Man, they oughta just drag this guy out back and shoot him...

I dont know that. But they also havent said that they have done that. That is why there is a trial. We will have to wait and see. Therefore, I will not make a judgement.

Again, just playing devils advocate, just because a movie was in the DVD player doesnt mean that he had to have been watching a movie...music could have still been playing.

Now, lets just say that a movie was indeed playing, for both the driver and the passenger (Probably moreso for the passenger). Is watching a movie and getting in an accident any less careless than someone talking on a cell phone and getting in an accident? Both actions take focus away from actually driving and inserting the focus into something else that can be done at a more convenient time. I dont see where you draw the line. Or how about the guy that is looking at his CD wallet in an effort to change CD's while he is driving? That is just as careless as anything else.

So when is it okay to do one thing and not another? Obviously, people should be careful at all times, but we are living in a world where gadgets and technology are taking over. There will always be the guy talking on the cell phone, paying more attention to the hottie on the other end of the line than to the road. There will always be that CD you are tired of listening to and trying to find another CD and make the switch while you are driving. And I guess, nowadays, there will be that movie that is playing for your friend, but you make a few glances over to the moniter to check it out. All 3 cases are acts of carelessness, but it happens. I talk on my phone all the time while I drive. Its not a good thing, but its something most of us do.

Its a fine line...but this case is bogus, IMO...trying the guy for murder??? Murder?

 

So your position is that since a lot of people drive distracted and it's a major cause of death and destruction, we shouldn't ever punish someone severely when they do something so completely distracting that they should know was extremely dangerous.

Two people are dead, but people talk on cell phones, so let's let him go.

Heck, this is the same type of thinking that used to let drunk drivers off with no punishment. They weren't trying to hurt someone, and who among us hasn't had a few too many drinks and driven home while impaired. So people end up dead and it never gets any better because there's no consequences to doing it.

Perhaps we should treat this as an opportunity to start a trend toward making drivers more aware and punishing them when they go to extremes with wreckless endangerment of others.

If we're not going to bother to have consequences, then I expect things are just going to get worse and more and more people will die needlessly.

 

Just for the record, though, I do think the 2nd degree murder charge is probably a bit excessive.

 

Im not saying let him off the hook. But there need to be new laws. As it is now, you can never prove the guy was actually watching the movie and it was because of THIS that he got in the accident.

For instance...a law could state that it is illegal to have a DVD player in the front of a vehicle. Therefore, when something like this happens in the future, it is blatantly obvious that a law was broken and then you can go ahead and charge him for whatever was caused as a result.

 

You can never "prove" anything by that standard without an admission by the guy himself. It's all about building a case. If the jury believes that the pieces together prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt (not any doubt), then they convict him.

I mean, a law saying that the DVD player was illegal wouldn't have changed anything with the crash. He could still claim it had nothing to do with the crash and it would be up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did.

The fact that having the DVD player was a crime would be a separate issue.

Let's say the DVD player was illegal and the crash happened, but he could prove the crash was caused by something other than the DVD player. Does he still get the murder charge because he had the illegal DVD player in the first place? Nope. In that case, he might well end up with only a charge for the illegal DVD player (which would very likely just be a fine).

 

If he can prove that the DVD player was not the cause, then he should just be charged separately for having a DVD player.

If he cant prove that the DVD player was not the cause, then he needs to go to trial for a more serious charge, possibly the one that he is facing now...murder.

 

And, apparently, he drifted across the double yellow to create the accident. So, if he wasn't 'distracted', he's screwed anyway.


Yeah, there's a lot of different types of technology out there right now, and that's fine. But if you don't have the type of judgement to use that tech correctly, you

1. Don't deserve to have it.

2. Deserve to be punished for misusing it and putting others in danger.

 

That could mean a 4 foot sway to the left...not necessarily a 25 foot plunge across a median.

That says nothing about the fact that he was actually sitting there watching a movie.

He could have dosed off for a moment. There could have been a lot of factors at hand here.

Im not saying the guy is innocent, but to charge him for murder??? That is the part Im arguing against. Hell, charge the guy for manslaughter, but dont put a possible end to his life because there is a "chance" that he could have "possibly" been playing a movie and that he "apparently" glanced over at a monitor.

 

The two people in that car had no such option.

Sorry, but you're reaching a lot more to say he wasn't distracted than those who would think he was. I agree that second degree charges are a little too high even if he was watching the movie, but I have little remorse for people who disrespect the fact that there are lives around them other than their own.

If he just dozed off, or...well, whatever else could have happened, then yes he should get off lighter. But if he didn't; the sheer stupidity of watching a movie - which is quite different than talking on a cell phone or reaching for a soda or listening to music - while driving means he doesn't have much to defend himself with.

 

Nice, the guy's going to make the case even worst for himself stating that he reach for the soda that what cause him to swirl to the other side. Well the prosecutor are will just add that with it saying he carelessly watching a movie and carelessly took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda also while watching the movie. I don't see why the big arguement when it's obviously the guy lied about he was listening to music while his passenger stating they were watching "Road Trip".

 

Definitely not the "same as far as distracting". Do you occasionally have to take your eyes off the road to view the nav unit? Yes. But you don't have to sit there watching it or keep glancing over repeatedly for 2 hours at it like a movie. Not to mention many if not most navigation units have voiced directions to where you don't have to keep looking where to turn. I have a nav unit in my car - no way in hell do I rewire it to play DVD's or add a DVD video player to it. That's nuts.

I don't hate this man as much as I feel sorry for the couple that died - what an utter waste.

 

I agree with Kagy. Except instead of wasting a bullet on him, send him to Katmai and let a grizzly wrestle with him. What a moron. And I say that as a fellow Alaskan.