I was just thinking about the Rep. Janklow manslaughter case.

[xiphias]

So, his defense is that he was hallucinating and passing out because he has diabetes and hadn't eaten for the past 19 hours.

What I don't understand is why his lawyers consider that to be a defense against manslaughter. He's being charged with accidentally and negligently killing someone. Not eating for nineteen hours when you have diabetes, and then operating a motor vehicle, and you KNOW that this causes you to pass out and hallucinate, since in at least one of your PREVIOUS arrests for a motor vehicle violation, the EXACT SAME THING HAD HAPPENED -- in fact, you hallucinated the exact same white car that you hallucinated the LAST time you operated a motor vehicle while you had low blood sugar. . .

I mean, isn't Janklow just admitting that he's guilty of exactly what he's charged with?

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

may I post a pointer to this entry in motorcycles?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Please do.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

Well, I thought so.

I certainly wouldn't try to use "Well, yr Honor, I was physically incompentent to drive because I did not eat when I knew I should" as a defense.

Sadly, DWH (driving while hypoglycemic) is apparently not actionable, even if you kill someone.

[jenett]

The other thing that's getting me (and here in Minnesota, we're getting pretty much play-by-play coverage of the trial) is ...

... this is a man who can't manage to do the standard stuff for blood sugar control (again, after knowing there are issues: I fully realise different people respond to diabetic stuff differently).

And this is someone we want to have making decisions for us in Congress?

Perfectly Reasonable Defense

[(Anonymous)]

You are making a very big assumption that is totally fallacious. You assume that people are supposed to be responsible for their actions (or inactions, as the case may be). Where have you been hiding? Don't you know that for most of the last decade, nobody is really responsible for what they do? It is ALWAYS someone or something else which can be blamed. Our society has decided that our actions are not our fault, and that anyone who takes responsibility for their actions are fools, or worse. Look at it another way -- is there really any difference between this defense and the current lawsuits against the fast food industry for putting temptation in our paths and causing us all to be grossly obese? After all, it's not our fault if we don't exhibit restraint in what we eat -- it must be because because THEY forced us to eat all that fatty food. Need any more examples? Pick an area, and I can show you where our society no longer believes in the old fashioned concept of responsibility.

Re: Perfectly Reasonable Defense

[the-editor.livejournal.com]

the problem is jury SELECTION everyone wants the stupidest jurors....
instead of jury conscription... when your number is called you sit...

If you stack a jury with morons they will believe anything...especially that the greedy coprporations are more powerful than our own sensibilities.

I just had an argument with a moron ( elsewhere) that we are ultimately responsible for every aspect of our lives... which was categorically denounced as stupid.

Someone is teaching non-responsibility.
And it's sure catching on!

Kill a biker, Go to jail...

Re: Perfectly Reasonable Defense

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Look at it another way -- is there really any difference between this defense and the current lawsuits against the fast food industry for putting temptation in our paths and causing us all to be grossly obese?

Yes there is. Rep. Janklow killed someone.

Re: Perfectly Reasonable Defense

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Let me see if I've got this right: You're complaining that people don't take responsibility, in an anonymous post.

Re: Perfectly Reasonable Defense

[mxfreak.livejournal.com]

The post was sarcastic... And quite correct. Society these days is no longer interested in taking responsibility. Those who do was in the distinct minority.

[http://users.livejournal.com/project_mayhem_/]

If an alcoholic who gets behind the wheel with a BAC that would put Ozzy to shame ends up plowing into a minivan full of kids, I guess he could plead not guilty since he's afflicted with a disorder too, right? Or a severe myopic getting into an accident because he lost one of his contact lenses and still had to get home? (incidentally, this is why I always keep a spare set of contacts and glasses in the car) Hell, why assume responsibility at all when you have money and friends in high places?

Bingo

[(Anonymous)]

My point exactly.
Quick kiddies -- how many other examples can you find where this is perfectly understandable behavior? Shouldn't be too much of a stretch to find the excuse "I wasn't responsible, I was a victim of ". We're all victims now, no one's responsible. So why pick on poor ol' whats-his-name just because his lawyer came out in public and admitted it. Oh, and Xiph, in case you missed it, the crux of the obesity case is that obesity kills and we wouldn't be obese if it wasn't for those nasty temptations which we can't resist. So it's not my fault, blame the food companies

[mxfreak.livejournal.com]

He's a politician. Nuff sed.

random from friend on MC comm friends page. ^^

[unsee1ie.livejournal.com]

EXACTLY. here we are sometimes more lenient when alcohol or drugs are involved, we decide that the imparement means people hadn't made a choice to harm someone specifically, ignoring the fact that they made a choice to endanger everyone recklessly. in Germany being intoxicated UPS the penalties severely, and i believe it's the same in the UK and most of western europe. i.e.: charges go from our equivalent of manslaughter to murder.

he shouldn't get any breaks for being 'under the weather' and getting behind the wheel, that's ludicrous, especially considering the other evidence of his crap driving record. he's a hazard behind the wheel, he KNOWS this. he's a murderer.

[zianuray.livejournal.com]

Yup, and i hope they clobber him. i mean, diabetes runs in my family, my fiance' has type 2, all that so i'm not unsymathetic---but the people in my family have enough SENSE to freaking EAT SOMETHING or have someone else drive if they're still shaky.

Janklow is just being a jerk, IMO. My second thought when i heard he was using this as a "defense" was "Oh great, now they're gonna make it unlawful for a diabetic to drive..." since he's blaming it on his illness and not on his STUPIDITY.

Saw you in Crystal's (beinghomeless') LJ and headed this way, in case you're wondering. Hope you don't mind!

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

No, no problem at all! And he WAS found guilty, which means that he lost his vote in Congress, so he has stepped down as a Congressman. Which is good. But I hope he gets jail time. He won't, but I hope he will.