Slashdot Mirror
DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder
joke-boy writes "CNN reports that a driver in Alaska is being charged with second-degree murder for allegedly causing a fatality accident by driving while watching the movie 'Road Trip' in an in-dash DVD player. The driver contends he was just listening to music. Alaska has no laws prohibiting drivers from watching DVDs, although many other states do."
If you drive, you concentrate on the road, and if you don't do that, you face the consequences when the inevitable happens.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
it's murder 2 if you recklessly create the situation that leads to someone's death, knowing their could be dire consiquences -- for instance, not taking your psycho drugs and then you're skitzed-out self committs a murder; telling your boyfriend your dad won't let you see him anymore, and your boyfriend kills your dad; watching a DVD on those windy mountain roads instead of watching out for elk, or other cars. I've driven in Alaska -- the whole Al-Can highway, and the 'top of the world' and the bottom loop through civilization. It's not the kind of place drivers should be watching movies. if he hadn't been watching movies, maybe man 2. i'd say murder 2. of course, i havn't even taken my LSATS yet -- i just watch law & order a lot.
The More Laws, the less Justice --Marcus Tullius Cicero
I am not a lawyer, but I do know this:
Killing someone while driving drunk will get you charged with MURDER in some states, not vehicular manslaughter.
It's not the Webster definition of murder, but I'm sure people who are facing murder charges care a *lot* more about what the courts think, rather than what Webster thinks...
At least that's the way it was when I was growing up there.
:D
And it's pretty much the same road now. There are lots more passing areas between Anchorage and Girdwood, but summer time in Alaska means road construction, and for every passing lane, it seems like there's another construction spot. Slow down, wait, wait, wait.
My wife and I took turns two weeks ago driving from Anchorage to Sterling (on the same highway). The congestion is out of the norm for most Alaskans, and that increases tension, I think. Coupled with that the dumbasses in motor homes who don't obey the law (the one about pulling over if you're delaying 5 vehicles or more), and you get drivers that are in a big hurry.
Two damn near worthless quips. First, when I was driving down, we were on the flats just past Girdwood (say, about 60 miles out of Anchorage), and I had a perfect passing opportunity. I took it, and decided to take an extra car. What I didn't notice was the idiot in the oncoming lane, in a gray car, with out lit headlights. His car was damn near the same color as the road. Sheesh. Then, on the way back, the mrs. was driving, and she was going nuts -- passing folks and taking chances that I wouldn't have (and I'm a very aggressive driver). She actually said "I'd be freakin out if you were driving like this."
Back on topic, if the guy was watching a DVD on the Seward highway, he deserves prision.
The question will be what was his men rea, which is a fancy legal latin term for guilty state of mind.
If you read the article, it sounds like this is a custom made installation the guy did himself. If that's the case, I think there is a better chance that the prosecution can provide the guy acted with wanton disregard for human life. That can justify a verdict of second degree murder. Otherwise, I still think the guy could go for manslaughter. Manslaughter is no laughing matter as it still results in a good bit of prison time.
You are missing the very subtle distinction between EXPRESS and IMPLIED malice. Expressing a desire to kill someone would be express malice. Exhibiting a reckless disregard for human life would be implied malice. See the discussion here.
I think driving while watching a DVD could be a classic example of a reckless disregard for human life. The driver knew he was manuevering a ton of steel at high speed in a place where human beings were expected to be. I doubt that the DA had a choice in what charge to file, given both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Murder imlpies intent; manslaughter implies negligenece. That's the difference.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
To be fair to the UK parliment, they knew that. As did the police. Some forces were for a new law, some were against.
In principle, the offence was covered under 'driving without due care and attention'. In practice, most people felt that they were in full control of the vehicle, whilst chatting on the phone (in spite of studies to the contrary) [0]. Mobile phone use was endemic, so the legistlative decided to make it perfectly clear that is was not accpetable, by a specific and clear new law.
I understand that, although there have been very few prosecutions, there has been a marked decrease in mobile phone use whilst driving. This may be considered a sucessful law, in that it has reduced the dangerous behaviour significantly.
In short, the aim of the law was to educate the driving public, rather that create a new offense. It has a achieved that aim.
[0] I'll note that techincally driving whilst intoxicated falls into exactly the same catagory. Sepcific laws allow for specific limits and additional penalties, but that is, in principle, all they add.
The laws in Australia regarding in-car DVD players are:
1. The driver must not be able to see it while driving.
2. Other drivers must not be able to see it through the rear window.
I think these are sensible, and I expect that most countries will adopt similar laws.
Isn't it amazing how many people are too damned lazy to use a search engine to look for facts themselves? Is independent research really that hard? Googling mobile phones cars drink driving safety or cell phones cars drink driving safety too much for you?
Here are just two of the articles that those Google searches bring up:
1. Mobiles 'worse than drink-driving'; and
2. Driving and Dialing.
And, just because you're that damned lazy, here are a couple of quotes, one from each article:
1. Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research. Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol. And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones... "The person on the end of the phone doesn't know the driving conditions around you. If someone's in the car talking to you they can stop talking if a dangerous situation arises"... The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving normally...; and
2. "The New England Journal of Medicine" published a report in 1997 by Dr. Don Redelmeier of the University of Toronto. The study found that talking on a cellphone while driving quadrupled a person's risk of an accident. Redelmeier recently repeated his call to ban cellphone use by drivers, saying he actually underestimated the risks four years ago... Two other Canadian studies have raised questions about the safety of cell phones in the car. One by the University of Montreal included 36,000 people. The study found if you're using a cell phone while driving, you are 38 per cent more likely to get into an accident than if you're not using your cell phone. "Having a complicated telephone conversation is a demanding activity for the brain...depending on how stressful the conversation is," says Urs Maag of the Transportation Safety Laboratory at the university....
It's telling that you yourself use the word distraction, implying a loss of concentration on the task of driving.
I thought I had already explained in my previous post why mobile phone conversations were more dangerous than ones with a passenger, but clearly you either didn't think it was a sufficient answer. Did you try the little experiment that I suggested? I bet you didn't, so go do that.
In the meantime, imagine an NFL quarterback taking a snap, looking downfield for someone to throw the ball to and trying to talk to his wife via helmet radio about what colours and what fabrics they are going to use to redecorate their bedroom. Do you think that that QB is more or less likely to get creamed by a blitzing linebacker than if he wasn't having a chat with his wife? Because that's the level of distraction we're talking about: a road hazard can present itself in a split-second and anything that detracts from your reaction time is potentially going to kill you or someone else.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg