our country. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 4:30pm
|
You mean like getting away with murder? (Hey! FE isn't here lol.) |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 4:34pm
 Mary Jo. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 4:55pm
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 5:00pm
|
Ted Kennedy son of a Bootlegger...
Most over rated senator ever... Brother to the most over rated President Ever... Loss to Carter the lamest president ever... Thou I hear that for his funeral arraignments they are going to drive his hearse off a bridge and into a river. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 5:35pm
I loled. Though I don't understand why you would wait for my input? Have I supported him in the past? I am sad because he was a large supporter OF SOCIALIST healthcare. That is about the only thing I care about. He probably should have died in jail though. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 7:02pm
Lifelong public servant, despite being independently wealthy...
Staunch and vocal advocate for his causes...
Unlikely to back down from a fight...
Hard worker...
A leader in the Senate who worked on numerous pieces of controversial legislation, despite having nothing to prove...
One can agree or disagree with his policies, but it is hard to argue that Ted Kennedy was not one of the more determined and persistent Senators this country has ever seen. Not to mention one of the longest-serving.
(BTW - my prediction: whatever healthcare bill the Senate passes will be named in Ted's honor. You heard it here first.) ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 7:41pm
We're talking about Ted Kennedy Peter, not Bob Byrd. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: RomniJo
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 8:05pm
|
I may not agree with his outlooks and views, but he wasn't a bad man, and he deserves this post, R.I.P. Ted Kennedy. ------------- 
|
Posted By: TinMan
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 8:11pm
| They aren't boring. |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 9:16pm
And Byrd has certainly earned his spot in history as well.
This does not diminish the sacrifices made by Senator Kennedy. Compare Ted's life to, say, Caroline Kennedy. It would have been easy for Ted to have spent his life on Martha's Vineyard, only rolling out of bed to get a new bottle and/or girl. But he didn't. Instead, he spent his life working a very difficult job, and working hard at it. And he did so for longer than all but two (TMK) other US Senators in the country's history. He was quite literally working on his deathbed - retirement never entered his mind, even as he was diagnosed with a lethal cancer.
We should all wish for this level of dedication, in ourselves and in our public representatives.
And during his long stint in the Senate, he was not of the do-nothing, practically-retired-anyway Senators - wealthy people who ran for office as a hobby (looking at you, senior Senator from Wisconsin). To the contrary, Teddy was always in the middle of the fight, mixing it up for what he believed in - no matter the opposition.
We should all wish for this level of passion, in ourselves and in our public representatives.
Ted Kennedy had so, so many opportunities to go into cruise mode or just quit entirely, and nobody would have held it against him. He had faced a lifetime's worth of personal tragedy before he was 35, but was not deterred. He just kept forging on.
We should all wish for this level of determination, in ourselves and in our public representatives.
So yes - I think Ted Kennedy was one of the greatest Senators ever to serve this country, and he will be missed.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 9:26pm
Sorry, you were beaten out by Limbaugh already. He said that this afternoon. Yes, I had Limbaugh on. There's a stretch of rural road where the only radio that comes in is the local FOX affiliate. Sue me.  ------------- ? |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 10:21pm
Unless Peter is Limbaugh...  |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 5:14am
|
I never figured Peter to be a pillhead.
-------------
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 8:32am
Because I wanted to hear about Teddy form a guy who lives in Mass. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:56am
|
This article pretty much sums it up for my thoughts on Ted Kennedy.
I feel sorry for everyone left behind at the passing of a father, husband, and grandfather. But, I completely disagree with the systematic destruction of our great country that he has achieved in his 46 years of "service"...
If he hadn't been named Kennedy, he would have gone to jail for murder of his pregnant mistress... Mary Jo Kopechne didn't drown... she died from lack of oxygen, as she was left in the car to die a horrid death, one that could have been avoided if he had just called for help, instead of ignoring her in her time of need.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/26/mary-jo-kopechne-and-chappaquiddick-americas-selective-memory/ - http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/26/mary-jo-kopechne-and-chappaquiddick-americas-selective-memory/
------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:22pm
Oh. Well I am not one of those Massachusetts Kennedy Nuthangers. FE, does something he did 40 years really change what he did after that during his time in office? We all agree he probably should have been in some trouble for that, but one event does not ruin a mans ability to do things for his whole life. I am sure he tormented himself over it. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:25pm
|
Cool points. I have an entire East End of those in the Hamptons. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 12:47pm
Yeah, getting rid of the mistress who was pregnant with their love child (his own child) and then using his influence and family name to "get over" on her family and everyone else that believes that justice is blind...
Then "borking" a supreme court nominee who would have been a fair and partial judge...
This guy was about as bad as it gets. He bred the welfare ideology of the left.
The best part of that article I posted sums it up fine.
"For millions of Americans who never knew her, the tragic incident has fed a festering cultural grudge.
The idea that Edward M. Kennedy could be a viable national politician – let alone a much-admired and lionized political figure – has convinced millions of everyday citizens and succeeding generations of conservative activists that among the elites of academia, politics, and the media two standards of behavior exist: One for liberal Democrats and another for conservative Republicans. Along with sweeping changes in immigration law, soaring oratory, and strengthening the nation's social safety net, this reservoir of class resentment is also part of Kennedy's legacy." ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 1:09pm
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 1:27pm
2. Did she leave the scene of the accident and wait 7 - 9 hours to report the incident?
3. Did she go back to her hotel, get some sleep, eat breakfast and than go to the police only after her friends confronted her?
4. Was she self righteous afterwards, condemning other people for their short comings?
5. There ARE two standards between the rich/politically connected and the average Joe. I got a DUI when I was 21. Didn't cause an accident, didn't kill someone and I got a worse punishment than he did. I lost my license for a year, had a years probation, 200 hours of community service, alcohol counseling, and $1000 court fine. He got a six month suspended license and he was directly responsible for someones death.
6. Yes, when you commit negligent homicide or manslaughter, it does taint what you do for the rest of your career. Especially if you never admitted to any wrong doing.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 1:35pm
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 1:55pm
|
Meh.
Bye. So many people die every day, some way more of hero's then him. Sad to see someone die, but just like MJ and others, it's being blown out of proportion. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 2:07pm
Sad but true. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 2:48pm
 |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 2:55pm
|
and Sqeeky just got out!^^^^ ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Neothesmurf
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 3:30pm
| Just because someone did their job the way they were supposed to doesnt give him/her the right to do whatever they want thats like saying i created the cure fore cancer so i'm gonna go kill someone because its owed to me to be able to get away with a wrong doing...thats not how things are supposed to work. you do something wrong you should be held accountable. you should be man or woman enough to take the punishment given. but thats not how things are...unfortunately. there's alot of things wrong with society and how things are done and no one has an answer on how to fix it. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 6:17pm
Being an actual murderer =/= being a drunk driver who made a stupid choice ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 6:35pm
And what does it matter anyways? 40years is 40 years. If you don't care what someone did 40 years ago, why not let him go? I am sure there are thousands of murderers, rapists, serial killers that would love to be back on the streets in 40yrs. Point being, there is no a statute of limitations on murder.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 7:09pm
|
ANd I don't call what Kennedy did murder.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 8:25pm
|
What would you call it? A rough break-up/abortion? -------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 8:33pm
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 8:53pm
|
...He didn't go out to try to kill a woman. If he did you don't know that for sure and never will. There is a difference between a negligent death and deliberately killing someone. Or being Charles Manson and deliberately having people killed. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:05pm
|
Vehicular homicide (also known as vehicular manslaughter) in most states in the United States, is a crime. In general, it involves death that results from the /wiki/Criminal_negligence - negligent operation of a vehicle, or that results from driving whilst committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony. In general, it is a lesser charge than /wiki/Manslaughter - manslaughter . In the /wiki/Model_Penal_Code - Model Penal Code there is no separate category of vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicides that involve negligence are included in the overall category of /wiki/Negligent_homicide - negligent homicide . #cite_note-0 - [1] #cite_note-1 - [2] It can be compared to the offence of dangerous driving causing death in other countries.
All states except /wiki/Alaska - Alaska , /wiki/Montana - Montana , and /wiki/Arizona - Arizona have vehicular homicide /wiki/Statute - statutes . The laws have the effect of making a vehicle a potentially deadly weapon, to allow for easier conviction and more severe penalties. In states without such statutes, /wiki/Defendant - defendants can still be charged with manslaughter or murder in some situations. #cite_note-2 - [3]
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:11pm
|
You are retarded and I refuse to continue this if you're going to keep quoting the definition of vehicular homicide that I already know.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:15pm
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:20pm
|
No I am not wrong. Vehicular homicide/manslaughter is not the same thing as killing somebody. Just because a law/definition says it is. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:30pm
| It becomes murder if you decide to walk away. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:32pm
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:39pm
Explain. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:43pm
|
Because the definition of Vehicular Homicide comes from the fact that you killed someone........ it really isnt that hard. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:48pm
|
Oh really? because I totally didn't get that part No I clearly don't mean that vehicular homicide is vastly different from going out with intent to murder someone. Nope that isn't what I mean. Vehicular homicide is still the result of an accident. I think next time there is a plane crash I am going to call for the arrest and sentencing of the pilot if he is alive. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:55pm
It's not like they were driving home after a church bingo party and he ran off the road to avoid a deer. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 9:59pm
|
Whatever, our opinions differ. I wouldn't hold a guy as accountable for someone dying in an accident for 40 year, you would. Do as you will. And before you change my quote to something like "WAWAWA I LOST" I will quote myself from earlier. You know before you try to act like I don't know what vehicular homicide is.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 10:08pm
You can't seriously be that obtuse. ------------- "When I grow up I want to marry a rich man and live in a condor next to the beach" -- My 7yr old daughter. |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 10:12pm
|
this thread is so full of lose
------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 10:14pm
|
Did I say it wasn't his fault? I distinctly remember my post on the first page saying he should probably be in jail. I said he made a mistake and someone died. This does not change my thinking that just because he made said mistake he should not be discredited. He is not a horrible person just because of this event. He doesn't kill people because they happened to be a clerk at a store. Why am I even restating this? We are just going in circles because you hate a man and everything he does for something that happened 40 years ago that doesn't change anything else he did. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 11:44pm
|
Jmac just loves Teddy because they kinda look alike. -------------
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 1:10am
------------- 
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 1:13am
I'm sure he did...
/roll eyes -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 1:34am
Sorry I just have to ask...what does mistake or intentional have to do with how much someone killed someone. If I accidently shoot a person in the side of the head when at a gun range, I still killed him whether it was an accident or not. Same with if I sneeze and hit a cyclist while driving. It wasn't intentional, complete accident. I still killed him. *note* This has nothing to do with my opinion of Ted Kennedy, the death of that woman, how it happened, etc. Just thoughts on killing someone in general, not a specific case. I actually was largely unaware of this until reading on here I decided to go brush up on the wiki. |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 1:50am
Charlie Manson didn't kill anyone. Ted Kennedy did. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:12am
|
Good lord, people.
First, the Chappaquiddick business. Based on available facts, it seems pretty clear that Ted committed a variety of minor crimes, most notably fleeing the scene of an accident. He would probably also be civilly liable for wrongful death/loss of consortium.
But to take that up to murder requires a very large tinfoil hat.
Forget that there are no known facts to support the wild speculation about Ted's master plan to kill his supposedly pregnant mistress. Let's just look at the known facts: The case was investigated. The prosecutor chose not to bring more serious charges. A grand jury was convened. The grand jury did not find evidence of any intentional crime. Nor, for that matter, have I. I find lots of people declaring that the woman was his mistress, declaring that she was pregnant and by him, and declaring that he intended to kill her - but I see nobody providing even a shred of evidence for any of these conclusions.
So unless you have some awfully good information on point, don't waste my time with conspiracy theories.
On to vehicular homicide.
As it turns out, Massachusetts is its own state (or commonwealth, at least), and as such insists on having its own laws rather than going by the Model Penal Code or whatever definition is found on Wikipedia.
The relevant Massachusetts law can be found in Chapter 90, Section 24g (which, interestingly, is in the chapter governing vehicles and not in the penal code). The law provides for two degrees of vehicular homicide (a third kind is found with the rest of the crimes, but is probably not relevant here), paraphrased: (1) Operating a vehicle while under the influence AND in a negligent/reckless manner which endangers the public safety, and thereby killing somebody, is a crime punishable by up to 15 years. (2) Operating a vehicle while under the influence OR in a negligent/reckless manner which endangers the public safety, and thereby killing somebody, is a crime punishable by up to 2.5 years.
Would Chappaquiddick fall under either of these? Maybe. If he was drunk, then the lesser would certainly apply. There seems to be a general assumption (and not an unreasonable one) that he was driving drunk, but I don't believe that it has been firmly established. I could be wrong.
The second prong is the tricky part. In my few minutes of research, I was unable to get a good handle on what level of negligence/recklessness is required to trigger the statute. My suspicion is that something more than failing to yield is required. In Ted's case, it appears that he was driving too fast for the area/conditions, but he wasn't exactly going fast - he was driving slowly, just not slowly enough. The judge in the inquest did, however, find that Ted's speed might qualify as reckless.
But, for lack of evidence, I call it a "maybe."
But there is, of course, one more thing: Vehicular homicide is a fairly new concept. Chapter 90, Section 24g? It was enacted in 1982 (and amended since). I have not been able to find a similar statute that was in effect in 1969. As best I can tell, vehicular homicide (as currently defined) was not a crime in Massachusetts in 1969. I could be wrong - researching historical statutes is tricky - but the current statute certainly did not exist, and as a matter of legal history it would be odd for Mass to have had any such statute at that time.
Therefore, if we are going to get all statute-quoty about it, Ted could not possibly have committed vehicular homicide, since the crime did not exist at the time of the incident.
Now, regular old manslaughter charges were considered (vehicular homicide is really just a special case of manslaughter) and decided against, both by the prosecutor and the grand jury.
Massachusetts did have drunk driving laws at the time, but I suspect enforcement was similar to enforcement elsewhere at the time: if you weren't weaving you weren't drunk. They certainly weren't using breathalyzers at traffic stops, and this was long before 0.08.
Bottom line: was it a horrible tragedy? Yes. Was Kennedy "at fault?" Yes. Did his fault for the accident (not the fleeing the scene part) rise to the level of criminal liability? Not clear, but the justice system decided at the time that he was not criminally liable for the accident. Did Kennedy commit outright intentional murder? No evidence at all to support this claim.
EDIT - oh, and "he left her to die:" There is hardly ever criminal liability for failure to rescue. One such case would be where the defendant intentionally placed the victim in the dangerous position. Generally speaking, negligently placing someone in danger and failing to rescue might - might - give rise to civil liability, but hardly ever criminal. (<-- General observations. Didn't bother to research this specific point in Mass.) And if he did intentionally drive the car into the river (for which there is no evidence), then that act alone would suffice for murder/manslaughter, and the failure to rescue would be irrelevant.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:23am
|
That was beautiful.
------------- 
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 7:45am
|
No that was spin, and poor spin at that.
Everyone knows he killed her. Be it accident due to drunkeness it still happened. Her family (mary jo kopechne's) did not ask for an autopsy, (now a days they would have done one regardless). But, when she was prepped for burial she had no water in her lungs.
Undisputed facts are she didn't drown. She died from lack of oxygen... She stayed in the car (which had a large bubble of air inside) and waited for help.
Help never came, as Ted left the scene and then spent the next 9 hours giving himself an alibi and also NOT CALLING THE COPS.
That is a fact.
He could have saved her if he had gone the 150 feet to the house right where this happened and called the police, where they would have pulled out his car and saved her.
You can spin it all you want, but the facts remain, that he murdered her by leaving her there to die. She survived the accident, and survived the water, and died from lack of oxygen because he didn't go for help.
Those are the undeniable facts.
Jmac3 your posts on this topic are really sad... I hope you are not that dense in real life.
And Peter is showing his "lawyer" bias. No wonder the liberal democrats won't put tort reform in the health care bill...
I do hope lots of people that visit his body at the museum pick up one of their new books...
http://store.jfklibrary.org/jfk/product.asp?s_id=0&prod_name=JFK+Museum+Souvenir+Guide+Book&pf_id=PAAAAAILLJAHGFFB&dept_id=3010 - http://store.jfklibrary.org/jfk/product.asp?s_id=0&prod_name=JFK+Museum+Souvenir+Guide+Book&pf_id=PAAAAAILLJAHGFFB&dept_id=3010
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 11:02am
|
Looking through the editorial cartoons about it. This is one of my hobbies when something big happens in the news. I think my favorite is probably by Bob Englehart with the Hartford Courant:  |
Posted By: FarSeer
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 11:03am
What if she wasn't wearing her seatbelt? She could have died BEFORE she was submerged in the water (only speculation). On a side note: Kennedy didn't off scott-free. He was found guilty of leaving the scene of the accident and received a suspended two-month jail term and one-year driving ban.
------------- http://tbish.webs.com/tippy.html - My E-Bolted 98 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 11:09am
|
So, do you have any facts to support what "everybody knows," or sources to show the "undisputed and undeniable facts?"
(Hint - when the inquest finding is different from what "everybody knows" and the "undisputed and undeniable facts," then everybody doesn't know it, and the facts aren't undisputed or undeniable)
But as to murder, it is a matter of LAW that "leaving her to die" is irrelevant. No facts to spin. Just regular old law.
So yeah, I guess I do have a "lawyer bias" towards actual law instead of pretend law, and towards judicial findings over unfounded speculation. Call me crazy.
(and not sure what my bias toward law and evidence has to do with "liberal democrats" or tort reform - or what tort reform has to do with the health care bill - but hey, don't stop making random points on my behalf)
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 11:31am
|
Without getting into more lawerspeak, can we at least agree that what he did was immoral. Ted clearly acted only out of self interest, probably at the expense of somebody's life. Just because you can find a legal loophole doesn't make it any less wrong. Would a slave owner be morally in the right to beat a slave to death because they were considered property? Say i go hunting and have a few(never would) and accidentally shoot a friend in the leg. Since I'm drunk I decide to go home and call the police later, after I'm sober and he has died of exposure/bloodloss. If all i'm going to be in trouble for is not reporting an accident involving a firearm I might want to invite a few people on hunting trips. This is more akin to the lady who left someone in her windshield. I will miss Ted. His nodding off and loud sighing while senate was in session was great entertainment. I will miss his gigantic head taking up the whole TV screen. The fact that he could get elected again and again while barely doing any campaigning was briliant, and i'm sorry I never got a chance to have a drink with the man. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 11:53am
I'm not entirely sure you'll find many people who's moral standing would be OK with Ted Kennedy's actions after the accident. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 12:03pm
|
Everyone does immoral things.
-------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 1:24pm
rofl I'm actually incredibly impressed that your violent spasms upon the keyboard produce actual words. -------------
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 1:41pm
|
Wow, Parker pwnd this thread. But I still feel (personal opinion) he is liable for her death because of the fact he did not help her/ call the police. It is really not that hard to call. I can understand not jumping in there and trying to save her, but doing the "right" thing, is best in that situation. Then again, I might just have some mid-MO redneck bias. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:38pm
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:40pm
|
I was a particular fan of the bias shown by PP when he quoted Massachusetts law.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:47pm
Yeah, thats ridiculous, I had to laugh too :D |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:49pm
|
http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m7d17-40th-anniversary-of-Mary-Jo-Kopechnes-drowning-at-ChappaquiddickKennedys-story-still-doubtful - http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2009m7d17-40th-anniversary-of-Mary-Jo-Kopechnes-drowning-at-ChappaquiddickKennedys-story-still-doubtful  Mary Jo Kopechne
Sometime around midnight, on July 18, 1969 Kennedy drove his Oldsmobile 88 off of a small bridge on Chappaquiddick island, into eight feet of chilly water. The vehicle landed upside-down. While Kennedy managed to free himself from the wreck and swim to safety, his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne was left in the car to drown. Once he reached shore, Kennedy claims to have made seven or eight attempts to rescue Kopechne, but could not free her. He returned to the party and according to Kennedy himself, informed his cousin and a friend of the situation. The two men, Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham claim to have returned to the scene of the accident and made several unsuccessful attempts to free Kopechne. After the failed rescue attempts, Kennedy claims to have jumped back into the water and made the 500-foot swim across the channel back to Edgartown. He then walked back to his hotel and spent the night. He even took the time to change clothes and pay a visit to the front-desk, to complain about a noisy party--no doubt Kennedy's sloppy attempt at securing an alibi. The two men along with Kennedy went back to Chappaquiddick, where Kennedy spent some time making phone calls, seeking advice from various individuals as to how to proceed. Meanwhile, two fisherman had discovered the submerged car and notified police. At 8:45a.m. a diver recovered the lifeless body of Mary Jo Kopechne. It was not until 10a.m., over nine hours after driving-off of the bridge that Ted Kennedy went to the police station in Edgarton to report the accident. Kennedy then gave the following prepared statement to police: “On July 18, 1969, at approximately 11:15 p.m. in Chappaquiddick, Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing hard left on Main Street. After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge. The car went off the side of the bridge. There was one passenger with me, one Miss Mary [Kopechne], a former secretary of my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy. The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom. I attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car. I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the backseat. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown. I remember walking around for a period and then going back to my hotel room. When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police” In a move which must have been rather tortuous for her parents, Kennedy attended Mary Jo's funeral, wearing a neck brace (which he reportedly never wore again) and looking rather pathetic. The diver who recovered Kopechne’s body, John Farrar testified at the official inquest that her body was found where the air pocket would have formed. He said: “Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car.” A week after the incident, Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended two-month sentence. Kennedy then went on national television to repeat his rather implausible story, and to ask for the public’s “prayers.” The ensuing scandal and questionable details given by all of those involved is now left to speculation. It was obvious to most people that Kennedy had allowed a young girl to drown, in a desperate and self-serving attempt to protect his political career. The incident all but guaranteed that Kennedy could never be a serious candidate for President of the United States. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 2:56pm
|
Lots of guys joke about the people they killed, OJ does it all the time. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 3:00pm
|
-------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 3:08pm
|
way to ignore PP
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 3:23pm
What did you say $5?
I wasn't ignoring him, I posted an article that backed up my facts. Proving I wasn't "spinning" the story. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 3:33pm
Choop, there is no difference. My point is that mentally he wasn't a crazy psycho who kills people for fun. He had an accident(much like the Laura Bush one I found about which was due to her negligence and disobeying of laws). Everything he does shouldn't just be looked at and go "oh he is a murderer I don't trust him". Much like if you accidentally killed someone I would still trust you to do things after the fact.
he was the leader of a commune who carried out murders on people. Those murders were not accidental deaths.
How am I dense? Is it because I don't hold an accident against a man for 40 years?
Do you know why this article doesn't back up your facts? It is because it is opinion. Just read the red again and tell me these are facts. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 4:16pm
|
Silly jmac, his opinions ARE facts.. Haven't you figured this out by now?
-------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 4:59pm
i thought this was common knowledge? -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 28 August 2009 at 11:02pm
Lets sum up this thread:
------------- 
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 1:53am
|
I think what FE is trying to say, is that there is reasonable doubt that she died from the accident. The fact of the matter is, if there were "air pockets" within the car and she somehow stayed alive long enough to die from lack of oxygen and NOT drowning, then the whole story is bogus. Had she ran out of oxygen/had too much carbon dioxide, she would have passed out and slipped into the water and thus drowned. So in turn, he had to have killed her in cold blood before the wreck by suffication. Any signs of struggle or trauma could have been "caused" by the wreck. Pretty good alibi to a perfect murder, likely? maybe. |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 5:54pm
he was the leader of a commune who carried out murders on people. Those murders were not accidental deaths.
Charlie Manson was NOT an actual murderer as you claim in your quote. He personally didn't kill anyone. Accidental or not, Ted Kennedy killed that woman. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 5:56pm
Good point worthy of a clarification. I am not claiming that the decision not to charge him makes Kennedy innocent. I am claiming that the decision not to charge him, by the people on the scene at the time, is a better foundation upon which to judge his guilt or innocence than speculation 30 years later.
The non-charge doesn't MAKE him innocent, but it is reasonably persuasive evidence thereof. And lacking any better evidence to the contrary, I therefore stand at a rebuttable conclusion that Kennedy was probably not guilty.
Another note - "negligence" is another legal term that unfortunately can mean different things in different contexts. Take Laura Bush, for instance. She ran a stop sign and killed a guy. Clearly "negligent." Yet she was not charged with, and should not have been charged with, manslaughter. That negligence was enough to create civil liability - she would lose in any civil court very quickly - but not enough to create criminal liability. "Criminal negligence" is not the same as regular old "negligence." The laws tend to just say "negligence" even in criminal contexts, but when in a criminal context it is more properly described as "criminal negligence," which is a much higher standard than plain old negligence.
If not, then almost every fatal traffic accident would result in manslaughter charges.
Similarly, it is quite obvious that Kennedy was negligent from a civil liability perspective. Whether he was criminally negligent is a much trickier question - and the DA and grand jury concluded that he was not.
The drunkenness is another interesting issue. We will obviously never know, but it is certainly easy to believe that he was well inebriated at the time.
I consistently stand pretty strongly against drunk driving under any circumstances, but at the same time I am a little reluctant about making moral judgements for behaviors that were socially acceptable at the time. And while driving while really really drunk was not socially acceptable in 1969, nor were people held to a 0.08 expectation either. That cultural shift over drunk driving has further muddled moral judgements over this incident.
That said, his post-accident behaviors certainly could lead one to believe that Kennedy was drunk well beyond the socially acceptable level.
I think we are all in agreement that his behavior was despicable by any standard.
People thought so at the time, and people continue to believe so today. I certainly do.
And yes, it does reflect poorly upon the man. And that must certainly be balanced against his good qualities and actions - but it does not negate those good qualities and actions.
I seems likely that the legal impacts were reduced due to his social stature. Obviously no direct evidence, but it would be consistent with the family and the times. But what legal consequences are we looking for here? The next step up from what he got would be manslaughter - and barring any additional evidence beyond what is available me, I just don't see any support for that charge.
Fine, his two-month sentence was suspended - perhaps due to family - but that is hardly a massive miscarriage of justice.
I also disagreed with him on most of his political positions. Reading his voting record gives me a headache (with some notable exceptions). I also blame him for the Borking of the judicial nomination process.
But I can still acknowledge his contribution to the political system, and his faithful representation of his constituents and his beliefs. I believe that he was a sincere advocate for his positions, and I believe that he had stronger convictions than most people, which convictions kept him in public service far beyond the call of duty. And for THAT I can and do respect him.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 6:15pm
|
I still blame Lee Harvey Oswald, if the legacy of Camelot was exposed with John's full term or second, along with John's proposed Vietnam expansion, where would Teddy have been in this equation. Answer is nowhere, he survived and used his brothers legacies both John and Robert to build a career, he was pretty ineffective, just look at the record of bills bearing his name, and the success therein. Was not even a good presidential candidate lost out to Carter for christs sake in the primaries.
The entire Kennedy clan from the fortune made bootlegging during the prohabition, the legal "problems", the indesretions, the rumors, make this group just a lucky bunch of micks good at self promotion. Joe Kennedy Sr./Al Capone and the difference is? Each made thie fortunes on illegal alcohol, why was one prosecuted, why was one given the Ambasadorship to England (and publically stated that England had "no chance" against the Nazi's). Joe junior was the chosen son, unfortuanatly he died in the war, and John was only second choice, Bobby and Teddy were afterthoughts in Joe Sr's plan, and the lobotimized sister is also a classic from the Kennedy files. ------------- 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 7:45pm
Can we not agree that the thought processes between someone like Charles Manson and Ted Kennedy are completely different? Charles Manson is crazy and wanted to kill people. Osama Bin Laden hasn't killed anybody either. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 29 August 2009 at 8:02pm
|
Best Facebook comment I have seen yet. "R.I.P. = Residing in Purgatory. That lecherous, drunk, murdering, cowardly, egomaniacal dirtbag is probably enjoying shots with Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and Stalin next to the lava pool. May he rot in hell. (sorry, but all the accolades he has been getting disgust me)" ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 31 August 2009 at 8:58am
|
I've been listening to a lot of DK lately
------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |