A fight with my dad re: Matthew Broderick- Page 2

[BrianWilsonFan]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 2:49pm

The Broderick accident caused a lot of press coverage at the time and there was speculation and allegations about alcohol being involved and things being swept under the carpet so to speak.

The Walken/Woods/Wagner business was very strange and Walken's star sank like a stone afterwards.

Wasn't there something about Burt Reynolds and Sarah Miles in the early seventies also? I seem to remember someone dying after a fall in Miles' shower room at a hotel near where they were filming (The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing) and speculation about Reynold's involvement.

Updated On: 4/10/06 at 02:49 PM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 2:54pm

the whole situation irritated me.......I doubt we'll ever know the real details, but I have to ask myself, if someone non-famous had been driving the car, would they have gotten away with only a $180 fee? I don't think so.

Even if an accident, the driver is still responsible......most cars do not cross a median line by itself........no disrespect to Matthew, but just doesn't seem right to me, no matetr what the circumstances.......

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 3:00pm

Here's the thing, they're called "accidents," not "on purposes."

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 3:03pm

Sounds like someone forgot what country he was in...

[erikaamato]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 3:03pm

Well, not to dredge up ancient history, but if you want to talk about someone famous using their power and familial connections to sweep something under the rug, I think the grandaddy of 'em all has got to be Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.


Mary Jo Kopechne article in Wikipedia

[RobbO]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 3:04pm

isn't the difference between "accident" and "on purpose," manslaugther vs. murder?

Updated On: 4/10/06 at 03:04 PM

[BrianWilsonFan]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 3:13pm

I remember Chappaquiddick well. On British TV that came as a news flash in the middle of programming. The only appropriate response to the debacle that went on with that case is, "one rule for them and another for us"...

[Elphaba]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 3:17pm

Here's the thing, they're called "accidents," not "on purposes."

so Namo...if I "accidently" kill someone, I am only $180 responsible?

If a vehicle I am operating crosses a line into another car, Iam only $180 responsible?

that doesn't make sense to me, unless they can prove the vehicle was defective.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 3:35pm

Not in litigous America, apparently, where settlements in the billions of dollars help survivors bring about "closure."

I guess the survivor quoted in the above post is just more, what's the word American politicians toss around with sanctimoniousness, ah yes, CHRISTIAN than that.

Forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness.

[Luscious]

Posted: 4/10/06 at 7:43pm

"There's always that kind of father in every generation."

"Asshole fathers. No amount of apologizing is ever good enough."


Hmmmmmm. Revealing and insightful.