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."
They don't need to, because technology hasn't changed anything. Manslaughter is still manslaughter. Negligence is still negligence. Careless driving is still careless driving. When laws address general principles, ephemeral trends don't make any difference.
What, is the "keeping up" going to change what is obviously totally irresponsible negligent manslaughter, into murder? That's not keeping up, that's perversion. The crime is manslaughter.
There's no one alive so desperate for entertainment that they need an in-dash DVD player. The US Department of Justice (or whoever's in charge of this - I'm not sure) needs to underscore the fact that your own personal gratification needs to get put on hold when you're in control of a vehicle that can quite easily take lives.
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
doesnt that headline presume guilt? I think thats the only part of our rights online here
IANAL, but this just sounds like the DA is pushing for a charge that he know won't necessarily stick so as to make the case more visible publically. More than likely, this will get plead out or will be dropped to the more (IMHO) appropriate charge of vehicular manslaughter.
From a random websearch for homicide:
Murder (1,2,3): Murder with EXPRESS or IMPLIED MALICE or intent to kill or do harm
Manslaughter(1,2): Manslaughter without express or implied malice or intent to kill or do harm
It seems to me that the driver falls into the manslaughter category, which includes vehicular manslaughter. If he were to be convicted of murder, it would mean that all drunk driving fatalaties could now be classified as murders as well.
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
At first glance i thought second degree homocide was a little stiff (I would have leaned towards involuntary manslaughter with a more harsh than usual sentencing) but then it hit me...
This asshat was watching a DVD WHILE DRIVING. WTF. Its bad enough dodging people that cant wait to use their cellphone, but even then the eyes are generally focused on the road (Not that it seems to help...). I can only hope that the major news networks pick up this story so people realize how much a careless choice can cost them.
There aren't many people that I think we should send to prison.
Never let this guy drive again. Sending him to jail isn't helping anyone, though.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Your Rights Online: DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder
Rights online? What, was the idot browsing the web on a wifi connection also? Watching a DVD and driving a car wasn't enough stimulus, so he needed to, er, post on slashdot? IMDB forums? download porn at the same time?
Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO.
everything in moderation
Read the law sometime. Unless you are familiar with the statues of Alaska, you are probably very wrong.
In most states, 2nd degree murder can also be qualified when you show "gross and flagrant disregard for human life". Manslaughter usually carries with it the tag of "negligent", "careless", etc.
What this man is accused of is showing an amazing indifference to others safety while operating a heavy fast machine. He acted with malice ("my DVD-watching enjoyment is more important than your right to avoid being killed in a car crash") towards his fellow citizens.
First Off... The irony! He was watching Road Trip while driving? What a laugh!
Now, for the real comment: Who cares whether watching the DVD is a crime or not? In fact, as long as people don't get hit or cars get crashed, I couldn't care less what the driver next to me is doing. (However, watching DVDs would probably cause these kinds of accidents, so if they wanted to prohibit it, I'd be glad to hear it.).
I'd be glad to see this kind of driver put away, not because of watching a DVD per se, but for not watching the road. What he did was irresponsible, and someone paid with his life. He is, AFIK, a true criminal.
All vehicle DVD players or other video screens must be behind the driver's head and facing away from said driver. Problem solved. Sound reasonable?
But wait.. decent smart laws like this will have to get in line behind laws to take away citizens' fair use rights and campaigning!
-- jimmycarter
...why not disable in-dash DVD players or TV's when the vehicle is in motion? Bored front-seat passengers can console themselves with the thought that the driver is actually looking at the road ahead.
Now, if we could just deal with the other morons who think it's just fine to drive and read a newspaper, or put on makeup, or turn around and smack a kid in the backseat, or steer with one finger while holding a coffee cup as their left arms hangs out the window.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
As has been pointed out by three or four people already, the term "malice" as applied to murder legally includes "reckless disregard". Malice need not be explicit - it can be implicit in the nature of the act. If you're a surgeon who kills a patient because you operated drunk, you have no explicit malice, but you can still be prosecuted for second-degree murder because you acted with reckless disregard for human life. Whether or not the DVD case counts as reckless disregard remains to be seen, but other states (such as California) already consider such action reckless.
Or with my rights at all for that matter. I don't have a right to not pay attention to the road. I don't have a right to be distracted while driving. And I certainly don't have a right to any form of entertainment I choose while driving?
He was distracted in his car and crossed the double yellow line. End of story.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Now the defendant can't argue that he/she has some special ability to drive and yack at the same time without being distracted (even though he/she just caused an accident while on a cell).
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
>...thinking of putting a touchscreen lcd up front so that i could display extra gauges at a minimal price...
Before taking this step, I hope you'll consider the four problems that LCD-based touchscreen automotive displays have. I'd hate to see a fellow slashdotter get in an accident.
1. Poor contrast compared to dedicated analog gauges -- your eyes can see a white needle on a black background on a standard gauge much faster than a while pixelated line on a black lcd background, because lcd black isn't really black -- it's gray. It also has no depth, and is more susceptable to being washed out by the sun.
2. You cannot navigate by feel using a touchscreen. Consider how often you change your CD tracks by glancing at your radio to make sure your hand is aimed in the right direction, then looking back at the road while you move your fingers to the correct button by touch.
I can't emphasize this second shortcoming enough; a friend has one of those palm-powered phones where you use the touchscreen to dial, and he said he never realized how often he dialed without looking until he tried to use the new phone. He got rid of it shortly thereafter.
3. Center-mounted LCDs tend to be too close to the driver, requiring a lot of neck rotation and eye refocusing to view. Even the manufacturers who put LCDs (and even standard gauges) in the center of the dash try to push them as far forward as possible to minimize this effect; with touchscreen LCDs, though, you can't push them so far away that they can't be touched.
Custom installations are even worse, since you won't have the same access to dashboard component reconfiguration that the manufacturer has without laying out a lot of cash.
4. Multiple screens on one display == more attention required to navigate the screens, when compared to buttons that have a single placement and a single purpose under all conditions. You're more likely to divert your attention to think about which menu you're going through, and that's dangerous unless you're at a stoplight.
All I know about American Law, I learned from Law & Order.
From what I understand, if you act in a way which shows a depraved or reckless indifference towards human life, you can be charged with murder in the second degree.
Again, IANAL. IWTV. (I watch TV)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Come on. People will drive like morons no matter what. My freedoms are being taken away piece by piece because of morons like you.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Pedestrian and runner here.
Throw him in prison for a couple decades. The idea that a driver's license gives somebody a right to treat the windshield like a video game is psycho and anybody who thinks otherwise should grow up. It is a responsibility and actually does require the full attention of one's brilliant mind (unless one is a Senator from South Dakota).
No excuses. No "oopsy!" No "two kills and you're out." Just no excuses. I remember a few years ago when some local kids were randomly shooting a rifle out a car window and "accidently" killed a guy on a porch. They got several years in reform school. What's the difference between a rifle and a car when it is wielded irresponsibly in a death?
By that reasoning drunk driving laws are unnecessary also. After all it is very negligent to drive under the influence of alcohol. The problem is that without laws that spell it out the law may be too vague to prosecute offenders.
There are a lot of people who don't believe that talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous. Yet it has been shown that people using non-hands-free cell phones while driving have an accident rate roughly equivalent to drunk drivers. Sounds like a good law to have to me.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
... speeding, drug taking, discharging a firearm in a public place, taking a gun on board an airplane, running a red light, driving without insurance, using a false passport, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater etc.
... but there are enough idiots out there that feel exactly the same but are not safe (several of whom have nearly hit my car in the last year or two).
Part of being a member of society, is that you accept that society places restrictions ("laws") on what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. I have a right to LIFE as well as Liberty (according to the Constitution) and sometimes those contradict.
Liberty is not selfishness. Liberty is about each person taking personal responsibility, and when enough people show that they can't exercise their freedom and liberty in a safe and sensible manner, then, for the safety and freedom of all, restrictions (I believe) are sensible though regrettable.
I may feel perfectly safe using a cellphone while driving
YMMV
Killing someone during the commission of a crime is regarded as murder, atleast in my jurisdiction.
Actually, killing someone during the commission of a felony is murder. (And not even all felonies.) Reckless driving is a misdemeanor in any juridiction I know of, and thus would result in the application of the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule, if it exists in your juridiction, rather than felony-murder.
Thus either "driving without due care and diligence" is a felony, you have a misdemeanor-murder rule, or you're wrong in this case. The first could be true, the second is almost certainly false if you're in a jurisdiction with laws based on English common law (e.g. essentially the entire US), so I tend toward the third view.
For example, two crooks rob a bank, the police kill one, the other one is automatically a murderer, because his pal was killed by police during their crime... (ok, prosecutors don't usually do this, but they have before)
Even under jurisdictions with felony-murder, such a conclusion is not widespread. Most follow the "agent" theory, which says that the perps are only responsible for crimes committed by their agents. The officer isn't an agent, and thus the felony-murder rule doesn't apply to killings by the officer.
(You very well may live in a jurisdiction that uses the "proximate cause" theory--as opposed to the agent theory--though, so the above paragraph is there for people's interest and information rather than as a correction.)
BTW: to your parent (my grandparent): murder implies intent OR extreme negligence; manslaughter implies gross negligence.
I agree that getting a driver's license should be tough. However, the last 3-4 times I've almost been involved in an accident (which incidently I was able to avoid because I was paying attention) it was the result of the other driver being distracted because they were yapping on a cell phone.
I'm all for laws that make it a criminal offense for a driver to engage in an activity that is likely to distract they to the point that they become a potential liability. If that means I personally have to pull my vehicle over to use a cell phone then I'll gladly pay that price.
There is no reason for a law to be made banning DVD-watching / use or banning mobile phones.
Reckless driving is reckless driving. negligent driving is negligent driving.
Regardless of if you are tired, on the phone, drinking a cofee or playing with Fido in the passenger seat... if you drive recklessly, that is driving recklessly. Even if you have no distractions and drive recklessly, YOU ARE DRIVING RECKLESSLY... that is what the crime should be.
No need to idiotic laws.
oh, get ready.. you're going to see lots more DVD-watching related accidents on the road.. I love how cars are integrating more and more things that take a driver's attention off the road... GPS screens, DVD players, fancier head units... between those, talking on a cell phone, text messaging, updating a palm pilot entry and whatever else, i'll bet on a typical day, a driver has 40% focus on the road. when will there be focus laws enforced? if a trooper catches you doing anything besides driving, you should get pulled. driving *correctly* and safely demands 100% of your attention and focus. people are idiots anyway.. and now we're asking them to do 1, 2, 3 things at a time.. when we're travelling in a giant speeding box, a moving weapon.. and it will only get worse.
"hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
My friend, let me enlighten you. Everyone who has had an accident while using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing: that they were able to chat (and worse, SMS!!) on their phone and drive quite safely ... right up until the point where they killed either themselves or someone else. Self-perceptions of risk are never reliable, and especially not in situations like this where other people get killed.
Those who are truly wrong in their assessment of the risk are liable. But not every accident that is blamed on distraction is in fact caused by distraction. And while some people are incorrect in assuming they can drive and do something else at the same time, other people do both together. Also, let me tell you about a more serious source of distraction than cell phones: passengers, particularly kids.
Driving doesn't need to be your only priority but it does have to be your first priority. And I mean that in a very strict preemptive real time OS scheduling sense. If you can't enforce your priorities, do not multitask!
The prohibitionist view is that any risk is unacceptable. horsefeathers. Some level of risk is reasonable. One must weight the risk/benefit ratio.
Consider, for comparison, the drunk driving witch hunt. Yes, some people really should not be driving and originally the compaign actually did some social good; now the campaign is socially harmful. Even the "drunk" with 0.10% BAC who drives 1 home mile at 168% greater risk of having an accident is less of a threat to society than the tetotaller who drives 10 miles to go to a movie. The drunk has 3.68 risk adjusted miles (1 getting to the bar, 2 going home) and the tetotaller 10 risk miles. Both could have stayed home. But the "drunk" at 0.10% BAC is the one who faces legal persecution (DUI), even if he doesn't get involved in an accident. Drinkers usually choose bars close to their homes. In fact, if he drives home at 17 miles an hour instead of 35 (assuming it is late so he can do so without blocking traffic), completely canceling out the risk of alcohol he greatly increases his chances of prosecution. Further, NHTSA statistics that cite the percentage of accidents involving alcohol blame alcohol if the BAC was 0.01% or greater (relative risk 1.03 vs. sober) whether or not the person who consumed alcohol caused the accident in whole or in part. Ok, 45% of fatal accidents "involved" alcohol. In what percentage did alcohol cause the accident? In what percentage were the people hurt not the ones drinking? What percentage of people who did not have accidents had 0.01% BAC or greater? Less than one third of the fatalities in accidents "involving" alcohol were third parties (i.e. not the driver or someone who accepted the elevated risk when they got into the car with them). 92% of accidents do not involve alcohol at all. Two thirds of fatal crashes involve BAC greater than 0.15% with an average of 0.17% (risk factor: 39.05), yet the witch hunters keep trying to lower the legal limits. There is no statistically significant improvement in fatality rates from lowering DWI limits from 0.10% and 0.08%, according to a former MADD chapter executive director who reveals that MADD's priority is stopping drinking, not saving lives. Not even MADD's founder endorses their current policy: "I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. [.08 legislation] ignores the real core of the problem...If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road. --Candy Lightner, founder of MADD"
Back to driver distraction.