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.
With a vehicle, it would seem more likely in Alaska you'd cross the median and strike an elk, grizzly, or something like that.
Sigs cause cancer.
YRO now extends to driving around while not watching the road? If this didn't involve a DVD player, but involved a driver distracted by the aadvark he'd let loose in the truck would it be YRO?
John.
Was he arrested for killing somebody, or watching "Road Trip"?
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
He probably swerved at the large leopard underwear part!
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
If this car is coming out soon, we'll have drivers killed or charged when trying to communicate with each other :)
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
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
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.
Look, if you can't bother to pay enough attention to control the vehicle, get out from behind the &*^%$#@ wheel! Ditto if you can't stay awake. Is that so hard to understand?
...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"
If anything I see this case as proof that we DON'T need to update the laws.
Reckless and careless driving are ALREADY illegal in every state.
This is where we get into trouble, lawmakers have these crazy ideas that they must be constantly making new laws.
Honestly I can't think of ANY new laws that are needed, we don't need new rules, additional restrictions, additional things which require licenses.
In fact there are quite a few things we need to abolish. DMCA, fishing licenses, gun restrictions, FOID cards, pretty much ALL spam/internet legislation that has been passed, pretty well all the government contract legislation needs either abolished or reformed in a manner that reduces restrictions and complexity.
Although we have certain guaranteed freedoms (I'll pretend there haven't been so many instances where they've been ignored, disregarded, or somehow overturned despite the fact that no branch of state, local, or federal government is supposed to have the authority to overrule them), what we don't have anymore is day to day freedom.
The average man, who is doing nothing wrong and living his life should have as few controls, restraints, and tracking as humanly possible. Instead he must register, submit, fill out paperwork, file for a SS#, submit to tracking via that number, maintain an updated legal address, etc.
If a man wishes to have money in the bank, the government wants to know about it, and more they want to know how much and if too much they want to know where it came from. I say, bust me for drugs and then you can investigate my bank accounts, otherwise, leave me the hell alone!
In short, new laws and additional restrictions are bad. Especially when the only purpose they serve is to tack on another charge to give the states attorney a better hand when plea bargaining.
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 how about an IQ test?
I'd almost go along with this. We definitely need much stricter standards for driving. I think you should need additional testing to be allowed to use a phone while driving, too. It's clear that most drivers aren't capable of doing them both at the same time-- at least not safely.
In Japan, a driver's liceense is just that-- a professional license (at least it used to be). If you kill someone through professional negligence, you are in deeeep doodoo.
Works for me.
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.
You know, we had a section in the Alberta Highway Traffic Act that expressly stated "no televisions or video systems except in a motor coach" and that "it must be at no time visible to the driver of the motor vehicle".
The laws were updated into the 2003 Alberta Traffic Safety Act, and that section has been totally removed.
Similarly odd was the removal of act that required all 4 wheel motor vehicles to have mudflaps and they be a minimum of 6" off the ground.
Is it justified to repeal laws when enough people stop following them?
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.
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.
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
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.