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."

Comments

Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving laws have not kept up with technological changes, Weiser said.

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.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[acroyear]

Or the cops have been following the example of Law & Order -- you know, charge them with Murder 2 in order to get a plea bargain on Manslaughter.

but yeah, the idea that you need "special" laws for "special" cases, like killing a pregnant person, or driving with a cell phone (as opposed to the general "distracted driving" laws that every state has), or "killing a fellow teen as a gang-related crime" vs "killing a teen", or any of those damned things.

all it does is complicate things and make the lawyers very happy for the higher amount they can charge their clients...

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[jhunsake]

You're only looking at the small picture. There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal. While they are wrong, as you point out, they do happen to sit on juries all the time. Some of these people are so dense that it doesn't matter how much the prosecuter or judge explains the law, unless they can read the "no DVD players in cars" law themselves, they won't convict.

What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the point of that law in the UK was to really get the point across that using a Cellphone and driving at the same time is unaccpetable.

Without the law, people wouldn't be bothered as much by the Law (fuzz), as much as perhaps they should be. Hence they passed the law to leave no room for argument: ****Getting caught talking on the cellphone whilst driving will ensure that you get ticketed!!!!****

Well, officer!!!! I wasn't driving THAT badly! *sob*--Here's your ticket, bitch.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[WIAKywbfatw]

Actually, for the benefit of the wider audience, I would like to clarify that.

The law actually prohibits drivers from using hand-operated mobile phones whilst driving: the use of a totally hands-free phone is still permitted, although dangerous driving whilst using a hands-free phone can still be penalised.

The facts about mobile phone usage whilst driving are pretty clear though. Studies have shown that your attention is far less focused on the road, and your reaction times are slower, whilst talking on a mobile phone than it would be if you were driving whilst drunk. But, of course, everyone who regularly drives and chats away on a mobile at the same time doesn't think that this applies to them, because they're a "good" or "safe" driver.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[WIAKywbfatw]

There's still a huge difference between a hands-free mobile phone conversation and one with a passenger. For one thing, a passenger knows when not to talk to the driver because s/he can see that the driver is busy negotiating a difficult manouvre, etc. For another thing, people's expectations of what's an acceptable pause in a telephone conversation are different to a face-to-face conversation.

If you think that the two can be done without compromising the attention given to one or the other, just try this experiment: play a game that you're familiar with (RTS, FPS, whatever) that requires real-time input whilst having a telephone conversation with a friend about a different topic. See how long it takes you to screw up in your game and/or for your friend to realise that your attention is focused elsewhere.

This isn't an issue about drivers talking. It's an issue about drivers being sufficiently distracted from the road that they become a danger to themselves, their passengers, other road users and pedestrians.

Make an Example Out of This Guy

[windside]

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.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[StillAnonymous]

While I agree that what he did was wrong, and he should face the consequences, I don't agree with "making an example" out of anyone when it comes to the law. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally, with no exceptions.

Lawer Speak

[riptide_dot]

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.

Well....

[222]

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.

Prison sucks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

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.

Re:Prison sucks.

[j-turkey]

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.

How do you know that he was watching a DVD? Did you read the article? Do you know what their proof was? Here's a quote if you didn't read up:

"We know it was," she said. "It was wired so that the screen was in the open position when the ignition key was turned out."

So I'll sum it up. The video screen was open while the car was turned off (and there was a video disc in the player). That's all of their evidence...for a murder case. I sure hope (for all of our sake) that the DA has to produce better evidence than that to destroy a third life.

YRO?

[randyest]

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.

Re:This is YRO how?

[danheskett]

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.

And this infringes on my rights how?

[jdreed1024]

It certainly doesn't infringe on My Rights Online. He probably wasn't watching an illegal copy of the movie. He probably wasn't watching on a region-free player. He almost certainly wasn't coding DeCSS while driving. I don't get what this has to do with my rights online?

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.

The reason for laws like that

[lorcha]

The reason for laws like that is to make life easier on prosecutors. This way, they don't have to take the time to prove to a jury that driving while yacking on a cellphone is driving without due care and attention every time someone does that. The legislature simply states the obvious: that if you are driving while on a cell phone, then you are not paying enough attention to the road.

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).

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[jrockway]

No his freedom is vanishing because some people can't handle the freedoms. He might be able to chat on his cell-phone and drive quite safely. Just because you can't doesn't mean he should be penalized. That's his point.

Just like drunk driving ...

[magicianuk]

... 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.

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 ... 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).

YMMV

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[shellbeach]

No his freedom is vanishing because some people can't handle the freedoms. He might be able to chat on his cell-phone and drive quite safely. Just because you can't doesn't mean he should be penalized. That's his point.

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.

The freedom to text/chat on a mobile is equivalent to the freedom to drive around and randomly shoot at people. Both are dangerous. Both are stupid.

And both, thankfully, are illegal.