Slashdot Mirror
Driver Sued For Updating Facebook In Fatal Crash
An anonymous reader writes "21-year-old Chicago motorist Araceli Beas has been accused of attempting to update her Facebook page on her cell phone when she allegedly struck and killed 70-year-old Raymond Veloz. The victim's daughter, Regina Cabrales, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, asking for an unspecified amount of money. Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident. As proof, she points to the fact that Beas' Facebook page showed an update posted at 7:54 AM on December 7, 2010, which is the same time that Veloz's cell phone records showed a call being made to 911."
I assume the phone call was made AFTER the wreck. If she updated at the same time as the 911 call, wouldn't the update also be AFTER the wreck?
This is, of course, assuming that the person making the call isn't psychic and made the call before the wreck.
Since driving and using a cell phone at the same time are illegal in the city of Chicago, having evidence that the driver was doing so at the time of the accident means the defendant has a rough day in court ahead.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Ironic punishment time. Every one of the victims relatives and friends who desires to do so gets to run over Beas while they update their facebook page.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
She's 21. How many assets could she have?
What, are they going to give Veloz her meal plan card and iPod?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
while driving, then it should be legal to take bong hits.
Criminal suits ==> "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
Civil suits ==> "Preponderance of evidence"
As this is a civil suit (wrongful death is civil), the rules for civil suits apply. Most knee-jerk reactions want to look to "reasonable doubt" and then look into any time disparities among the phone, Facebook and other services and factors involved in the establishment of this evidence. (for example, timezone data could have significant impact on the reported time(s) from the phone company, the 9-1-1 service, Facebook and more.)
If all of those time issues are in correct synchronization, then the preponderance of evidence rule would probably result in the plaintiff winning the case.
The court will garnish her wages for up to 30 years.
This has nothing to do with computers. She should be banned from driving for life.
She's 21. I bet she has some really nice assets.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Totally agree if she did it.
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
That said, I'd say there are enough questions here that it's 50/50 whether she is guilty or not. Luckily that's what investigations and trials are for.
Since you can't use data and voice at the same time.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
She's 21. I bet she has some really nice assets.
She is America dude, big maybe, but nice ... not a chance.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Enable 17 minute fuzzy time stamp modulator. I'd also like a random "anywhere but here" comment updater for use as an alibi, since facebook updates are now legal evidence.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Ironic punishment time. Every one of the victims relatives and friends who desires to do so gets to run over Beas while they update their facebook page.
Wouldn't that be considered 'cruel and unusual punishment'? The victim was 70 so his wife would probably take forever to update her status with a cell while driving over Beas.
There are two key things we do not know. Were the devices used to provide the time stamps for the Facebook post and the 911 call set to the same time? How much time passed, if any, between when she posted her update to Facebook and when Facebook timestamped it?
The girl's mother is claiming that her daughter made the updates when her car was parked in front of her boyfriend's house before she started driving. It is certainly reasonable to believe that there was sufficient differential between the devices providing the two different time stamps for this to be plausible. If she was updating her Facebook page while driving she should suffer significant retribution, but that is yet to be determined.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Well, if you search on facebook for her name, you'll get her page, and now you can judge. Not my pick.
proof Facebook kills.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Veloz = Fast
Beas basically committed a murder
No, Beas basically allegedly committed vehicular manslaughter, or is there evidence of evil intent you're secretly aware of?
A few public executions would very likely reduce the number of fools that use smartphones while driving
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
Agreed. Could we start by punishing people who drive under the influence? Right now copyright infringers get worse punishments.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
There are millions of people who text, update facebook, and talk on the phone while driving every day, it could happen to you, me, anyone!
.
Where I live, it is illegal to do so. If whatever you're doing is distracting your attention from safe control of the 1000-3000kg object travelling at likely more than 30mph, then stop fucking doing it.
which is totally what she said
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital. Beas told police that she had been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the collision, which resulted in a ticket for striking a pedestrian in the roadway. The driver involved in the earlier minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun as well. Beas’ mother, Rosario Rodriguez, came to her daughter’s defense claiming that she posted the Facebook update as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home, which is located two miles away from where the crash occurred.
So. The woman could very well have been unable to see due to the sun. Was the victim standing in the road? Did they move their vehicles to the side of the road? It's impossible to prove that the driver was using her phone at the time of the accident.
If she is found guilty she should simply be banned from driving for 10 years, as she has proven she cannot be trusted with operating a motor vehicle. She's from Chicago, she can take the El like everyone else. Also such a punishment not only fits the crime but is a far better deterrent for such irresponsible actions than jail time (which everyone believes could never happen to them) or financial burdens (which the government usually makes sure you're not made homeless by).
The only way it could happen to me is if some JACKASS who doesn't have the common sense and self-discipline required to pay attention when navigating a two-ton vehicle slams into me while I'm driving. Or maybe walking on the sidewalk. It's exactly that sort of jackass that I don't want on the road with me! THAT is why she should be banned from driving for life. Until the OTHER JACKASSES, the ones you are talking about, who suffer from the same problem realize that their behaviors will have serious consequences, they will KEEP DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING! This is not about vengeance! This is not about someone being at the wrong place at the wrong time! If she'd been PAYING ATTENTION when she was in that place, this WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Because she wasn't taking reasonable precautions to prevent or mitigate said accident. Hell, the precaution of not texting is _legally_mandated_ in many states. Maybe the old dude walked our in front of her at the last second, and maybe even a stunt driver couldn't have prevented the accident, but the point is that she had some basic disregard for the safety of others.
zomg fatul crash lol
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
She killed someone while in charge of a motor vehicle, ostensibly while using a phone while driving, but even taking that out of the equation, her defence is that she was "blinded by sunlight" in which case she should have been driving more carefully - much more slowly and with greater attention paid to the scene in front of you which is obscured by the strong light source. Either way, phone or not, she killed someone by being careless. It's no different to her waving a gun around that she's not sure is loaded without looking where she's pointing it and accidentally shooting someone. That would be an accident too, but an avoidable one - just like driving into someone who was involved in another accident shorty before you came across them. You have to look where you're going, and if you can't see far enough ahead to stop in time for any reason you slow the fuck down and increase your concentration even more to be sure that if you do come across something unexpected, like a car stopped in the road, or a pedestrian, or a fallen tree - anything, that you can stop as safely as possible.
There are two applicable laws in the UK (obviously, the US is slightly different, but from my own perspective) - one is "driving without due care and attention" and the other is "death by dangerous driving" - the second one is there because driving a car is a serious responsibility; it's a potentially lethal weapon that requires your attention and respect when in control. If you don't treat it with respect and you kill someone, you might as well have been standing in a room full of people with a revolver while blindfolded and randomly firing in 6 directions.
The court may as well just give Veloz every asset that Beas has. After all, Beas basically committed a murder and should be put away for life at a minimum. No need for any assets.
Well considering that Veloz was killed those assets are not going to do him much good
Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who text while driving. Nuff said.
Beas basically committed a murder
No, Beas basically allegedly committed vehicular manslaughter, or is there evidence of evil intent you're secretly aware of?
Note that 3rd-degree murder and manslaughter are the same thing in the States. 1st degree == intentional and premeditated. 2nd degree == intentional but not premeditated, "crime of passion" etc, 3rd degree == manslaughter like this if she is found guilty. It is not incorrect to call it murder.
How does being banned from driving translate to being supported in prison for $200k/year for life in your mind?
I don't have driving license, can I get that $200k government money thing without the prison part? Should I be on the look out for the cops coming to throw me in jail for the henious crime of not being allowed to drive?
Rosario Rodriguez said her daughter, Araceli Beas, posted that she needed to go to the gym as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home near East 80th Street and South Commercial Avenue last Dec. 27.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-womans-mom-denies-facebook-allegation-20110215,0,4906576.story
The people who need to have that explained to them should never be trusted with a driver's license.
Also, permanently revoking her license doesn't imply prison time. There may be prison time, but it's not a requirement of taking her license away for life.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
from TFA; "Rosario Rodriguez said her daughter, Araceli Beas, posted that she needed to go to the gym as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home near East 80th Street and South Commercial Avenue last Dec. 27. Beas struck Raymond Veloz about two miles away near 92nd Street and South Ewing Avenue, police said at the time." Also from TFA; "Police cited Beas for failure to avoid striking a pedestrian. Beas and the driver involved in the minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun." Far from an open and closed case, I'd say, but then, WhaddaIknow?
The article is light on details but here is what is published: a Facebook update was made on the defendants account near the time of the accident. It is implied it was made from the defendants account. The plaintiff however must prove that it was made by the defendant herself. In the article, the defendant's mother claims she made the update from another location. Again it is up to the plaintiff to prove it really was the defendant updating the status and not any other explanation.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
A side lesson from this is to avoid standing in the road if at all possible. If you get in a wreck and need to talk to the other driver, do so well off the road, on the far side of your vehicle. Don't stand between the vehicles and traffic.
Why should she be banned for driving from life when she was in the wrong place at the wrong time (an accident)?
First, it's illegal to do exactly what she was doing while driving in Illinois. Second, she killed someone while doing so. What happened is pretty much a word-for-word description of vehicular homicide/manslaughter.
Well obviously what Mitnick did was much worse than killing people... he stole money from wealthy people! I think it's pretty obvious by just about every measure of our American society that stealing from the wealthy is a much more dire crime than murder.
Stealing from the poor? not so much.
This is the reason the USA is in such an economic swirly. THE COST OF A LIFE IS NOT INFINITE! The sooner people accept this the sooner we can get on with a health care plan, welfare system, prison system, and most importantly defense budget that actually make sense. The military has put the cost of a human life at 2 million dollars for a long time, did you know that? The public needs to do the same, meaning even though Kevin Metnick did not kill anyone, he caused great financial harm, and that is just as bad. Even though you cannot rationalize it your head, the economy doesn't care. Since Metnick admitting that he caused 5 to 10 million dollars in damages, that would be equal to him killing 2-5 people, now what do you think his sentence should be?
Does that mean that if a wealthy person spends $300 million on a huge mansion he didn't really need, then he's actually a mass murderer?
Of course that's absurd. I see that you disagree with this, but personally I draw a (gigantic) distinction between causing financial damage to those fictitious legal entities we call corporations, versus directly causing the death of another real human being. If you understand nothing else, note that money can be paid back or earned back or restitution made, but resurrecting people who are dead and buried isn't possible. The legal system recognizes this distinction too, which is why Mitnick wasn't charged with 2-5 counts of murder.
The reason the US is in an economic "swirly" isn't because we failed to sufficiently devalue human life. It's because of the worst kind of people making all of its important decisions who make a revolving door between political office and corporate executive positions, because we thought that building up tremendous bubbles that must eventually burst was a good idea, because rampant speculation has made a casino out of what was intended to be all about long-term investment in viable companies, because much credit was given to people who were not creditworthy, because bad debts were made into securities and resold again and again, because the US hardly makes anything anymore other than movies and music and has accumulated gigantic trade deficits especially with China, because the US routinely spends more money than it has causing it to print more money causing inflation, because average consumers have a negative savings index, and generally because we fail to understand that debt is the only form of slavery that's still legal. Fix all of those things and the economy will improve without ever charging Mitnick with mass murder.
If you want to demonize Mitnick, seems rather useless but OK fine, have at it. Don't pretend like he's a murderer or some imaginary equivalent to a murderer though because he simply isn't. Everyone from the state to the lawyers to the private prison operators gets more money if more criminal charges stick. They would have nailed him with it if they could have because they have plenty of incentive. They didn't because the case cannot reasonably be made.
I hope you're trolling. I'd rather believe that than think you're seriously that deluded.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Crap, just killed some old dude. Will be late for party... anyone have a link to a CPR guide? He's still gurgling a bit.
Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who text while driving. Nuff said.
Yet another death caused by fucking idiots who are standing in the middle of the road, and not following the law by moving their vehicles to a safe area, then blaming everyone else.
Per: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+11+Art.+IV&ActID=1815&ChapterID=49&SeqStart=107600000&SeqEnd=109200000 (625 ILCS 5/11402) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11402) Sec. 11402. Motor vehicle accident involving damage to vehicle.
the old guy was supposed to move his car (and himself) off the road to safety and not be blocking the road. he is obviously standing in the road(on the edge is still on the road), otherwise, how did he get hit? what, are people driving on sidewalks in chicago now?
This is just like I hear on the news all the time - truck driver (18 wheeler, etc) assumed at fault because his truck crashes into a car, and kills someone. -- story clarified later: person in car thinks the world owes them something, are changing lanes with no turn signals, weaving, and slams on the brakes to avoid the car 9000 feet in front of them that tapped their brakes...truck runs their car over because trucks that are loaded down weighing 80,000lbs dont like to stop on a dime... oh, lets sue the truck driver, get the aclu/naacp involved because the person in car was black, and truck driver was white, etc, blah blah. arrgh!
How about some personal responsibility instead?
He was calling 911 about the first accident when she struck him.
Classic bit of false inference.
Assuming the phone times were accurate and in sync (big assumption), someone was calling 911 on the victim's phone at the same time as she hit "submit" on her Facebook upgrade. That this was the victim reporting the first accident is a reasonable surmise, but there's no evidence of this. Nor is it stated anywhere that the victim was on the phone at the time of the second accident.
The critical bit of missing information is the precise time of the second accident. If you read TFA-within-TFA this is given as "about 8:00".
So even if the timings are in sync and "about 8:00" was precise, the defendant could reasonably have finished Facebooking 6 minutes before the fatal accident. That sounds like enough time to be parked up, put down your phone, pull out and drive 2 miles. Even easier if "about 8:00" means "8:05" or "8:10".
Its really not worth delving into the details of when the calls/postings were made unless the time of the accident can be pinpointed with comparable accuracy (unless you plan on baffling a jury with bullshit).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
GP's point is it's entirely possible that she WASN'T posting to facebook while driving.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Well obviously what Mitnick did was much worse than killing people... he stole money from wealthy people! I think it's pretty obvious by just about every measure of our American society that stealing from the wealthy is a much more dire crime than murder.
Stealing from the poor? not so much.
And God help you if you infringe someone's copyright.
FYI the primary method of stealing from the poor and middle class is inflation. Why would you go through all the nastiness of taking the money itself away from them when you can leave the money right where it is, safe and sound in their bank accounts, and just take its value away instead? It's the biggest hidden tax in existence and incredibly regressive, since the truly wealthy don't keep piles of cash in a giant vault; they tend to invest most of their money in assets. What, did you really think you could have a scenario where about 50% of the population pay no federal taxes without finding some other way to make them pay? This is government we're talking about.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Umm... what? How exactly to you defeat inflation.. wait...
Does the President have a secret plan to fight inflation?
I'm wondering how the subject of Updating Facebook ever came up. If anyone has a posting to explain that, I'd love to see it.
This is Slashdot. Most of the people who post here can't even read TFS, let alone TFA. Don't introduce complex ideas like that to them, they will never cope.
Instead, put a big sign in the windscreen that flashes up every 10 seconds reminding them that they should only go fast enough to brake to a stop in the distance that is visibly clear in front of their vehicle.
Although, that would be too open and shut. The lawyers who profit from this crap might not make enough money to want that law pushed by their favourite congresscritter.
Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
All is well, provided Facebook uses the same time-zones as the phone company. Or she could have updated her page an hour or so earlier...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Totally agree if she did it.
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
That said, I'd say there are enough questions here that it's 50/50 whether she is guilty or not. Luckily that's what investigations and trials are for.
I think this story is proof that I should be allowed to use my cell phone while driving.
postmodernsideshow.com
Except it isn't. As numerous people have stated, she has witnesses to the fact that the Facebook post happened two miles from the accident in her driveway while waiting for the car to warm up. The other party in the first accident was a witness to the fact that the sun was right in motorists eyes, and may have been the cause of the first accident. The 70 yo guy was standing presumably in the street when struck, and even at 30 MPH, you are going quite fast enough to injure someone as badly as he was injured. It is entirely likely Baes had slowed down due to the sun, but did not see the man standing in the middle of the freaking road in time to prevent the accident. This may be considered manslaughter, but I can't see her being prosecuted for that. Do you expect people in the middle of a lane on the highway when you are driving? If your vision is difficult from staring into the sun, are you likely to see someone doing this rather odd thing in time to avoid the accident?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
How about don't stand in the road if you don't want to be hit? Just last weekend I was passenger in a car and we were almost in an accident with a driver that had already been in a minor car accident, it was twilight, he was standing at the drivers window of the car he had hit stopped in the turn lane by a traffic light. We were in the oncoming car driving through the intersection and could not see him until the last moment due the headlights being on in the car he was standing next to. We were lucky, and swerved into the right lane (4 lane street with center turn lane), and thankfully there was no car there when we did. From our approaching perspective there was no warning that there had been an accident (no hazard lights, etc.), it just looked like a couple of cars in the turn lane waiting for a break in traffic to turn. While driving you simply don't expect someone to be standing in the road in the blind spot created next to a car headlight on a somewhat dark street. The point I am trying to make with this is that people often use poor judgement after being in an accident, they are distracted by all sorts of things, stress, relief, as well as the need to talk with other drivers, call a tow truck, the police, etc. This makes them do stupid things like stand in the oncoming traffics lane in a place where they are obscured by the glare from the headlights of a car.
Based on the articles, it's highly unlikely she's guilty.
A facebook update time is not when you actually updated it. It's when facebook gets around to publishing it. On a cell this can take minutes*. She has witness saying she posted it several minutes before the accident.
Pro tip: when ever you think something is 50/50, think again. Except in some very specific instance it's never that case. Either it will or it won't is poor reasoning.
*MINTUES! I want it to update NOW~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Facebook Kills.
This is your brain on Facebook.
Etc...
why? because someone stood in the road while being fully aware oncoming cars couldn't see them and then getting hit?
Read the articles.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why should she be banned for driving from life when she was in the wrong place at the wrong time (an accident)?
An 'accident', you say? Hmmmm. This simple fact is that most 'accidents' are not really accidents at all - they are generally completely avoidable given proper driving habits - Don't use the phone, don't tailgate, don't drive too fast when visibility is poor, don't drive too fast when other conditions warrant more cautious driving, keep your car in a safe running order. The list goes on and on. When two cars tangle (or a car and a pedestrian) there is a 99.999% probability at least one party was in some way *at fault*. Cops don't call then accidents, they are simply traffic collisions. In this respect, the insurance companies are to blame here - they want to assign no responsibility and they will in most case consider then 'no-fault' accidents, or at worst blame both drivers. But I digress.
,and we all know how much people value things that don't cost much.
Driving in the state of California is a privilege, not a right. I am sure that it's the same in all the other states. Most drivers today should not be on the road. Getting a license to drive should be difficult and more expensive - similar to getting a pilots license. Getting a license costs virtually nothing
It should also be easier to loose should you do something bone headed - like killing someone, DUI, being involved in too many traffic collisions or having too many moving violations. Once it has been revoked, it should be even harder (20+ hours of classes and community service) and more expensive ($1,000's) to get it back. If you don't learn the first time and once again have the license revoked - I hope that you like public transport 'cause you ain't gettin' it back.
Just in case you are wondering - I was a truck driver for many years and have taken many driving courses from basic to trucks, defensive driving and even rally racing. I still drive rallies when I feel the need. Sadly, I mostly drive a desk. How lame is that?
I have been involved in five driving incidents where my vehicle has contacted another vehicle.
1 - Once I backed into a car in a parking lot.
2 - I rear-ended sombody who cut in front of me and then hit the brakes.
3 - I rear ended somebody who stopped at a green light on a wet, down hill road ( I hit the brakes, but no traction on that surface - leaves and water don't provide a good road)
4 - The parking brake failed in a parking lot and my car rolled into another.
5 - Some bimbo rear ended me while I was sitting at a red light - she was on the phone.
In all cases, the vehicle was well under 10 mph and little if any damage was caused. In all cases (except #4), I paid for the repairs directly with out involving insurance or the local cops.
I have had many occurrences what I have had to swerve to avoid being hit by people on the phone.
So to sum up - YES! I believe that people involved in traffic collisions because they were distracted by the phone should have their license taken away.
I AM Evil Homer.
Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
Umm... what? How exactly to you defeat inflation.. wait...
Does the President have a secret plan to fight inflation?
The President caused a lot of inflation with his stimulus. When you run a budget deficit that trillion or so has to come from someplace; it was created from nothing like all other fiat currencies. I don't think he's likely to do much to prevent it. Same deal with the Bush bailouts. Print (well, more like create electronically) money from nothing, give it to businesses which are "too big to fail", and voila, you have taken the value from the savings of the poor and middle classes (that they might have used to acquire wealth and move upwards) and transferred it to corporations without ever actually taking anyone's money.
The best way to fight inflation is to do away with fiat currency and move to a representative currency like a gold standard or a silver standard. Then you don't print money unless you actually have a scarce hard asset to back it. There will be no real political support for such a move however, because the license to print money is too useful for politicians of both parties. They'd have a much harder time if they had to actually raise taxes each time they wanted to spend large amounts of money that we don't have.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
So, you want to set the value on people's lives equal to what the military does?
While driving you simply don't expect someone to be standing in the road in the blind spot created next to a car headlight on a somewhat dark street.
That right there is the error in your assumption. As a driver you have to "expect the unexpected" and be prepared for anything - if you see cars in the turn lane waiting for a break in the traffic then expect that a pedestrian might step out (possibly to cross the road, possibly for other reasons).
If you see a guy waiting to pull out into the road in front of you don's assume he will wait for you to pass, assume he is going to cut you off and be ready if he does. It's all about awareness when driving, and considering possible situations and assessing the traffic. It's too easy to be lulled into a false sense of security because often there *won't* be a pedestrian stepping out, or a car stopped around a blind bend, or a car sat in your blind spot in the passing lane, but complacency leads to accidents.
It seem to me there's some confusion between what is client side and what is server side.
When Beas pushed the button on the phone (the client) the phone begins initiating the process of trying to send the information. The phone must then establish a connection with Facebook (the server) through the cell phone company's towers. This can take anywhere from milliseconds to hours depending on the circumstances. When Facebook finally receives the message, it process the message, posts it, and puts a time stamp on it (the time shown on the Facebook post).
It is key to note that this time may not indicate the time of the button press. How well the two times correlate to one another can be determined through a statistical study (information that may or may not be available). This information will only tell the probabaility of Beas pushing the button within an interval of time (however long is determined to have an effect on her driving). Beas' button press may also be a statistical outlier and not fall into the interval of time being looked at.
However, if Beas' cell phone keeps timestamp of when the button was pressed (client side), then we just look at that and forget everything else.
Yep, Gold Standard is gone the way of the Dodo, or Firefly. It might be a damn shame, but no use trying to get it back, cause like car-keys in a lavaflow, they're gone man, they're gone.
Also, my sentence up there was from The West Wing.
IANAL, but I think that in most jurisdictions, behaving recklessly in such a way that a death can reasonably foreseeably result from your actions (such as waving a loaded gun around with the safety off) is enough to get convicted of at least some degree of murder if said death actually occurs, even without intent.
I think it's called "reckless indifference".
Well, if you text, update your facebook, drive drunk or otherwise are not fully in control, you are absolutely going to kill someone sometime, so it ought to count as premeditated.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
So she argues that she is innocent of the infraction of vehicular homicide due to inattention and instead admits that she is guilty of the infraction of vehicular homicide due to driving to fast for the conditions. Your honor, I would like to drop the suit, and oh, by the way I have another suit I would like to put forth, one in which the defendant has already admitted guilt.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You're right, lets just shoot her.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
People who make these claims really don't understand the economy of scale of the prison system. Hint: Getting a prisoner out of the system doesn't generate a $200K P&L bonus for anyone.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
It could even be ruled that the facebook timestamp isn't admissible as evidence, and the jury won't even hear about the status update at all.
This sort of issue isn't uncommon.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I wonder if this might play into future decisions by GM.
You may have a point, but the reality is to go around creeping along through a somewhat busy intersection is a recipe for getting into an accident also.