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.
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
I initially thought that the headline referred to a software driver for watching DVDs.
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
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.
I think you may be trolling here but I guess I will bite.
I actually live right off the Seward highway and was returning home from a fishing trip when this very accident occurred. I was stuck at a standstill with 10,000 of my closest friends for about 45 minutes.
During the summer this road is the main artery from Anchorage (pop. about 300k) and the Kenai Peninsula (where all the fun is). This narrow winding road is literally glutted with motorhomes, trucks towing large boats, and rental cars on weekends. Often it is moose that cause accidents on this road but more often it is people drifting over the center line. If this guy was watching a movie he deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It is not enough to succeed, others must fail. - Gore Vidal
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.
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
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?
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 other car is first.
... 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
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.
... 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.
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
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.