Sad Story/ Charged with murder over in-dash dvd! Merged thread - Page 4

nirvanades · 08-10-2004, 05:31 PM

NOT GUILTY! They should ban soda drinking in cars - it was the soda that made him kill the 2 people.... Not the DVD!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,128596,00.html

yunusyu · 08-10-2004, 05:57 PM

must find a way to make the front screen not play movies while driving!

trancified · 08-10-2004, 06:06 PM

Anything can be a distraction, whether it be a DVD, radio, a loud horn, rubbernecking, a person giving you a blow-job, or taling to the person next to you. You cannot keep your eyes glued to the road every possible second. You can get into an accident simply by looking in the rear view at the wrong moment. To blame a carpc is ludicrous. Whatever happened to blaming the person? yes it is a tragedy, but come on, don't blame the equipment. It is not the equipments fault you weren't keeping the eyes on the road anymore than it was the loud horn that made you take your eyes off the road.

Sorry for the diatribe, I am just sick of people not owning up to their own responsibility, istead of blaming anyone and everyone else.

Jamez_Warner · 08-11-2004, 09:57 AM

this blocking video whilst in motion argument doesn't hold up, what if I was to have a portable dvd player on the passenger seat I was taking on holiday - and I crash - does that mean you have to prove that it was off ? how on earth woudl you do that?

this means we cannot transport video screens in our cars? lol the poor lilliput delivery driver better not crash - theres a lotta screens he could be watching !!!

Budman · 08-11-2004, 10:12 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Jamez_Warner

this blocking video whilst in motion argument doesn't hold up, what if I was to have a portable dvd player on the passenger seat I was taking on holiday - and I crash - does that mean you have to prove that it was off ? how on earth woudl you do that?

this means we cannot transport video screens in our cars? lol the poor lilliput delivery driver better not crash - theres a lotta screens he could be watching !!!

Exactly, so you disable the video, you've still got mpg, avi, screensavers, gps navigation, wav and assorted other apps that can all be used against you in an accident if they really want to prosecute. I've got books and sports equipment in my car too. Doesn't mean I'm reading and working out while I'm driving.

I'm thinking in this case the friends ex wife's willingness to testify against them may have pushed the prosecuter to go for the severe charges.

nl4jy · 08-11-2004, 11:14 AM

Seriously. This is just another point of reckless driving. The guy knows if reaching for something that would hinder your vision and driving ability, you would not do it. You knowingly know watching movies while driving any speed above 1mph is dangerous.

This guy deserve what he done. Don't blame on the technology, it's his action that caused the accident, not the device.

And WTF was his friend doing? if I wanted something to drink, I'll ask my passenger to pass me the soda instead of looking for it myself. And if I'm alone, I'll know where it is without moving my eyes off the road.

Either way, it's his own action/fault that brings him to this situation.

And WTF was that lawyer comparing buying one of these devices and going to a bar? That is totally stupid. If that's the case...then anything you do that is distracting would be consider murder.

Reading a book? Murder.
Looking at beautiful scenery? Murder.
Changing radio stations? Murder.
Check your GPS? Murder.
Check your baby on the rear view mirror? Murder.
Check the time on the clock? Murder.
Check the street name that you just passed by? Murder.
Check your speed on the speedometer? Murder.
Talking on the Phone? Murder.
Talking to someone in the car? Murder.
Putting on makeup? Murder.
Eating while driving? Murder.

Why? cause all these are distraction, not only that...YOU KNOW all these things would hinder your driving ability. YOU KNOW you would have to take your eyes/hands off the road/wheel to do this and have the possibility to cause an accident.

It doesn't matter how long the distraction is...distraction IS distraction. Blaming it on 1 type of distraction while shunning the rest is just plain wrong.

Jamez_Warner · 08-11-2004, 11:28 AM

yeah, it's just not possible - it would have to be up to the prosecution to prove you WERE distracted by something, which would againbe nigh on impossible !

mduck · 08-11-2004, 12:13 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by trancified

Anything can be a distraction, whether it be a DVD, radio, a loud horn, rubbernecking, a person giving you a blow-job, or taling to the person next to you. You cannot keep your eyes glued to the road every possible second. You can get into an accident simply by looking in the rear view at the wrong moment. To blame a carpc is ludicrous. Whatever happened to blaming the person? yes it is a tragedy, but come on, don't blame the equipment. It is not the equipments fault you weren't keeping the eyes on the road anymore than it was the loud horn that made you take your eyes off the road.

Sorry for the diatribe, I am just sick of people not owning up to their own responsibility, istead of blaming anyone and everyone else.

Last I checked, the person is being blamed. That is why he is facing criminal charges. I don't think the equipment is being blamed, nor is it being charged with a crime. The equipment did possibly contribute to the accident; lawyers in the trial will likely debate whether this potential distraction could have been averted (ie by not allowing moving video in any motor vehicles).

nl4jy · 08-11-2004, 12:30 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by mduck

Last I checked, the person is being blamed. That is why he is facing criminal charges. I don't think the equipment is being blamed, nor is it being charged with a crime. The equipment did possibly contribute to the accident; lawyers in the trial will likely debate whether this potential distraction could have been averted (ie by not allowing moving video in any motor vehicles).

You're not really looking at the big picture. This guy is being blamed of murder cause he has the DVD. If it was just a regular accident, that's all it'll be.. an accident. But because of the DVD, he's being charge of murder. This is why he's trying to say it's because of the soda instead of the DVD.

soda = accident
while
DVD = murder???

Either way, he'll be charge with some type of penalty. What type of penalty where where we're looking at.

I'll say the governement is particially at fault here. Remember, he's in a state where it's not illegal to have movie screen visable to the driver. Many state already have this in law. The state knew having video can cause accidents, but they didn't seem to implement 1 unlike other states that would. So if he goes in a store and ask if it's illegal to install it up front where he could see it, technically they'll say no cause the law says no.

That's so different from drunk driving where it IS illegal whichever states you're in. So you know you're already breaking a law when you go in that bar and leave drunk while driving. This guy didn't break the law cause the law does not exist where he lives.

Budman · 08-11-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by mduck

Last I checked, the person is being blamed. That is why he is facing criminal charges. I don't think the equipment is being blamed, nor is it being charged with a crime. The equipment did possibly contribute to the accident; lawyers in the trial will likely debate whether this potential distraction could have been averted (ie by not allowing moving video in any motor vehicles).

Yes but the severity of the charge (2nd degree murder) indicates that he would've been doing something that he knew was likely to result in death. The fact that D.A.s would go after such an outrageous charge (instead of say manslaughter which it would've been much easier to convict on) just because it was a dvd (or so they thought since he was aquitted) is what irks me. Why not go after someone applying makeup or eating with the same charge. The mere presence of a dvd player within sight of a driver doesn't mean it contributed to the accident. I frequently listen to movies while driving with the screen turned off. If I were to crash it could be assumed that I was distracted by a movie while the real cause might have been unrelated. Lots of people seem outraged by computers in cars while seeing nothing wrong with eating/reading maps/newspapers/applying makeup/attending to children/talking on the phone, etc.

The severe charge seems like a knee-jerk reaction just because he had an in-dash dvd player. Frankly I am relieved he was aquitted on such a severe charge 'cause it might have had disastrous implications for the rest of us.

mduck · 08-11-2004, 01:57 PM

[quote=nl4jy]You're not really looking at the big picture. This guy is being blamed of murder cause he has the DVD.[quote]

The big picture? He wasn't being charged because he had a DVD player . . . he was charged on suspicion of watching a movie while driving. Wouldn't you agree this is negligent, careless, and most of all lethally dangerous to others?

What motivated such headline grabbing charges to be brought? I don't think any of us know. And yes, he likely was charged because the vehicle had the capability to play movies viewable to the driver while in motion.

This hypothetical parallels what you mentioned about driving drunk:

What would have occurred if there were empty beer cans lying around in the vehicle and the crash knocked the driver unconscious? Suppose those beer cans were from a few days ago and he had nothing to drink that night? Without the chance of taking a sobriety test or talking with police, he would have likely been charged with suspicion of drunken driving. Even though the evidence is not entirely clear, there was a chance he could have been drinking those that night. Idealistically charges will only be brought against ourselves and others in situations where there is clear and present evidence, but we all know this is not always the case.

That is the reason many charges have the tag "suspicion of." Empty beers = he could have drank them = suspicion of being drunk. DVD player in the dash = potentially not watching the road and people dying = suspicion of murder.

Just remember . . . anybody can be sued for anything and anyone can be charged with anything. We shouldn't get all excited when someone is charged with what is obviously an overreaction to a bad, bad situation.

nirvanades · 08-11-2004, 02:02 PM

Tort Reform! Tort Reform! We need to get rid of the lawyers..... Yeah, I know they protect us.... From other Lawyers!

nl4jy · 08-11-2004, 02:04 PM

Well, if you put it that way...Then yeah, I agree with you whole heartly mduck.

So....how can we prevent this to ever happen to us carputer users?

Budman · 08-11-2004, 02:10 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by mduck

. DVD player in the dash = potentially not watching the road and people dying = suspicion of murder.

The over reaching on the charge is more than likely a knee-jerk reaction to the mere presence of the dvd. Murder implies it was WAY more than "potentially not watching the road". Murder means he had malice of forethought. If they had found a cell phone or fast food wrappers at the scene rather than a car entertainment system there's no way they would've charged him with murder, in fact we'd have never heard of the case.

mduck · 08-11-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by Budman

Murder implies it was WAY more than "potentially not watching the road".

Agreed. That's probably why he was acquitted.