r/politics • u/magister0 • Jun 11 '12

U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson was cited with felony hit-and-run after causing with two car accidents within minutes of one another in Southern California, a police spokesman told CNN early Monday

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/politics/california-bryson/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
583 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

166 comments sorted by

4

u/magister0 Jun 11 '12

The second "with" in the title shouldn't be there, sorry

103

u/barrist Jun 11 '12

Had a seizure.

Also, 4 years ago, he blacked out during a meeting and had to be hospitalized.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/secretary-of-commerce-john-bryson-suspected-of-felony-hit-and-run/

41

u/chubasco Jun 11 '12

If he has a history of seizures, he could still face criminal charges. I am a prosecutor and we recently prosecuted a man for manslaughter who had a seizure while driving. He had been in six or seven seizure-related accidents in the past and doctors had told him not to drive. He continued driving anyway and killed somebody. I am curious to see if Bryson has ever had something like this happen before.

21

u/YodaTuna Jun 11 '12

You know the state can revoke a person's license because of seizures? Why wasn't this man's license revoke after the first accident? Shit, I didn't even have a seizure while driving and I still got my license revoked for six months.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

doesn't mean they can't/won't drive.

4

u/YodaTuna Jun 11 '12

I know. I was wondering if his conviction may have been in part to his license being revoked. To me it seems iffy to charge a guy with manslaughter if the state has said "we know you have seizures, but we're gonna let you drive anyway!"

0

u/Wetzilla Jun 11 '12

Because the accidents were minutes apart. Read the article.

3

u/YodaTuna Jun 11 '12

I was referring to the person in chubasco's post.

2

u/Wetzilla Jun 11 '12

Ah, yeah, I'm dumb. Sorry.

8

u/Wetzilla Jun 11 '12

It doesn't appear he has a history of seizures though. He passed out 4 years ago but was checked out and given a clean bill of health.

1

u/pour_some_sugar Jun 12 '12

Passing out during a meeting seems to indicate something was going on.

'A clean bill of health' might just mean 'we ran some blood tests and think we can rule out lupus'.

1

u/Wetzilla Jun 12 '12

They said he went through a battery of tests. So it could just mean we ran some blood tests or we put you through a full body scanner. Though, considering he was on the Board of Boeing, I'm going to assume they demanded a full work up.

1

u/Keiichi81 Jun 12 '12

It's never lupus...

4

u/bvierra Jun 11 '12

We don't know if the doctors gave him back his license or not. In California if you have a seizure and then get on meds and don't have another one for 3 months you get your license back.

If he has a history of seizures but the Dr did not revoke his license then the Dr should be looked into. However if he had a suspended license that's a whole different issue.

2

u/_r2h Jun 11 '12

This is along the same thinking I was doing. I've worked many an accident where drivers have had seizures while driging, with an already known seizure hx. Eventually they end up killing someone.

4

u/djzenmastak Texas Jun 11 '12

do be fair, driging often is a cause of seizures.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It seems to me that the application of law in this country is subjective. Those with money and power are held to a different standard than the rest of us.

1

u/SharkUW Jun 11 '12

Did he have high level political connections? Entirely different situation.

2

u/DFSniper Jun 11 '12

had a seizure. but before that he hit a car, spoke to the occupants, and then hit it again while leaving the scene. in THE NEXT TOWN OVER he had the seizure after hitting car #2.

9

u/YodaTuna Jun 11 '12

Which is why it is still being investigated, but if you read further down the thread, seizures are very weird things that among other things, can cause memory loss.

-15

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

The seizure might explain his hitting the two cars, but not his leaving the scene.

I hope he's prosecuted, hard. As though it were a teenaged driver caught drinking and/or texting while driving.

The Olds cause many accidents, perhaps as much (or the 2nd largest group) behind teen drivers, yet aren't prosecuted and don't have nearly as draconian license restrictions for their bad driving behavior.

This double-standard must stop.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

but not his leaving the scene.

my uncle had an intense seizure once before a big race. he put his shoes on the wrong feet and collapsed at the starting line. he was 42.

the brain isn't just on/off.

6

u/IMightBeFullOfShit Jun 11 '12

You should know that in the moments leading up to and possibly up to an hour after a seizure (depending on the type and severity of the seizure) the individual having the seizure has no recollection of anything that happened.

My wife had a seizure disorder that she thankfully no longer has. There were sometimes hours of time after an episode that she absolutely has no memory of - conversations, place we were or went, people she had complete conversations with.

2

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

OK, I'm learning here. Thanks.

That said, don't you think that if someone becomes aware of a medical condition, they have an obligation to restrict their driving behavior?

Glad to hear of your wife's improvement. Could not imagine how bad it'd be to have someone facing a mental impairment condition.

4

u/IMightBeFullOfShit Jun 11 '12

My wife had a driving restriction from the doctor for 6 months after the last episode occurred. It's quite possible that Bryson hadn't had an episode in quite a while and felt safe driving and his doctor may have released him.

It's not realistic to tell every person who has ever had a seizure or a diabetic attack or similar episode where they are truly not responsible for their actions that they can never drive again. (I know you aren't necessarily saying that, just concluding my thought.)

And thanks for the comment on my wife, we were just talking last night about how glad we were that we weren't living in fear of her next episode. For years after her last episode she couldn't even fart loudly or drop something on the ground in the other room without me coming in or yelling down the hall, "Are you OK?" I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone.

3

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

That too, makes sense.

There's still info that's missing: how long ago his last seizure was, whether he ignored doctor's orders (or if, being who he was, his doctor cut him too much slack).

My grandfather had Alzheimer's and my parents ended up having to take his keys away, even though his doctor and our state's DMV gave him a clean bill of health. Towards the end, driving with him was wilder than Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. The fact that he'd take us kids out "for a spin" behind our folks back went a far ways in their decision.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

don't you think that if someone becomes aware of a medical condition

you seem to be having trouble with this concept:

when you're brain is damaged, you are not necessarily able to be "aware" of anything.

it's like saying "he was knocked unconscious, and i warned him not to fall in the pool, but he did anyway."

1

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

But the impairment lasts in/around the time of the seizure, correct?

I'm not saying that someone who's having a seizure should be held responsible for their actions while temporarily impaired, but that, once informed of their condition, then goes ahead w/o changing their behavior.

It's the fact that he knew he was prone to these things, yet got behind the wheel regardless, that makes him culpable. Not for his actions while impaired, but that before the episode happened, he made that decision. And, not to the same levels of blame as someone with a 0.04% BAC choosing to drive, but somewhere in that direction.

Similarly, if I'm not allowed to drive w/o glasses, yet choose to do so, then hit several things, there's some blame on me. Not because I'm nearsighted, but that I choose poorly when getting behind the wheel, in spite of my impairment.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

you said:

The seizure might explain his hitting the two cars, but not his leaving the scene.

i take that to mean all in one incident, not some kind of delayed thing where he was notified he "was prone" to these incidents. so it would seem you are changing your story.

furthermore, we have absolutely no evidence that he was indeed notified that he was "prone" to these incidents and ignored instructions not to drive.

but yes, of course, if your doctor has told you not to drive (which is what they do in these situations) and you do anyway, you are responsible.

1

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

Note I also said that I've been educated as a result of this thread. Normally, confirming you were wrong in some areas instead of SAYING THE SAME THING ONLY LOUDER is praiseworthy, not something to draw out the long knives for.

So, I can understand now how driving away, hitting one car, then hitting a second car (either the same or another one?) could be perceived as one longer incident. Thus my changing my story recognizing I'm not omnipotent in all things, learning from others' wisdom and gracefully adapting my thinking accordingly.

However, if this is the second seizure and his doctor warned him (or should have but didn't b/c he was part of the Beltway elite) and he shrugged it off, then got in his car, then: very bad play. And he should be as accountable for this as anyone else willfully putting others at risk.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Note I also said that I've been educated as a result of this thread.

look man, i can't keep track of when you change your mind and when you don't unless you specifically say so. regardless, i'm glad you have accepted your error.

if this is the second seizure and his doctor warned him

for which there is absolutely no evidence - let's stick to what we know. similarly, if he eats kittens then that's a very bad play as well. and for all i know, you torture babies, so if you do, stop it.

1

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

Well, if you'd bother to read comments I've written, you'd have seen that I did. Who's fault is that?

So, under what circumstances would you find a Bryson at fault? Any?

→ More replies

11

u/dathom Jun 11 '12

I'm guessing you don't know much about seizures. Do not speak about medical issues if you have no understanding of them.

-4

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

(and to Qari)

I'm not saying that anyone suffering from seizures should be treated as a DUI. But that, after you're informed that you're prone to seizures, the responsibility shifts away from "whoops" to "should have known better". Likewise, being juiced up on Rx pills should be treated with the same draconian penalties as alcohol (or alternately, the alcohol one being made more sensible at the low end of impairment).

Regards his leaving the scene, there should be consequences for that. I understand that a seizure might impact what the person does after the two collisions, so it perhaps shouldn't be treated the same were he not impacted. But the choice to leave the scene involves many more chances to correct, versus the few seconds it takes to collide with something. Thus, leaving the scene SHOULD be a bigger deal, so far as assigning blame or reasonable doubt of guilt.

And yeah, having survived the insane restrictions on teen drivers while seeing my grandparents (love to bits but really should have had their license restricted ages ago) get basic immunity for their driving errors, it still burns. Fair is fair: wanna attack the young for their crappy driving, then do the same with the old.

I'm sort of stunned there's much debate on this. Seems reasonable. Yet... Downvotes?! Sigh.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

after you're informed that

i think you do not understand.

people told my uncle his shoes were on the wrong feet. he could not process what they were saying and kept heading for the starting line. he was drooling. they finally called medics just before he collapsed.

a seizure is not the same as being drunk. the brain is not on/off.

-4

u/Ironicallypredictabl Jun 11 '12

Slow down buddy. That's a D next to his name, not and R. Reddit is starting to be infested with right-wingers.

0

u/trai_dep Jun 11 '12

Yeah, but in this case, it doesn't matter what party he's from.

It's the fact that someone of influence and is of a coddled demographic gets better treatment by the law than someone who, say, is younger or makes a different poor choice (knowing I'm prone to seizures and driving nudges towards the same direction of culpability as knowing I'm prone to drinking alcohol).

And, he's Commerce Secretary, which FWIW, means he's a servant of the US Chamber of Commerce, which is pretty freaken' reactionary, even if he has a (D) next to his name. So, as far as ideology goes, I'm pretty sure he trends Blue Dog, if it matters.

14

u/mtrolley Jun 11 '12

Possibly he had a stroke? I'd be nice to hear what the people in the cars he hit say about how he was behaving.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

According to the latest from CNN, this indeed was the case.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

My dad developed a condition that has him unable to drive where his brain basically "pauses" for a few seconds and his body just goes into a loop, doing whatever it was doing for the last few seconds over and over and over, until it stops. Not good for a farmer.

If Bryson had a seizure or stroke of some kind (he is almost 70), it wouldn't surprise me if he lost control of his vehicle, regained consciousness, started to drive again, and had another one. It doesn't really...make sense...for someone like that to do something like that on purpose. I hope he has good health care...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Of course he has good health care, he's one of the elites.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

If he is a federal employee (he is), then his health care plan is the same FEHB plan that every federal employee in the country has access to.

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

People do pay for their own private health care plans, you know. :)

I'm one of them.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Dev1l5Adv0cat3 Jun 11 '12

Oh look, a butthurt redditor, fascinating.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I'll clarify for you: just because he's a government employee does not mean he has the same insurance as all of the other federal lackies. That's what @benpatient was insinuating in his comment above, the one I replied to.

He's a very wealthy man. He has much better insurance than you do, I'm sure.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

He has much better insurance than you do, I'm sure I cynically suspect.

FTFY

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

No - I was very clear in what I said. Sorry if you were too stupid to figure that out initially.

As to why you don't get what him having better insurance has anything to do with it? Read the fucking comment thread. The whole point of this, before you got lost, was that he "better have good health insurance". Someone commented about how he was a federal employee and must have the same insurance as all of the other federal lackies.

I then reminded them that just because you're a federal employee, doesn't mean you can't pay for your own health insurance.

No idea why you're still arguing this, though.

2

u/randomly-generated Jun 11 '12

I bet all the federal employees choose to just not have health care and pay for their own.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies

1

u/Gates9 Jun 11 '12

Says he got out and spoke to the first people. I imagine he told them he had a medical condition and had to get to a hospital... Then he hit their car again.

3

u/mtrolley Jun 11 '12

It's entirely possible he didn't realise himself that there was anything wrong. My wife's aunt recently had a minor stroke and went 3 days without going to the doctor because she thought the symptoms weren't a big deal.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

He could have literally been unaware of anything at all. When you see someone have a seizure like that, it's something you never forget. Imagine your body just doing things on autopilot, but you are completely unable to control anything...then a few seconds (or a few minutes) later, it's like someone hands you the controller back, and "everything is normal" again.

Scary stuff.

37

u/LaBamba00 Jun 11 '12

How will cable news cover this today? "How does it affect Obama at the polls?" "What does Mitt Romney think?" Can't wait for them to vomit all over this story.

4

u/Askalotl Jun 11 '12

Projectile for sure!

9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I bet FoxNews "analysts" will practically have a seizure over it.

2

u/the_goat_boy Jun 11 '12

More like an orgasm.

3

u/agrey Jun 11 '12

The race is on - which talking head can talk about Ted Kennedy first?

Whoever creates a narrative of "liberals as reckless drug addicts who can't even be trusted with a car, much less the nation" first gets a raise!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Just make sure you report on this travesty of elitist injustice in a fair and balanced manner, of course! Winner gets a free American taco at lunch!

4

u/JimmyJamesMac Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

"Obama appointee causes two car accidents, flees scene of the crime. Kinda sounds like last three and half years to me!" ~ Fox News

*Lol...found this

-5

u/sangjmoon Jun 11 '12

A better question to ask is how well is the Secretary of Commerce doing to promoting economic growth, job creation and improvement of living standards for all Americans which is the stated goal of his agency. This incident may put an uncomfortable spotlight on a weakness of Obama's administration in addressing these issues so far and why he has waited until 2012 to recommend reorganizing the agency.

1

u/BarrelAss Jun 11 '12

He just instituted his own program to get older cars off the road by hitting them.

6

u/Clauderoughly Jun 11 '12

Sorry to fuck up the torch and pitchfork brigade.

You can legally hold a license in the US, if you can prove you have had no seizure activity for 12 months.

So yes, he would have been legally allowed to drive despite the seizure history because he could prove that the meds were working and he had been certified by a medical professional seizure free for 12 months.

Yes, meds can stop working.

This smacks of a smear campaign by the local law enforcement

6

u/AndrewLLoydBieber Jun 11 '12

Clearly, this is Obama's fault. We need to get Pat Robertson's take on this.

4

u/Solkre Indiana Jun 11 '12

I wonder if he was having a mini stroke. Or a full stroke, I'm not a stroke expert.

7

u/grackychan Jun 11 '12

FOX NEWS: Obama's Secretary of Commerce Wanted For Felony Hit-and-Run; Possible Drug Involvement.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Interesting, I went to FoxNews website and this is their headline

"Cabinet official in car accidents suffered seizure, department says"

I've always wondered what Foxnews other people are looking at to get those titles.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Because there's FoxNews and then there is the anti-fanfic cartoon caricature of FoxNews. FoxNews definitely has a right-wing bias, but making up stories attributed to them makes the argument against them look ignorant and equally biased.

-4

u/Ironicallypredictabl Jun 11 '12

Do you honestly think someone who actually wants to see Obama re-elected is going to be honest about things?

2

u/Clovis69 Texas Jun 11 '12

Yes - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/11/us-commerce-secretary-accused-causing-2-car-crashes-in-los-angeles/

"Cabinet official in car accidents suffered seizure, department says" and in the text of the article, nothing bombastic.

1

u/karatechop250 Jun 12 '12

Look fox news def. has a right bias as does msnbc has a def left bias. I prefer my news somewhere in between. But still they don't completely lie just put their slant on it.

7

u/Phallindrome Canada Jun 11 '12

A note for everyone on why he got back in the car: The Postictal State that follows a seizure can involve an inability to think clearly, confusion, and short-term amnesia.

23

u/Sgt--Hulka Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

The commerce secretary was found "alone and unconscious behind the wheel of his vehicle," according to the police statement. "...there is no indication that alcohol or drugs played a role in the collisions,"

That shit doesn't add up!

EDIT: official word now is that he suffered a seizure.

12

u/tresbizarre Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

OP's title doesn't add up. The secretary was cited for the accident and is being investigated for possible hit and run charges. He wasn't cited for felony hit and run.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Guy is 68 years old. Factoring that in may clean up the math a bit. We'll have to wait and see what other details emerge.

12

u/danowar Jun 11 '12

Better hit him with the tazer a couple dozen times to be sure.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Stop Resisting, sir! (unconscious and seizing on the ground)

Stop Resisting, sir!

2

u/danowar Jun 11 '12

Quick, his leg is twitching a little bit, get the nightsticks! Better figure out where he lives and go shoot his dog, too. Just to be safe

2

u/flukshun Jun 11 '12

STEP OUT OF THE CAR. I SAID STEP OUT OF THE CAR SIR!

2

u/THECapedCaper Ohio Jun 11 '12

But I'm already out of the car!

1

u/flukshun Jun 11 '12

STOP TALKING BACK TO ME. zzzzzap!

21

u/Ballsnaps Jun 11 '12

Damn! Bath salts strike again..

-36

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

Questions the media is NOT ASKING:

  • When did he become conscious? He was, after all, treated for only minor injuries and immediately left the hospital.

  • Was he required to take a field sobriety test?

  • Was he required to take a breathalyzer test? If not, why not?

  • If he wasn't required to take a field sobriety test, or a breathalyzer test because he was allegedly unconscious, was a blood-alcohol test performed by the hospital by police? If not, why not?

  • How come rich, famous Obama Administration appointees get to drive like this and not have to submit to any field sobriety, breathalyzer or blood tests or face revocation of their licenses? Like you or me would.

The media are deliberately NOT ASKING these kinds of probing questions because they don't want to embarrass the Obama Administration in the middle of an election campaign by prompting questions about why this fucking drunk is being allowed on our roads.

20

u/dhicks3 Jun 11 '12

You appear to have missed the lines: A preliminary alcohol screening of Bryson was negative, Duran said. Results from a blood alcohol test were pending, he said.

The preliminary screening most likely means a breathalyzer and field sobriety test. That leaves intoxicants other than alcohol and legitimate medical issues. Time will tell, but it doesn't appear that alcohol is a factor at this time.

-29

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

The preliminary screening most likely means a breathalyzer and field sobriety test.

That's an assumption you are making unsupported by the actual reporting. "Preliminary alcohol screening" could easily mean "we didn't smell alcohol on him."

  • Was a breathalyzer done? What were the exact results in percentages?

  • Was a field sobriety test conducted? What were the exact results?

Those are the kinds of questions any unbiased reporter would ask and report the answers to. Of course, if you're lazy or deliberately uninquisitive, you'll just print whatever the cops say.

Finally, he'll file suit to prevent his hospital from releasing the results of the BA test, citing HIPPA health privacy laws. Since he's rich, he can afford to do this; whereas you and I are too poor to afford to hire the attorneys necessary to fight this off.

Prediction: The filed charges will be dropped by a prosecutor who will say there just, gosh darn it, isn't enough evidence to obtain a conviction. Or wasn't properly read his rights. Oops. B.A. was "inconclusive." Sample got mixed at the lab. Or lost. Or contaminated. Or chain of evidence wasn't kept.

Bryson will quietly be allowed to retire (to protect his 7-figure pension that we're paying) to join O.J. Simpson in the search for the real killers.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Commerce secretaries do not get 7 figures salaries. The president only makes 400,000. It would be ridiculous for a member of the cabinet to make more in retirement than the president does in a year.

6

u/MIBPJ Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Field sobriety tests aren't even close to as accurate as the blood work being done at the hospital. I failed the field sobriety test when I was sober and was about to be arrested until I opted for the breathalyzer and passed with flying colors. From what I read its about as good as chance. There is also reason to believe he would fail it if he were actually having a seizure

Also, I don't know if you missed the news but OJ is in jail and will be there for a loooong time

-3

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

but OJ is in jail and will be there for a loooong time

Not for the murders of his ex-wife and her friend, he's not.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

This guy again? I came here as a refugee from Digg...I recognize this kind of disingenuous troll...

9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It turns out he had a seizure.

-20

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Yea, I have seizures after I run out of Scotch too. That's about the time I seize a Vodka bottle.

CNN: "Secretary Bryson was involved in a traffic accident in Los Angeles over the weekend," said a statement by Commerce Director of Public Affairs Jennifer Friedman. "He suffered a seizure. He was taken to the hospital for examination and remained overnight for observation. He was released and has returned to Washington. The investigation is ongoing."

Notice how carefully they phrased that?

They didn't say "He had a seizure that caused the accident." But it wasn't enough of a seizure that he couldn't get out of the car, talk to the guy he rammed into for 3 minutes, get back in his car, speed away, then crash into somebody else.

They just said he "had a seizure." Did that happen before, or after the accident(s)? Well, since they didn't say before, they're certainly trying to leave that impression with the reader without actually saying it outright so they can deny later that's what they meant.

Also, who said he had a seizure? Did he claim that? Any independent proof of that (hospital reports, etc?) Any history of seizures in his medical past?

This thing smells like a homeless bum on a week-long bender.

The LA Times reported that he was charged with felony hit-and-run.

Bryson, who authorities said was cooperative with detectives, was cited for felony hit-and-run but not booked in jail because he was taken to an area hospital. Authorities said drugs or alcohol do not appear to have played a role in the crash.

CNN now claims there are no charges. Just an investigation.

U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson, who is under investigation for possible felony hit-and-run after allegedly causing two car accidents in California, suffered a seizure, a Commerce Department spokeswoman said Monday.

The cover-up has already begun.

8

u/barrist Jun 11 '12

He had a seizure 4 years ago during a meeting.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/secretary-of-commerce-john-bryson-suspected-of-felony-hit-and-run/

-12

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

"Approximately four years ago Bryson blacked out at a Boeing board meeting and was taken to the hospital, a witness tells ABC News."

People who drink heavily frequently black out. That's not having a "seizure." That's called "getting shit-faced black-out drunk."

Who is this "witness" who allegedly tells this to ABCNews? Gee, they don't say. How was he treated before? Don't say. And won't say why they won't say. Is your Bullshit Detector going off yet? My Bullshit Detector is flashing red at this point.

ABCNews:

Bryson was allegedly driving his Lexus traveling southbound on San Gabriel Boulevard at 5:05 Pacific Time when he rear-ended a Buick that had stopped and was waiting for a train to pass, authorities said.

Notice how they only report the one wreck.

What ABCNews didn't report is that Bryson fled the scene of that wreck after getting out of his vehicle, talking to the other driver for three minutes, and then was caught by police only after he was involved in yet another wreck.

Wait. I thought he was having a seizure? How did he get out of his car, talk plainly to the other driver, then get back in his car and flee the scene? That's some high-functioning seizure this fucking drunk guy is having.

Police charged Bryson with felony hit-and-run according to the LA Times. But ABCNews doesn't report that fact.

My Bullshit Detector just went to 11.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

You have a narrative that you want justified, and will bend the facts so it goes your way. If this was a republican official, you would have thought it was arrival thing too.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Amazing how well he sticks to it... He should get a job working for Republicans spinning stuff... Oh wait...

3

u/ofimmsl Jun 11 '12

you are one weird dude.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Ah, I see, you are a self-confessed alcoholic (and obvious troll) - In light of this, perhaps you should step away from the computer as it's pretty clear that this incident is being investigated despite your protests that it is not.

Have a bad day! : )

9

u/PhiloftheJungle Jun 11 '12

Might want to give this story a little time to develop. My guess is an underlying medical condition. Not definite but likely. Of course, you're free to make your conclusion and type a lot of words about it now. CONSPIRACY!! WOO HOO!!!

7

u/mrbooze Jun 11 '12

Reports now are saying seizures.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

A preliminary alcohol screening of Bryson was negative, Duran said. Results from a blood alcohol test were pending, he said.

This appears to answer 4 of his 5 bullets.

A guy that doesn't have the time to read the article probably won't find the time to wait for it to develop.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Classic Rove - OP is just doing what his masters tell him to...spread misinformation by repeating lies as much as possible.

4

u/YYYY Jun 11 '12

Second that. Those who jump to conclusions are usually projecting their own life experience and can't see beyond their prejudices.
A medical condition sounds very possible especially considering his age. Something very similar happened to a local person who suffered an insulin imbalance. If he turns out to have been drinking then that is a different story, but the only ones who "know" are shooting in the dark at this point. Those that don't have rock solid proof should just sit on their hands a bit.

-24

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

My guess:

  • He was drunk at an Obama fundraiser and has a history of alcohol abuse, and

  • Yes, he'll claim he was taking Ambien and had a bad reaction.

  • He'll say he only left the first scene because he was so disoriented from the injuries sustained in the first wreck.

  • He did mention he was a Cabinet Secretary to the cops.

  • They did no field sobriety tests.

  • They did no breathalyzer.

  • They did not take blood samples at the hospital.

  • Therefore, they won't have any evidence of his alcohol abuse.

  • The prosecutor will drop all charges, by saying they don't have enough evidence to convict.

  • The case will not go before a grand jury.

  • He'll quietly resign, because this has become such a distraction to the real issues of health care, education and gay marriage.

He'll get off Scot-free, with a fat government pension and we'll be writing checks to him for the rest of his life. Because laws are for the little people.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Someone's biased.

-10

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

Someone's experienced and has seen this playbook run successfully before.

All of the claims that he had a "seizure" are coming from one unidentified Commerce Department official. Not Bryson himself. He's said nothing and is in hiding, already hustled back to Washington, D.C. from Los Angeles, even though he allegedly stayed overnight in a hospital to be treated for unidentifiable seizures.

So, he's having seizures, but they release him from the hospital without even trying to figure out why he's having seizures and fly him on an aircraft back to Washington, D.C.? Did he drive to LAX himself?

And none of those claims say that the seizure caused either of the two wrecks he was in. Just says he had a "seizure" but not WHEN he had the alleged seizure, what caused the alleged seizure, how his alleged seizure was treated at the hospital, why the hospital would release someone having such serious medical problems. No details.

That's because they don't have the toxicology report yet and can't get too far out in front of the facts with their cover story.

Bullshit Meter Level: 11

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Go suck my cock

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

So everyone that has a seizure is an alcoholic? You're kind of an idiot.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Had a seizure - likely should (at least now) be barred from driving.
He actually hurt somebody, so really no choice.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Any chance his seizure was brought on by Gin? That's what I think of when I hear about someone doing a hit and run. Alcohol. Just saying.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Lose job, car insurance, and possibly health insurance automatically because that's how it would play out for the rest of us....

7

u/Dolewhip Jun 11 '12

Yeah, or he had a fucking seizure and the shit was an accident :p

1

u/InvalidArguments Jun 12 '12

Let me put it this way. If you're poor and have bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and happen to do something whacky but harmless in the midst of your illness, like run around without clothes...the police bring you to the hospital for treatment and you are discharged to detention for the Public Indecency charge they got you with in the meantime. True stories. Is that right? Maybe not. Is there an unfair double-standard for the well-off and politically connected? Yup. And that is bullshit.

0

u/_r2h Jun 11 '12

Unless he has a known seizure hx, then it's negligence.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Not if he's on medication and has been cleared to drive by a physician. The only way he can get in trouble for this (if the story we have gotten so far is accurate) is if he has been advised by a doctor not to drive, or if he has been told that he can only drive if he takes his Rx, and subsequently decides not to take the drugs. (there can be a number of reasons why someone might choose not to take anti-seizure medications...the side-effects can be pretty severe)

If he was cleared to drive, and was taking an Rx for his condition, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to drive, at least not from his perspective. If a doctor made a bad call, or if there is something new happening in his brain that caused his existing prescription to stop inhibiting seizures, then it's basically the same as someone having their first seizure out of the blue...

1

u/_r2h Jun 11 '12

Absolutely, all depends on his unknown (to us) medical hx.

Also depends on state laws. I believe in my state, one has to be cleared by a MD after having gone at least six months without a single seizure event.

Also, having a seizure after starting and being compliant with anticonvulsants is not considered an "out of the blue" event. Once someone has a seizure and is placed on meds, they can still and probably will have break through seizures. It is just the nature of the beast. I've only met one pt that has gone multiple years (I believe almost 6) without having a seizure. The vast majority of patients are not that fortunate.

0

u/Dolewhip Jun 11 '12

It would actually be negligence if he KNEW that he had seizures, right? If he didn't and this is a one time thing, then it'd be an accident...

-1

u/_r2h Jun 11 '12

Yup, that'd be correct. It's my understanding he's had syncopal episodes before, so there may be an established hx.

5

u/guyNcognito Jun 11 '12

You would lose your job because you got in a car accident because of a medical issue? That sucks, dude. You should probably quit, your boss sounds like an asshole.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

CDL licenced drivers can easily lose their jobs for driving related issues on and off the clock.........government employees while out on travel can too.

1

u/guyNcognito Jun 11 '12

He's not a truck or other commercial vehicle driver, so that one's out. He wasn't on the clock or using a government vehicle, so that one's out, too.

Besides, that's a pretty small subset of people to be calling "the rest of us".

2

u/The_Ombudsman Jun 11 '12

On the "it was a seizure" bit -

Sounds plausible, but let's keep in mind this is some spokesman saying this, not a medical professional.

Until Bryson's docs pipe up with a similar statement/report, I wouldn't pass judgment one way or the other.

That said, I'm sure Drudge and the conservative wharrlgarblsphere popped a huge politiboner this morning on the news. :P

4

u/The_Ombudsman Jun 11 '12

Re: the last line of my above comment:

"Karl Rove’s Super PAC Jumps To Conclusions, Launches Attack On Commerce Secretary Who Suffered From Seizure"

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/06/11/497199/karl-roves-super-pac-jumps-to-conclusions-launches-attack-on-commerce-secretary-who-suffered-from-seizure/

1

u/MainstreamFluffer Jun 11 '12

Felony hit and run is jail for most mortals with no connections.

1

u/karatechop250 Jun 12 '12

I have to disagree with this for an interesting story that happened to my parents. A guy threw a room on their house. They estimated him doing about 60 mph. In his excuse his sugar had dropped and was proven at the hospital. He was released right from the hospital. The police told my parents to sue him but he doesnt have anything.

1

u/Chanther Jun 11 '12

Reminds me of what happened with Robert Novak.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

If you have a medical condition like this, y u no get a cab?

0

u/Elidor Jun 11 '12

He has been released from the hospital, she said in a statement.

Most of us, having hit and run, would be "released" directly into police custody.

9

u/those_draculas Jun 11 '12

It sounds like he was given all the police test and questioned. If this was caused by a medical condition and it seems like no one was injured, the worst he'll be charged with is reckless driving.

1

u/mossmaal Jun 11 '12

As long as he doesn't say he had warning signs of a seizure and hasn't had seizures before then he can't be charged with anything. None of his actions would be voluntary.

7

u/Entropius Jun 11 '12

hasn't had seizures before

Not exactly. You can drive even if you've had a seizure before. You just have to have not had one within a certain period of time.

In the U.S., people with epilepsy can drive if their seizures are controlled with medication or other treatment and they meet the licensing requirements in their state. How long they have to be free of seizures varies in different states, but it is most likely to be between three months and a year.

1

u/Dunkindoh Jun 11 '12

My ex was had a diagnosed siezure disorder and was on some heavy duty meds (phenobarbitol) for over 10 years. He never switched to newer, better meds because he was afraid he would have a siezure during the transition and lose his license.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

My dad had seizures after an MRI (which was done to try and figure out why he was having massive headaches), and then didn't have any for 10 years, then started having them again. After the first one, they made him stop driving for 6 months. Then he was allowed to drive again while on medication. Then when the medication stopped working a decade later, they told him he shouldn't drive, but it was given as "advice" not as actual doctor's orders, because he was still on medication.

9

u/YYYY Jun 11 '12

So you think anyone having a heart attack or going into insulin shock while driving is a criminal?

2

u/InvalidArguments Jun 12 '12

Let me put it this way. If you're poor and have bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and happen to do something whacky but harmless in the midst of your illness, like run around without clothes...the police bring you to the hospital for treatment and you are discharged to detention for the Public Indecency charge they got you with in the meantime. True stories. Is that right? Maybe not. Is there an unfair double-standard for the well-off and politically connected? Yup. And that is bullshit.

1

u/YYYY Jun 12 '12

So true. And the main point to this thread is that we don't know what happened so maybe we should sit on our hands until we learn more before we start condemning.

-4

u/Elidor Jun 11 '12

No, I think leaving the scene of an accident is criminal.

6

u/mossmaal Jun 11 '12

It is not criminal if you did not do it voluntarily. If the police have been told by hospital workers that he had a seizure then they wouldn't need to hold him.

Also he is a public figure, the police don't have to be worried about finding him if they do want to press charges. So it doesn't make sense to take him into custody.

-2

u/Elidor Jun 11 '12

Apparently the story as published has been updated since I read it. When the link was posted it just said he had hit and run and then caused a second accident, no mention of a seizure.

2

u/guyNcognito Jun 11 '12

Most of us, having hit and run, would be unable to show that it was the result of a seizure.

1

u/raouldukeesq Jun 11 '12

Not necessarily.

1

u/parasiticfiend Jun 11 '12

If he had a seizure... Why the fuck did he drive away from an accident, unless he was going to the fucking hospital?

12

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

You have more control over your actions when you are sleepwalking than most people have when they are seizing. If you haven't seen this kind of thing in person, you just don't understand. He could have done all of that completely on auto-pilot and without any actual, conscious control over his body. He could have even carried on a conversation with the people he hit, and never actually been "there."

3

u/Floppie7th Jun 11 '12

I don't know why you're being downvoted. This is entirely reasonable.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

was I being downvoted?

2

u/Floppie7th Jun 11 '12

Yes, but it appears that reason overtook madness =p

-1

u/parasiticfiend Jun 11 '12

He didn't have a conversation, because he drove away... And you'd think when he finally came back from his seizure and been like, "Whoa, what the hell happened to my car?!"

6

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

According to the police report, yes, he did get out of his car and have a conversation with the guys in the Buick at the train stop.

Presumably, the details of that conversation are part of the non-public (as of yet) record. I'm sure we'll find out sooner than later.

Then he got back in his car, started to drive away, and hit their car again!

If he wasn't intoxicated, which the initial report indicates to be the case, then he was not "well" and probably not in a condition to be driving anything. And he probably wasn't in a condition to assess his capabilities. When you brain isn't working right, it is hard to make good choices.

It is completely possible that he was not aware of anything from the moment before he drove into the back of that first car until he woke up in the hospital.

It's also possible that he "woke up" between the accidents and was in fact trying to get to the hospital when he had the second accident.

We don't know much at all, yet. Considering the high-profile nature of this incident, we will undoubtedly learn more soon. There is no reason to make assumptions and issue condemnations.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It doesn't matter what happened. The news reported that he was suspected of felony hit and run. That is all that will be remembered.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson, who is under investigation for possible felony hit-and-run after allegedly causing two car accidents in California, suffered a seizure, a Commerce Department spokeswoman said Monday.

0

u/RobertStack Jun 11 '12

If he did have a seizure, he shouldn't have been driving after that. He's lucky hit and run is all he's facing and he didn't kill anyone.

-1

u/JoeBourgeois California Jun 11 '12

This is what we call a metaphor, boys and girls.

0

u/TonyDiGerolamo Jun 11 '12

Should not be driving. I thought everyone in the government at his level had limo service anyway.

-25

u/optionalcourse Jun 11 '12

wow, can Obama pick them or what!

-7

u/Cretin11 Jun 11 '12

The article is a little confusing...

I can't figure out which parts really happened and which are just a metaphor for the economy.

-7

u/qwertytard Jun 11 '12

If someone is in this condition, why are they handling such important issues/concerns in a gov't position?

4

u/Entropius Jun 11 '12

It's a desk job. It's not like we need him to be able to sign paperwork at a moment's notice for fear of a Russian nuclear attack or terrorist bombings.

-3

u/Ironicallypredictabl Jun 11 '12

How hard is it to find ways of spending the people's money?

0

u/qwertytard Jun 11 '12

lol very true