ANTIDEPRESSANTS: Justin Bieber Arrested on DUI

Justin Beiber

Justin Beiber Arrested DUI

According to the police report, Justin was driving between 55 and 60 MPH in a 30 MPH residential area.

Bieber, 19, was charged with resisting arrest (without violence) after a police officer asked him to exit his vehicle. The officer allegedly grabbed Justin by his right arm, and Justin responded by yelling, “What the f–k are you doing?”

Bieber, who did not have a valid driver’s license, was then placed under arrest for DUI. He admitted to the officer that he had smoked marijuana “all day,” had drunk a beer earlier than evening, and had been taking prescription antidepressants…..

“Meanwhile, Justin is reportedly being urged by friends to go to rehab for his growing addiction to prescription drugs, sizzurp, and weed.”

http://www.examiner.com/article/justin-bieber-did-weed-alcohol-and-antidepressants-before-drag-race-arrest

725 total views, 0 views today

ON MEDS: LAS VEGAS DESERT STORM VET SHOOTS DAUGHTER (25) AND SELF

amanda landis

Amanda Landis

Comment from local news media KTNV TV by Ann Blake-Tracy · Top Commenter · Executive Director, International Coalition for Drug Awareness (www.drugawareness.org) at Executive Director, International Coalition for Drug Awareness

“After over two decades of tracking murder/suicides, school shootings, workplace violence and mothers killing their children I can say without hesitation that the answer to this tragedy lies in the prescription drugs the father was taking especially when he was likely being medicated by the VA.

From the article below we read: “Jenice said her husband, who was a Desert Storm vet, had recently been taking prescription drugs and may have been drinking following the argument.”

“I have a current case of diagnosed “homicidal ideation” produced by the antidepressants Celexa and Remeron in a young military man. I am absolutely shocked by the multiple drugs they handed out like candy to him that all interact negatively and then refused to give them for weeks at a time when the FDA has warned that any abrupt change in dose of an antidepressant, whether increasing or decreasing, can cause suicide, hostility or psychosis!

“The large number of murder/suicides in those you would never expect such behavior from is epidemic and shocking and almost always related to antidepressants or other serotonergic medications!!!”

WARNING: In sharing this information about adverse reactions to antidepressants I always recommend that you also give reference to my CD on safe withdrawal, Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!, so that we do not have more people dropping off these drugs too quickly – a move which I have warned from the beginning can be even more dangerous than staying on the drugs!

The FDA also now warns that any abrupt change in dose of an antidepressant can produce suicide, hostility or psychosis. And these reactions can either come on very rapidly or even be delayed for months depending upon the adverse effects upon sleep patterns when the withdrawal is rapid! You can find the CD on safe and effective withdrawal helps here: http://store.drugawareness.org/

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & http://ssristories.drugawareness.org
Author: *”Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

MOTHER INTERVIEWED IN LAS VEGAS MURDER/SUICIDE OF HUSBAND AND DAUGHTER

North Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) — The North Las Vegas woman who watched her husband kill himself, just moments after he killed their 25-year-old daughter is speaking out.

“I just hate that they are saying it was a heated family argument. It wasn’t. It was four and a half, five hours later,” Jenice Landis said.

Jenice said she is still trying to figure out how an argument over housework at midnight led her husband, Greg, to kill their daughter, Amanda then himself Sunday morning.

“I just told him, ‘Greg I’m really not feeling good. I really need to sleep can we do this tomorrow. I know this is a ridiculous argument you are having with me.’ And Amanda woke up and said, ‘Dad, leave her alone and let her sleep.’ That is about all there was to the argument,” Jenice said.

Jenice and her daughter were staying in the same room while Jenice recovered from surgery.
They both went to sleep only to be jolted awake around 5 a.m.

“I woke up to gunfire and flashes and gun smoke. I rolled off the bed and I know that is the only reason I am alive, because I felt gunshots going by me and I looked at my daughter and he had shot her in the chest and her chest was nothing but blood and gore,” Jenice said.

Jenice then said her 52-year-old husband turned the gun on himself, leaving her to wonder how the man she was married to for 27 years could do such a thing.

“I didn’t think my husband would ever hurt one of his children. He wasn’t that person,” Jenice said.

Jenice said her husband, who was a Desert Storm vet, had recently been taking prescription drugs and may have been drinking following the argument.

Police said they will not be able to confirm that until they get toxicology results back. For now, Jenice and Amanda’s twin brother are just working to cope with the loss.

“My daughter was a beautiful creature and her life ended way too soon, and I don’t want people to ruin that celebration of her life that we are going to have,” Jenice said.

North Las Vegas Police are not releasing many details about the murder-suicide or details about the fight, saying it is too early in the investigation.

Original article: http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/Mother-speaks-out-about-murder-suicide-223050761.html

1,159 total views, no views today

BAN ON DRIVING FOR ANTIDEPRESSANT USERS? STUDY INDICATES 70% INCREASED RISK OF ACCIDENTS

article-0-04CBD181000005DC-108 233x381[1]

As usual early warnings about driving risks went unheeded.

FINALLY someone has done a study to investigate the problems with antidepressants & car accidents….and it only took 25 years since the drugs were introduced to get around to someone doing it! Let’s put it on record here that I approached a group focusing on prescription drug DUIs in 1991 asking them to seriously consider looking at the problems with Prozac & driving. Obviously it fell on deaf ears as so many other warnings I have given over the years.

When I first began interviewing patients about their reactions to the SSRI antidepressants in the early 90’s I stopped driving on freeways whenever possible. Why? Because patient after patient reported that although back then it was not allowed for pilots to fly planes while on SSRIs, they while on Prozac were:

#1 “flying their cars” down freeways,

#2 “having compulsions to ram other cars” as they drove the freeway, and

#3 “dreaming while driving” and having little recollection of how they got from Point A to Point B.

I also began watching my rear view mirror closely to make sure no one dreaming on Prozac had neglected to include my car in their dream so that they could react properly & allow for it being in front of them.  And  I began watching for cars coming at me going the wrong direction since so many attempted suicide reports came in of crossing into oncoming traffic & driving on the wrong side of the road to attempt suicide.

I would also encourage you to read the Road Rage document written by Rosie Meysenburg & posted in the mid 90’s on our www.drugawareness.org website.

From this recent study we learn:

“They have found that taking common antidepressants such as Prozac and Seroxat [Paxil] heightens the risk by 70 per cent.

AND in looking at drugs like Xanax, Valium, Ambien, & the newer atypical antipsychotics like Zyban, Abilify, Geodon, Risperdol, etc. the antidepressants are far worse: “Those taking a common group of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) which include Prozac and Seroxat [Paxil] were 72 per cent more at risk.”

But what if someone had just started on an antidepressant?

According to the study: “Even patients who have only been on the pills for a few hours are far more likely to have a crash if they get behind the wheel.”

Now keep in mind that patients are told when they are given an antidepressant that it will take two weeks before the “beneficial” effects begin to appear. Bear in mind that the adverse effects DO NOT wait two weeks to appear. This is one example. The Paxil-induced murder/suicide case of Donald Schell is another glaring example after the jury ruled after hearing all the evidence (which few have ever heard), that taking only two Paxil pills over two days was the main cause of him shooting his wife, daughter, infant granddaughter, & himself. (Read more on this case called Tobin vs Glaxo Smith Kline at www.justiceseekers.com)

Two years ago I got a report out of Utah where the officer in a Ogden, Utah area reported that in a one month period he had 150 DUIs issued. ONE of those involved alcohol & all the rest were prescription drugs! But many remain unaware that you can face a DUI for driving while taking one of these medications. And now these researchers were so completely appalled by what they found in the way of impairment of driving skills by antidepressants that they are recommending that users be banned from driving!

Ban all antidepressant users from driving?

“Researchers say the study shows that doctors should be banning patients from getting behind the wheel as soon as they put them on a course of drugs.”

Now that would certainly clear up traffic congestion in Utah, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Florida, & North Carolina – long known as hot spots for these meds! But the use of these drugs is so widespread at this point it would likely clear the traffic nationwide & if imposed in Australia, 25% of the Australian parliament would have to take a cab to work. I am sure far more American law makers would have to do the same!

What is even more frightening to consider is that truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, and now pilots are allowed to take these medications that severely impair driving skills.

Revisiting Princess Di’s Death

Remember that Princess Di’s driver, Henri Paul was on Prozac. When I saw his blood alcohol level of three times the legal limit coupled with the reports from his family that he was not a drinker yet was drinking hard enough to be on a medication like antabuse, I knew he had to be taking Prozac. It was the only thing that added up. (See my article on SSRIs & alcohol cravings as an excerpt from my book just below the book picture at www.drugawareness.org)

So I called the police in Paris & explained that Prozac was the only thing I knew that would cause someone to crave alcohol like that & raise the level of alcohol so high in a man who was reportedly a non-drinker. The following week the Paris police announced publicly that they had confirmed that Henri Paul was indeed on Prozac at the time of the crash that took the lives of Princess Di & Dodi Al-Fayed. This report only adds to my conclusion that Prozac was the main cause for their deaths with the chances of an accident being increased by 70% with Prozac alone & who knows by what percent with the alcohol cravings producing a synergistic effect between the alcohol & Prozac & forcing the blood alcohol content even higher than normal.

Was there a failure to warn by manufacturers? Without a doubt!

“Although some manufacturers put warning notices on boxes telling patients their judgment may be impaired, they don’t specifically tell them not to drive.
“But it is now thought that the same chemical changes that improve mood among those who take the pills also slows down reaction times.”

That last sentence should read: “But it is now thought that the same chemical changes that DESTROY mood among those who take the pills also slows down reaction times.” But if they have not yet read my book, Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? Our Serotonin Nightmare they likely are not yet aware of that fact either.

Read full article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2202434/Taking-Prozac-Don-t-drive-Pills-raise-risk-having-accident-70.html#ixzz26ln3sPqE

About the Author: Ann Blake-Tracy is the author of PROZAC: PANACEA OR PANDORA?, and the director of the International Coalition For Drug Awareness [www.drugawareness.org]. She has testified before the FDA and testifies as an expert in legal cases involving serotonergic medications.

Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director,

International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & www.SSRIstories.com
Author: “Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Safe Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”

BOOK: Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare! Anything you ever wanted to know about antidepressants is there along with everything drug companies hope you never find out about these drugs. SAFE WITHDRAWAL CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!” on how to safely withdraw from antidepressants & most psychiatric medications is saving lives! Available at www.drugawareness.org

BOOK TESTIMONIALS:

“VERY BOLD AND INFORMATIVE”

“PRICELESS INFORMATION THAT IS GIVING ME BACK TO ME”

“THE ABSOLUTE BEST REFERENCE FOR ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS”

“WELL DOCUMENTED & SCIENTIFICALLY RESEARCHED”

“I was stunned at the amount of research Ann Blake-Tracy has done on this subject. Few researchers go to as much trouble aggressively gathering information on the adverse reactions of Prozac, Zoloft and other SSRIs.”

WITHDRAWAL HELP CD TESTIMONIALS:

“Ann, I just wanted to let you know from the bottom of my heart how grateful I am God placed you in my life. I am now down to less than 2 mg on my Cymbalta and I have never felt better. I am finally getting my life back. I can feel again and colors have never been brighter. Thanks for all that you do!!” … Amber Weber

“Used your method of weaning off of SSRI’s and applied it to Ambien. Took 6 months but had been on 15 mg for years so what was another 6 months. I have been sleeping without it for 2 weeks and it is the first time I have been able to sleep drug free for 15 years. What a relief to be able to lay down and sleep when I need or want to. Ambien may be necessary for people at times but doctors giving a months worth of it at a time with unlimited refills is a prescription for disaster. It is so damn easy to become dependent on. Thanks for your council Ann.”… Mark Hill

“I’m so thankful for Ann Blake-Tracy and all her work. Also for taking the time out to talk to me and educate everyone! She has been a blessing to me during this awful time of antidepressant hell!” … Antoinette Beck

1,249 total views, 0 views today

LEXAPRO & ALCOHOL & MEDICAL MARIJUANA: Murder: Woman Stabs Man To Death: CA

Paragraph eleven reads:  “During the interview, Rothwell
at times explained she was really drunk during the incident. However, she also
denied feeling “buzzed,” explaining she could “see straight” and was not falling
down drunk. She also admitted she drinks “a little bit” and takes medical
marijuana everyday. Rothwell said she takes Lexapro for anxiety and
depression and that she had taken her medication the night of the
incident.
Rothwell told police she has anger problems and when her
father died two years ago it “kinda pushed” her over the edge. She admitted to

stabbing a friend Alex Montes in the arm approximately a year and one-half
before when they were drunk and playing around. Rothwell explained she was not
mad at Montes, but he had said  ‘you won’t [stab me],’  so she did.
Rothwell agreed there were similarities about the two incidents with Rivas and
Montes because each man had dared her to stab him.”

SSRI Stories
Note:  The Physicians Desk Reference states that
antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and can cause

alcohol abuse. Also, the liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and
the alcohol simultaneously, thus leading to higher levels of both alcohol and
the antidepressant
in the human body.

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100422068

PEOPLE v. ROTHWELL

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
SAMANTHA ELIZABETH ROTHWELL, Defendant and
Appellant.

No. G040557.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth
District, Division Three.

Filed April 22, 2010.

Christine Vento,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General,
Jeffrey J. Koch and Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL
REPORTS

OPINION

O’LEARY, Acting P.
J.

Samantha Elizabeth Rothwell appeals from a judgment after a jury
convicted her of second degree murder and found true she personally used a
deadly or dangerous weapon, a knife, in the commission of the crime. Rothwell
argues her federal constitutional rights were violated when the trial court
refused to instruct the jury to consider evidence of her intoxication in
determining whether she acted with conscious disregard for human life. We
disagree and affirm the judgment.

FACTS[ 1 ]

One afternoon, a group of 10 to 15
friends rented a room at the Hotel Huntington Beach to celebrate Nicole Alcala’s
birthday. Rothwell, one of the invitees, and her friend, Kristina Torres,
arrived around 8:30 p.m. Marc Bellatiere and his girlfriend, Jennifer Mulcahy,
were at the party when Rothwell and Torres arrived. Mulcahy also invited her
brother Ryan Soto. Eighteen-year-old Walter Rivas was also at the
party.

Sometime in the evening, the group went to the beach to meet with
friends. Rothwell chose to stay at the hotel. When the group returned sometime
after midnight, Soto recalled that Rothwell “didn’t seem like herself.” While
some people started getting ready for bed, Bellatiere went outside to the fifth
floor stairwell landing to smoke a cigarette. Mulcahy, Torres, Rothwell, and
Rivas joined him. For the first five to 10 minutes, the mood was fine. However,
the atmosphere changed when Rivas began talking about seeing God the last time
he was in Huntington Beach. Rothwell became upset and ordered Rivas to not “talk
about God. I don’t like hearing about that stuff.” Rivas was taken aback by
Rothwell’s response and asked her why. She replied, “It’s because I’m the
devil,” and demanded Rivas “stop talking about it.” Rivas responded, “I’ll talk
about whatever I want.” Rothwell threatened, “If you don’t stop talking, shut
up, I’ll stab you.” No one in the group took Rothwell’s threat seriously. Rivas
said jokingly, “If you are going to do it, do it,” and continued to talk about
God. Rivas was not threatening, did not make any aggressive moves toward
Rothwell, and made no physical contact with her.

Rothwell walked to the
hotel room and flung the door open. Mulcahy followed and tried to calm her down.
Rivas stayed on the landing talking with Torres. When Rothwell and Mulcahy
entered the hotel room, it was dark and everyone was sleeping. Rothwell went to

the side of the bed where her belongings were located and began digging through
her purse while saying, “@#$% this guy . . . he can’t be talking to me like
this.” Mulcahy tried to grab Rothwell and calm her down, but Rothwell pulled
away and left the room.

Rothwell returned to the stairwell and headed
straight for Rivas. Rothwell swung her closed fist toward Rivas’s neck. Rivas
was substantially taller than Rothwell and struggled against her, but she
stabbed him in the jugular vein and in the back. When Rothwell took her arm
away, Rivas was bleeding profusely and said, “That @#$% fucking stabbed me.
That @#$% fucking stabbed me.” Bellatiere and Torres walked Rivas back to the
hotel room where they had him lay on the bathroom floor.

Rothwell
returned to the room and quickly gathered her things to leave. Soto asked, “Why
did you do it? What happened?” and Rothwell responded, “It wasn’t a big fucking
deal, get over it,” or “Get the @#$% over it. @#$% you,” and left the room
passing a bloody Rivas. Rothwell left bloody fingerprints on the stairwell
railing as she left. Someone called 911.

Bellatiere, Mulcahy, and Soto
left the hotel scared and panicked while Alcala and Torres tended to Rivas. The
group drove down the street and parked. Bellatiere left because he was the only
one in the group who was over 21 years old and had brought alcohol for the
party, which included underage party guests. Bellatiere, Mulcahy, and Soto
called Mulchay’s mother and asked what they should do. As a result of that
conversation, about one hour later, Bellatiere, Mulcahy, and Soto returned to

the hotel. Bellatiere and Mulcahy spoke to police who were at the
hotel.

Rivas died at the hospital. An autopsy determined he bled to death
as a result of an L-shaped stab wound in the left jugular vein of the neck.
Rivas had a blood alcohol level of .09% before his death. He would have needed
four and one-half to five drinks to reach that level.

Police officers
arrested Rothwell the next day at her apartment in Valencia. Officer Michael
Reilly executed a search warrant and found her purse and backpack. In a small
pocket of her backpack, he found a folding knife with dried blood on it. Dried
blood was also found on her backpack, tennis shoes, and pants. Inside Rothwell’s
purse, Reilly found a McDonald’s receipt from earlier that morning at 2:39 a.m.
for a double cheeseburger and chicken nuggets.

Later that day, officers
interviewed Rothwell at the Huntington Beach Police Department. After waiving
her Miranda[ 2 ] rights, Rothwell told police she consumed
three beers and two or three shots of alcohol and vomited while the others were
at the beach. Rothwell explained that while having a cigarette on the fire
escape, she had a conversation with Mulcahy about how she used to cut herself,
which sparked an argument with Rivas. She recalled Rivas said he “found God in
Huntington Beach,” but said it did not make her upset and she was joking when
she said the devil visited her. She explained Rivas had been drinking and yelled
at her to stab him. In response, she walked back to the hotel room and got her
knife. She denied saying she was going to stab Rivas. When she went back to the
stairwell, Rothwell alleged Rivas was taunting her to “stab me like that.”
Rothwell explained the two were wrestling and she was trying to get away when
she swung three times at his stomach and back and inadvertently stabbed him in
the neck. Rothwell explained Torres was screaming at her to stop, but she was
“drunk” and “pissed off” because Rivas had yelled at her and was grabbing her by
the arms. She told police that after she stabbed Rivas, he said, “You got me,”
and “[She] killed him.” Rothwell admitted seeing Rivas laying on the floor
bleeding profusely but gathered her belongings and left the hotel room because
she was terrified and realized he might die. Rothwell recalled saying, “tell
everybody to go to hell” to Mulcahy’s friend Marshall who had followed her down
the stairs. Rothwell explained that when she left the hotel she drove to

McDonald’s and purchased a double cheeseburger and chicken nuggets. Rothwell
explained she then went home and waited for the police to come and arrest
her.

During the interview, Rothwell at times explained she was really
drunk during the incident. However, she also denied feeling “buzzed,” explaining
she could “see straight” and was not falling down drunk. She also admitted she
drinks “a little bit” and takes medical marijuana everyday. Rothwell said she
takes Lexapro for anxiety and depression and that she had taken her medication
the night of the incident. Rothwell told police she has anger problems and when
her father died two years ago it “kinda pushed” her over the edge. She admitted
to stabbing a friend Alex Montes in the arm approximately a year and one-half
before when they were drunk and playing around. Rothwell explained she was not
mad at Montes, but he had said “you won’t [stab me],” so she did. Rothwell
agreed there were similarities about the two incidents with Rivas and Montes
because each man had dared her to stab him.

Rothwell cried while she told
police she did not mean to kill Rivas. When she heard about Rivas’s death she
“felt sick” and felt bad for his family. Rothwell did not know what made her do
it and admitted she is “not right.”

An indictment charged Rothwell with

murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a).[ 3 ]
The indictment alleged she personally used a knife, a dangerous and deadly
weapon, in the commission of the crime, pursuant to section 12022, subdivision
(b)(1).

At trial, the prosecutor offered Montes’s testimony. Montes
testified he was a good friend of Rothwell, had known her for three years, and
would see her everyday. Montes explained a conversation he had with Rothwell in
which she told him that she did not believe in God because her father told her
to say her prayers and when Rothwell woke up in the morning, her father was
dead. He testified Rothwell would get upset and very emotional if the topic of
God was discussed. He recalled she would say, “Don’t ever bring God up in my
house again. I don’t believe it.” Despite her anger about any discussion of God,
he never saw Rothwell pick up a weapon or heard her say she would stab someone
for talking about God. Montes recalled a night when he and Rothwell were
“playing around” and Rothwell said, “if you make me mad enough I’ll stab you.”
Not taking Rothwell seriously, Montes explained he said jokingly, “you won’t
stab me” and stuck his arm out. In response, she pushed the knife into his arm,
drawing blood. She apologized the next day, and Montes still considers her a
close friend.

Mulcahy also testified for the prosecution. Mulcahy was a
friend of Rothwell from high school and stayed in touch weekly. Mulcahy
testified Rothwell appeared to be fine when she entered the party. She explained
it was the first time Rivas and Rothwell had met. She believed Rothwell was not
religious but was also not an atheist. She also knew Rothwell carried a knife
for protection and could get very angry. Mulcahy testified everyone drank
throughout the night.

The prosecutor also offered the testimony of a
forensic scientist, Annette McCall. McCall testified blood samples gathered from
the scene compared with known samples of Rivas’s DNA revealed Rivas could “not
be eliminated as a source.” She also testified blood samples gathered from
Rothwell’s backpack and knife compared with known samples of Rivas’s DNA
revealed Rivas could “not be eliminated as a source.”

Rothwell offered
Torres’s testimony. Torres explained she and Rothwell were best friends. Torres
said they “probably smoked marijuana” before going to the hotel and she saw
Rothwell smoking marijuana throughout the night. Torres described Rivas as
always having a smile on his face. According to Torres, Rivas and Rothwell were
talking about religion on the landing and Rivas said he saw God on the beach.
Rothwell said, “I’m the devil.” Torres explained Rivas was calm and Rothwell was
yelling and then left briefly. Torres recalled that when Rothwell returned, it
appeared as though she was dancing with Rivas. She eventually realized it looked
confrontational and Rivas was trying to push Rothwell away. Torres testified she
never saw a knife. She saw the blood pouring from Rivas’s neck but did not think
he would die. Torres helped Rivas until the paramedics arrived. She remembered
Rivas saying, “Tell my mother I love her.” She stated Rothwell gathered her
belongings and left the hotel room. Torres thought she heard Rothwell say upon
her departure, “It’s no big deal, fucking deal with it.” Torres said Rivas had
not been confrontational or argumentative with Rothwell that night or in the
past. However, Torres explained Rothwell becomes confrontational whenever the
subject of God comes up. Torres also explained that if someone tells Rothwell
not to do something, she will do it. Furthermore, if someone dares Rothwell to

do something, she will. Torres testified she witnessed the stabbing of Montes by
Rothwell, which was the result of a dare. Torres also testified “`[Rothwell]
goes from zero to maniac . . . if you push her button.'”

Torres admitted
lying to the police to protect Rothwell. She tried to protect Rothwell because
she knew what Rothwell did was wrong and it was no accident. Torres explained
she called Christian Robinson, Rothwell’s boyfriend, and told him that Rothwell
had stabbed someone. Two days later, Torres felt she could no longer protect
Rothwell and typed a statement to police that she both faxed and hand delivered.
In the statement, she explained Rothwell had stabbed Rivas. She also reported
Rothwell said to Rivas, “Oh yeah, oh, you don’t think I won’t. You think I
won’t.”

The trial court instructed the jury on first degree murder and
second degree murder­both on the implied malice and no premeditation
theories­and involuntary manslaughter. Rothwell’s counsel requested CALCRIM
No. 3426, the voluntary intoxication instruction. The prosecutor objected based
on Rothwell’s statement she was not buzzed. The trial court expressed a
preference for CALCRIM No. 625, a voluntary intoxication instruction that
pertains directly to homicide. Defense counsel requested CALCRIM No. 625 be
modified to add malice aforethought, which includes implied malice. The
requested instruction (the Special Instruction) provided: “You may consider
evidence, if any, of the defendant’s voluntary intoxication only in a limited
way. You may consider that evidence only in deciding whether the defendant acted
with an intent to kill, or the defendant acted with deliberation and
premeditation, or acted with malice aforethought. [¶] A person is

voluntarily intoxicated if he or she becomes intoxicated by willingly
using any intoxicating drug, drink, or other substance knowing that it could
produce an intoxicating effect, or willingly assuming the risk of that effect.
[¶] You may not consider evidence of voluntary intoxication for any other
purpose.” The court declined to instruct the jury with the Special Instruction.
Instead, the court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 625 without the “or
acted with malice aforethought” language.

The jury convicted Rothwell of
second degree murder and found true the allegations she personally used a deadly
or dangerous weapon, a knife. The trial court sentenced her to prison for a
total term of 16 years to life.

DISCUSSION

Due Process and Fair Trial

Rothwell contends her federal constitutional rights to due process and a
fair trial were violated when the trial court, relying on section 22, refused to
instruct the jury it may consider her voluntary intoxication to negate implied
malice. Specifically, she argues section 22, subdivision (b), is
unconstitutional because it was designed to keep out relevant, exculpatory
evidence and is not a redefinition of the mental state element of the offense.
We disagree.

Section 22, most recently amended in 1995, provides: “(a) No
act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less
criminal by reason of his or her having been in that condition. Evidence of
voluntary intoxication shall not be admitted to negate the capacity to form any
mental states for the crimes charged, including, but not limited to, purpose,
intent, knowledge, premeditation, deliberation, or malice aforethought, with
which the accused committed the act. [¶] (b) Evidence of voluntary intoxication
is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the defendant actually
formed a required specific intent, or, when charged with murder, whether the
defendant premeditated, deliberated, or harbored express malice
aforethought. [¶] (c) Voluntary intoxication includes the voluntary ingestion,
injection, or taking by any other means of any intoxicating liquor, drug, or
other substance.” (Italics added.)

The Legislature’s 1995 amendment to

section 22 inserted the word “express” before the word “malice” in subdivision
(b). The 1995 amendment was in direct response to People v. Whitfield
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 437 (Whitfield). In Whitfield, the California
Supreme Court held evidence of a defendant’s voluntary intoxication was
admissible to negate implied as well as express malice. (Id. at
451.)

The history of the 1995 amendment to section 22 was most recently
addressed in People v. Turk (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1361 (Turk). In

Turk, the court concluded, “The legislative history of the amendment
unequivocally indicates that the Legislature intended to legislatively supersede
Whitfield, and make voluntary intoxication inadmissible to negate implied
malice in cases in which a defendant is charged with murder.” (Turk,
supra,
164 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1374-1375.)

Rothwell argues section 22
is unconstitutional after the 1995 amendment because “it created a rule that
keeps out relevant exculpatory evidence by in effect precluding the jury from
considering evidence that could disprove the `conscious disregard for human
life’ element of implied malice second degree murder.” Rothwell relies on

Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) 518 U.S. 37 (Egelhoff), and Justice
Ginsburg’s concurring opinion, to support her contention.

In
Egelhoff, a plurality of the court upheld the constitutionality of a
Montana statute providing voluntary intoxication “`may not be taken into
consideration in determining the existence of a mental state which is an element
of [the] offense.'” (Egelhoff, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 57.) The plurality
found no due process violation because the right to have a jury consider
intoxication evidence was not a “fundamental principle of justice.” In
concurrence, Justice Ginsberg drew a distinction between rules designed to keep
out relevant, exculpatory evidence that might negate an essential element of a
crime and violate due process, and rules that redefine the mental state element
of the offense. (Ibid.) Justice Ginsburg viewed the Montana statute as a
redefinition of the offense’s required mental state and therefore excluding
evidence of voluntary intoxication was constitutional. (Id. at pp.
57-59.)

“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale
explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, `the holding of the
Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the
judgments on the narrowest grounds . . . .'” (Marks v. United States

(1977) 430 U.S. 188, 193.) Assuming Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence controls, as
Rothwell urges this court to do, we nonetheless conclude section 22 does not
violate due process.

In People v. Timms (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th
1292, 1300-1301 (Timms ), the court addressed the identical issue we have
here. The court explained section 22 did not violate a defendant’s due process
rights because section 22, subdivision (b), did not belong to the “prohibited
category of evidentiary rules designed to exclude relevant exculpatory
evidence.” (Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 1300.) The court
reasoned, “The absence of implied malice from the exceptions listed in
subdivision (b) is itself a policy statement that murder under an implied malice
theory comes within the general rule of subdivision (a) such that voluntary
intoxication can serve no defensive purpose. In other words, section 22,
subdivision (b)[,] is not `merely an evidentiary prescription’; rather, it
`embodies a legislative judgment regarding the circumstances under which
individuals may be held criminally responsible for their actions.’ [Citation.]
In short, voluntary intoxication is irrelevant to proof of the mental state of
implied malice or conscious disregard. Therefore, it does not lessen the
prosecution’s burden of proof or prevent a defendant from presenting all
relevant defensive evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1300-1301)

The

Timms court found illuminating the fact section 22 does not appear in the
Evidence Code, it appears in the Penal Code. (Timms, supra, 151
Cal.App.4th at p. 1300.) Additionally, the court acknowledged the California
Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, which
rejected a due process challenge to section 22 in the context of the general
intent crime of arson. (Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p.
1300.)

With respect to Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence, the court stated
that assuming the concurrence controls, “Justice Ginsberg also stated: `Defining

mens rea to eliminate the exculpatory value of voluntary intoxication
does not offend a “fundamental principle of justice,” given the lengthy
common-law tradition, and the adherence of a significant minority of the States
to that position today. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] Under this rational, the 1995
amendment permissibly could preclude consideration of voluntary intoxication to
negate implied malice and the notion of conscious disregard. Like the Montana
statute, the California Legislature could also exclude evidence of voluntary
intoxication in determination of the requisite mental state.” (Timms,
supra,
151 Cal.App.4th p. 1300.) Therefore, the court concluded section 22
did not infringe defendant’s constitutional rights.

Rothwell also argues
the trial court’s application of section 22 violated her constitutional right to

due process and a fair trial because, “[t]he level of a defendant’s intoxication
is undeniably relevant evidence on the issue of whether he or she consciously
disregarded a risk to human life.” We find People v. Martin (2000) 78
Cal.App.4th 1107 (Martin), instructive.

In Martin, supra,
78 Cal.App.4th at page 1113, the court rejected this constitutional challenge to
section 22. The court explained, “Section 22 states the basic principle of law
recognized in California that a criminal act is not rendered less criminal
because it is committed by a person in a state of voluntary intoxication.” The
court stated section 22 “is closely analogous to [the Legislature’s] abrogation
of the defense of diminished capacity . . . . The 1995 amendment to section 22
results from a legislative determination that, for reasons of public policy,
evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate culpability shall be strictly
limited. We find nothing in the enactment that deprives a defendant of the
ability to present a defense or relieves the People of their burden to prove
every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Martin,
supra,
78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117.)

We find the courts’ reasoning in

Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, and Martin, supra, 78
Cal.App.4th 1107, persuasive. Thus, we conclude the trial court’s refusal to
instruct the jury with Rothwell’s Special Instruction did not violate her
constitutional rights. The trial court properly instructed the jury with CALCRIM
No. 625.

Equal Protection

In its respondent’s brief,
the Attorney General suggests Rothwell may be asserting an equal protection
claim. In her reply brief, Rothwell raises the equal protection argument for the
first time. We need not consider this argument, because it was made for the
first time in reply without any showing of good cause for failing to raise it in
the opening brief. (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales &

Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 894-895, fn. 10.) Additionally,
to the extent Rothwell attempts to raise an equal protection claim, her failure
to properly raise the issue and support it with adequate argument and citation
to authority waived the issues on appeal. (See, e.g., California Dept. of
Corrections v. State Personnel Bd.
(2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1601, 1619.) In
any event, her claim fails on the merits. (Timms, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 1302-1303.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is
affirmed.

WE CONCUR.

MOORE, J.

IKOLA, J.
1. `In accord
with the usual rules of appellate review, we state the facts in the light most
favorable to the judgment. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199,
1206.)
2. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3. All further
statutory references are to the Penal Code

635 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANTS & ALCOHOL: Death: Ireland

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

Death by misadventure!” What is that? “Death by medicine” is
far more accurate! When antidepressants CAUSE overwhelming cravings for alcohol

or Dipsomania (an uncontrollable urge to drink alcohol) why was this case not
determined to be murder by medicine? That is what it was. When the drug causes
you to mix a deadly combo that takes your life then it is murder by medicine in
my book!

______________________________________
First three paragraphs read:  “AN A&E consultant has
warned of the “lethal” consequences of combining alcohol and prescription
medication
following the death of Bertie Ahern’s
nephew from a mixture of drink and anti-depressants.”

“Dr Chris
Luke said people were admitted every day suffering from the effects of legal
drug and alcohol cocktails. Dr Luke, a consultant at Cork University Hospital,
said legal drugs were as dangerous as illegal drugs
and the public needed to be made aware of the dangers”.

“He was
commenting after an inquest found that Dylan Ahern, the son of former Dublin
City Councillor Maurice Ahern, had been killed by a combination of
anti-depressant medication and alcohol.
A jury returned a verdict of

death by misadventure.”

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/booze-and-pills-alert-after-bertie-tragedy-2139007.html

Booze and pills alert after Bertie tragedy

Thursday April 15 2010

AN A&E consultant has warned
of the “lethal” consequences of combining alcohol and prescription medication
following the death of Bertie Ahern’s nephew from a mixture of drink and
anti-depressants.

Dr Chris Luke said people were admitted every day
suffering from the effects of legal drug and alcohol cocktails. Dr Luke, a
consultant at Cork University Hospital, said legal drugs were as dangerous as
illegal drugs and the public needed to be made aware of the dangers.

He
was commenting after an inquest found that Dylan Ahern, the son of former Dublin
City Councillor Maurice Ahern, had been killed by a combination of
anti-depressant medication and alcohol. A jury returned a verdict of death by
misadventure.

Toxic

“Every week on our observation ward at CUH, we
have several cases of people who have poisoned themselves with booze and
whatever was in the medicine cabinet,” Dr Luke said.

“When giving talks
to parents, teenagers and colleagues, I always start by saying the first drug is

alcohol and it’s always the first chapter in any story of substance abuse.

“Nine out of 10 times when people poison themselves, it involves
alcohol. We would rarely get a case of an overdose of anti-depressants or other
drugs without alcohol being consumed first.

Alcohol also sensitises
parts of the body like the heart, brain and stomach lining, making them more
susceptible to being affected by other drugs.

“It amplifies the toxic
effect of each compound so the synergy they have is greater than the sum of
their parts in their effect on the body.”

Dr Luke said the effect could
be either a more intense tranquilising effect, or a paradoxical stimulation,
leaving people either almost comatose, or “off their heads”.

He said a
large number of people who self-harmed with alcohol and drugs did so either
accidentally or impulsively.

They can become aggressive, violent and
paranoid and can suffer from a rapid heart rate, high blood pressure or
“electrical chaos” in the brain, leading to seizures or even heart attacks and
fatal strokes. “Booze and drugs are always a dangerous combination,” he
added.

hnews@herald.ie

– Andrew
Phelan

685 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT & ALCOHOL: Suicide: British Judo Star Tipped for Olympics: UK

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAUSE CRAVINGS FOR ALCOHOL!!!! [AM I SHOUTING? YES I AM SHOUTING!!! AND I HAVE BEEN SHOUTING THAT ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAUSE CRAVINGS FOR ALCOHOL FOR TWO DECADES!] LET ME REPEAT THAT: ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAUSE CRAVINGS FOR ALCOHOL!!!!!

Antidepressants cause this alcohol craving in several ways:

– by dropping the blood sugar
– by producing mania, one type of mania is known as “dipsomania” which is described as an “uncontrollable urge to drink alcohol”
– by increasing serotonin which has been shown in medical research to cause cravings for alcohol (see SSRIs & Alcoho at www.drugawareness.org)
________________________________

Paragraph four reads: “But an inquest heard he had secretly been battling depression after splitting with the mother of his daughter – and in the early hours of New Year’s Day he was found dead in his home in Mold, North Wales.”

Paragraph thirteen reads: “When their relationship broke down, he moved back into his family home where he began a course of anti-depressant drugs.”

Paragraph twenty reads: “Toxicology results showed he was more than three times the drink-drive limit. . . ”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267219/Robert-Gallagher-UK-Olympic-judo-hopeful-hangs-black-belt.html

Monday, Apr 19 2010 3PM

British judo star tipped for Olympic glory hangs himself with own black belt after breaking up with girlfriend
By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 1:39 PM on 19th April 2010

A British judo star tipped for success at the 2012 Olympics hanged himself with his own black belt after struggling to get over splitting from his girlfriend, an inquest heard.

Firefighter Robert ‘Robbie’ Gallagher, 23, was so talented in martial arts he was listed as one of the amateur sportsmen expected to shine during the London Olympics.

He was known across the Judo world for fighting in the 66kg weight category and was one of Britain’s top judo players in 2005, when he was in the British junior squad.

But an inquest heard he had secretly been battling depression after splitting with the mother of his daughter – and in the early hours of New Year’s Day he was found dead in his home in Mold, North Wales.

His father Robert Gallagher Snr, said: ‘We as a family are so saddened by Robbie’s untimely death and we miss him greatly.

‘He was into his judo and was a contender for the 2012 Olympic games and was a retained firefighter, hoping to have a future full-time in firefighting.

‘He had been a mischievous happy person and enjoyed his life. He wanted to achieve the very best.’

Mr Gallagher started judo when he was five before later taking up the sport at the highest level.

He was British judo champion three times and represented North Wales Fire and Rescue Service at the 2008 World Firefighting Games at the Echo Arena, Liverpool.

A British Judo Association spokeswoman said after his death: ‘British judo is extremely saddened by the loss of Robbie Gallagher.

‘A talented judo player, Robbie will be missed by players and coaches alike.’

An inquest heard last Friday how Robbie had been with girlfriend Sophie Bell-Halfpenny for four years, and together they shared a home and daughter Evie.

When their relationship broke down, he moved back into his family home where he began a course of anti-depressant drugs.

Miss Bell-Halfpenny told the hearing her former partner had threatened suicide on several occasions, explaining: ‘He once phoned me at 4am to say he had taken an overdose of sleeping tablets.

‘Then he came up to my house and and was waving his judo belts at me saying he was going to take his own life.’

The inquest in Mold heard how the judo ace had gone to a pub on New Year’s Eve to see in 2010 with some friends but had then gone back home to hang himself.

His father said he did not realise his son had returned home early until he went to have a cigarette outside shortly after midnight, and heard a noise from their garage.

He stepped inside and made the horrific discovery of his son hanging by his own judo belt.

A post-mortem examination revealed the father-of-one had died from asphyxia caused by hanging.

Toxicology results showed he was more than three times the drink-drive limit. He did not leave a note.

Recording a verdict of suicide, North East Wales coroner John Hughes, told the family: ‘I want to tell you how desperately sad I was to hear of your misfortune, especially as it was someone as young as your boy.’

After hearing of his death last January, a spokesman for his former school, Alun School, said: ‘We are very sad to hear this news.

‘He was a very outgoing character who was well liked by all the staff. He always had a big smile on his face.

‘We remember him fondly as a very fit lad, he could turn his hand to anything, but judo was his sport.

‘Robbie was one of the most gifted athletes we had at the school. He excelled at judo and represented Wales and the UK.

‘He was an excellent judo player and at one time he was in the top group for his age.’

722 total views, 0 views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT WITHDRAWAL & ALCOHOL: Mother Murders her 3 Year Old Daughter: IL

Paragraphs 15 through 19 read: “Throughout the interview Starr said she was in school because Bianca was the only ‘remotely good’ thing in her life.”

“She became hysterical when the detectives told her Bianca died.”

“ ‘I want her back,’ she cried.”

“The tape shows that Starr calmed down within minutes. Eventually she said, ‘Safe to say to say I killed her. Safe to say I’m going to go to jail. Safe to say I’m never going to be sane again’.”

“Starr also told investigators she had skipped a dose of an anti-depressant.”

http://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=9900&type=top

Prosecution Rests in Starr Case

MARION

After an emotional week in court, the Herrin woman on trial for killing her three-year-old daughter has decided not to testify, according to court documents.

Prosecutors began presenting their case against Karrae Starr, 20, by playing the tape of the 911 call she made in late September 2008.

They wrapped it up Friday morning by showing the jury a recording of her interview with investigators, which was conducted hours later.

In the video Starr wore a t-shirt with blood stains on it. She acknowledged the blood belonged to her daughter, Bianca.

During the interview, Starr told investigators Jill Blus of the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department and Bruce Graul of the Herrin Police Department she got angry when Bianca went to the playground with her boyfriend without telling her.

In the recording, Starr tells the investigators Bianca threw a fit when she dragged her home.
Once in Bianca’s bedroom, “I held my hand over her mouth” to make her stop screaming, Starr said.

“I was extremely [expletive] pissed off and drunk,” she continued. She told detectives she had five shots of vodka that night.

Starr said Bianca eventually calmed down, so she removed her hand, and asked Bianca if she was okay. Bianca said yes.

According to Starr, as she was leaving the room she heard Bianca get out of bed, so she turned around. When she did, she saw blood and foam coming from Bianca’s nose.

Thursday a forensic pathologist testified that the blood and foam, combined with swollen organs which were discovered during an autopsy, indicate Bianca was smothered.

“All indications are she didn’t stand up out of bed herself,” Blus told Starr.

Starr, who was a nursing student at the time, did CPR on her daughter. Eventually, she told investigators, “I picked her up and held her and told her to come back….I was giving up because she wasn’t responding.”

Starr said her boyfriend was in the other room on the computer as she gave Bianca CPR.

Throughout the interview Starr said she was in school because Bianca was the only “remotely good” thing in her life.

She became hysterical when the detectives told her Bianca died.

“I want her back,” she cried.

The tape shows that Starr calmed down within minutes. Eventually she said, “Safe to say to say I killed her. Safe to say I’m going to go to jail. Safe to say I’m never going to be sane again.”

Starr also told investigators she had skipped a dose of an anti-depressant.

As the recording played for the jury, Starr became visibly upset several times.

The trial continues Monday. It’s expected to wrap up by Tuesday.

U.S. Attorney Danny Kay and State’s Attorney Chuck Garnati are prosecuting the case. Public Defender Larry Broeking represents Starr.

By Dana Jay
djay@wsiltv.com

869 total views, 0 views today

CELEXA & ALCOHOL: Vehicular Homicide: Nevada

Paragraphs two and three read:  “The suspect is in jail,
accused of killing Bob Childress who was simply on his way to work.
Jacques Norton faces a charge of felony DUI causing death. The
charge accuses him of being under the influence of drugs with
enhancement of alcohol.”

“Police believe Norton got carried
away with the prescription anti-depressant Celexa and mixed that, with a
handful of mixed drinks.
He was reportedly so out of it, police had to
stop a field sobriety test for his own safety.”

SSRI Stories Note:

The Physicians Desk Reference states that antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and
alcohol abuse.
Also, the liver cannot
metabolize the antidepressant and the alcohol simultaneously,  thus leading
to higher levels of both alcohol and the antidepressant in the human
body.

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12261289

Police say suspect in deadly DUI crash didn’t know what month it
was

Updated: Apr 06, 2010 1:38 AM
CDT

Police say suspect in
deadly DUI crash didn’t know what month it was


Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) – A man is dead after being killed by a
suspected intoxicated driver on Easter morning. An arrest reports says the
22-year-old suspect had been out at a club earlier in the night, drinking
alcohol and popping pills.

The suspect is in jail, accused of killing
Bob Childress who was simply on his way to work.  Jacques Norton faces a
charge of felony DUI causing death. The charge accuses him of being under the
influence of drugs with enhancement of alcohol.

Police believe Norton got
carried away with the prescription anti-depressant Celexa and mixed that, with a
handful of mixed drinks. He was reportedly so out of it, police had to stop a
field sobriety test for his own safety.

“I still feel like he’s going to
come and walk through the door,” explained Dawn Miller, who was Childress’
roommate.

Childress was on his way to work as a bus driver with Coach
America charter bus service when he lost his life. He was driving northbound on
Main when a police report says, Norton did not stop for a red light and hit
Childress’ driver side. The impact sent him flying almost 150 feet into the
eastbound lanes of Charleston.

“I don’t want to be angry. I’m very angry
though,” said Miller.

An arrest report says Norton admitted to taking
five 15 mg pills of Celexa and to drinking four to five drinks of vodka tonic at
the club.

The report says he blatantly told police, “I can’t drive home.
I’m too drunk.”

When asked what the date was Norton thought it was May
1st, when it was April 4th.

“He has the rest of his life and we have the
rest of our lives without Bob,” said Miller.

According to the report
Norton had no idea he hit another vehicle near the downtown intersection. He
reportedly told police he hit a fire hydrant and wanted to know how bad his car
was.

“This was not a thing, it was a person that somebody loved. He was
always with us. He can never replaced. He tore apart my family” said Ariell
Miller, who also lived with Childress.

On top of not knowing, what month
it was and not knowing that he had hit somebody Norton reportedly also had no
clue what street he was on at the time of the accident. A preliminary
breathalyzer test showed his alcohol level was nearly twice the legal limit.
Further blood tests are pending.

Childress is expected to be cremated in
the days to come. His roommates describe him as a hard-working, low-key
gentleman who was always willing to lend a helping hand to others.

Last
year, 84 people in Nevada were killed in drunk driving accidents. 61 of those
victims died in Clark County.

Stay with Action News for new
developments on this accident investigation
.

469 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT & ALCOHOL: Assault: Australia

Paragraph 10 reads:  “At the time Todd was suffering
anxiety and depression and could have suffered a blackout.”

Paragraph 13 reads:  “She said the incident had a huge impact on
her client’s marriage, his wife was left shaken and Todd had consumed alcohol while on medication and with an
empty stomach that night.

SSRI Stories Note:  The Physicians
Desk Reference states that antidepressants can
cause a craving for alcohol and alcohol abuse.

Also, the liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and the alcohol
simultaneously,  thus leading to higher levels of both alcohol and the
antidepressant
in the human body

http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/pilot-strikes-below-the-belt/1801972.aspx

Pilot strikes below the belt

ANDREW THOMSON
14
Apr, 2010 04:00 AM

A LONG-TIME RAAF officer has piloted his way into
trouble after grabbing another man’s testicles at the Port Fairy Folk Festival.

Jeff Todd, 51, of Ramsey Court, Lowood, pleaded guilty in the
Warrnambool Magistrates Court this week to unlawful assault.

He was not
convicted and fined $1000.

The court was told that on March 7 this year
Todd was at the festival between 6.30pm and 7.30pm when he became involved in a
verbal incident in a bar with a man not known to him.
Todd bumped into the
man several times in a bar and was asked to move away before the victim
requested security personnel to assist.

Todd moved away a few paces,
made some derogatory comments, then came up behind the victim and grabbed his
testicles with significant force.

“You’ve got no balls, mate,” Todd told
the victim and there was a short struggle before he released the victim’s
testicles.

Todd was kicked out of the venue and told not to come back.

He told police during an interview he had drunk a bottle of wine and had
little recollection of the incident.

At the time Todd was suffering
anxiety and depression and could have suffered a blackout.

The victim
suffered pain for about 12 hours and Todd wrote a letter of apology which was
passed on through police.

Defence counsel Danielle Svede said Todd had
no prior convictions, glowing references and had not drunk alcohol since the
incident.

She said the incident had a huge impact on her client’s
marriage, his wife was left shaken and Todd had consumed alcohol while on
medication and with an empty stomach that night.

Ms Svede said her client
was on 12 months leave from the air force, had undertaken anger management and
knew his behaviour was inappropriate.

Magistrate Jonathan Klestadt said
there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the defendant’s actions were
appalling.

He said the folk festival was not a place to be confronted by
drunken, boorish behaviour and assaulted.

748 total views, no views today