# Murder by DVD distraction?



## richalisoviejo (Jun 2, 2009)

Have you observed a trend wherein the laws are being manipulated to support harsher charges against persons accused of criminal wrong-doing?

Here's a case in point:

When a pickup truck crossed the double yellow line along Highway 101 and killed two occupants of a Jeep Grand Cherokee, police initially thought the accident was another tragic mistake by a momentarily distracted driver.

Then they spotted the dashboard DVD player.

In what may be the first trial of its kind in the nation, prosecutors have accused the pickup truckÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s driver of *First degree murder* for watching a movie instead of the road when he crashed head-on into the Jeep. 

The prosecutor said the facts warranted charging this man under one of two theories: that he knew his conduct was substantially certain to cause death or that he knowingly engaged in conduct showing extreme indifference to human life.

First, we need to put things into perspective.

If you handle a loaded gun, deliberately point the gun at another person's head, and intentionally pull the trigger, then, most definitely, you are engaging in conduct that you know is substantially certain to cause death or you are knowingly engaging in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

If you beat someone so bad that the person dies--even though you did not intend to cause that person's death--your actions of deliberately and repeatedly applying your fists or a weapon to another person's body would support a charge of second-degree murder because you engaged in conduct (inflicting injuries) that you know is substantially certain to cause that person's death or you knowingly engaged in conduct that shows extreme indifference to human life.

But, if you are distracted by DVD and you plow your vehicle into another vehicle, has your level of culpability risen to the same level of culpability as someone who knowingly shoots another person or someone who beats another person to death? 

There are different degrees of homicide based on the culpability of the accused. Our criminal laws are specifically graded so that individuals with the greatest culpability are punished more severely than individuals with lesser levels of culpability.

If a person engages in negligent conduct and that negligence results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a negligent homicide charge.

If a person engages in reckless conduct and that recklessness results in the death of another, that person's culpability would support a manslaughter charge.

Both negligent homicide and manslaughter are serious charges, but the accused simply does not knowingly or intentionally cause the death of another. IMHO, murder charges should be reserved for those who are truly guilty of murder.

If you dig a deep hole in your yard to bury your new septic tank and this hole attracts a curious neighborhood child who falls in and dies are you suddenly a murderer? Shouldn't you have known that your conduct in digging that hole would attract a child and cause his death?

I am troubled when the law is manipulated to turn people who are merely negligent or reckless into convicted murderers. Are our nation's "tough on crime" prosecutors blurring the lines of culpability upon which criminal laws are based?


----------



## BigBiscuit (Jun 2, 2009)

That is a tuffy. Thanks a lot. I was getting ready to go to bed, now my brain is cranking away.


----------



## richalisoviejo (Jun 2, 2009)

Just so youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll sleep a little better . The Officers saw the DVD player on the dashboard but how did they know it was on or not? Was it on before the accident? How will the DA prove that one? A person is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt; the burden of proof must always be on the prosecution and never the defendant.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 2, 2009)

sorry distracted drivers are IMO the wporst out there, if he was watching a DVD while driving he should be charged as harshly as possible. When I drive i keep my eyes on the road I dont talk on cell phones I dont change the radio or anyhting, just my 2 cents. It sickems me that people would behave like this.


----------



## Stazz (Jun 3, 2009)

Well I agree, what a bugger to be watching movies whilst driving !!!!! I cannot even fathom that someone would even DO that! BUT, as you say Rich, do they have the proof that they WERE watching a dvd? Was there a dvd in there? Was the screen on? It could have been damaged in an accident, maybe they have no proof whatso ever to catch the guy . Hmmmm its a tough one eh !

I agree, there are definitely different degrees of homicide, but like, first degree murder is pre meditated unlawful killing of a human being right? Would manslaughter not be a more appropriate punishment?
I studied criminology for two years, really really really interesting! Our laws in SA may be different to those in the U.S though. you have got me intrigued Rich 

Manslaughter is the killing of a human being, considered by law as *less* culpable than murder? Right? (I'm trying to rack my brain here from Crim days!)
Murder being the *intent* to kill, but manslaughter - which may involve an *unintentional *killing but with a disregard for life.

Am I on the right wavelength here? hehe. The guy, if he was watching a dvd whilst driving, of course did not intentionally want to kill someone else, but he DID because he did not THINK


----------



## Isa (Jun 3, 2009)

Wow Rich, that is a hard one! 
If the driver was driving AND watching the DVD, he is really dumb and it is his fault 100% but I dont think it would be a first degree murder. 
Hmm interesting case Rich!


----------



## Crazy1 (Jun 3, 2009)

Ok so there is no evidence that the driver was indeed watching the DVD. So in order to prove these "murder" charges they have to prove he was indeed watching the DVD. Does having a DVD on your dash constitue murder if it is not even on???? I don't think so.
I know here CA if a person (male specifically) is caught urinating on a wall or on the side of the freeway (in public) they can have be charged of (perversion?) and therefore must register on the national data base as a registered sexual offender. Is this fair? Is he ideed a sexual offender or someone who just couldn't hold it. wrong or right to potty in public I think sexual offender status is a little harsh.


----------



## Yvonne G (Jun 3, 2009)

In my opinion, we should make it illegal to have DVD players in the front seat...even on the passenger side.

In this day and age, we relax our morals in order to fit a more lenient society. In the olden days, it was frowned upon to see "promiscuity" in public, but since it is becoming more common, we have relaxed our moral view of it. Same way with almost anything that is illegal or close to illegal. Since it is becoming commonplace, its not so illegal anymore.

Yvonne


----------



## Crazy1 (Jun 3, 2009)

Yvonne, I agree no DVDs in the front. But I think we, society as a whole, need to again begin to police ourselves. What ever happened to common sense? If you are driving a car and reading a book, putting on makup, or watching a DVD are you really paying attention to your driving. I think not. What I don't understand is what has happened in our society to take away common sense? Or to make it common place not to use it.


----------



## richalisoviejo (Jun 3, 2009)

Stazz said:


> Am I on the right wavelength here? hehe. The guy, if he was watching a dvd whilst driving, of course did not intentionally want to kill someone else, but he DID because he did not THINK



We sure are. This man should have been charged with manslaughter however the DA thought they could get a murder charge, it wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen, he will walk Scot free. 

Take a step back for a moment and review criminal negligence:

AS 11.41.130. Criminally Negligent Homicide.

(a) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide if, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person.

(b) Criminally negligent homicide is a class B felony.

In criminal negligence, a person acts with the requisite culpable mental state when such person *fails to perceive* a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the act in question will cause the statutorily described result. In the context of criminally negligent homicide, criminal negligence analysis focuses on the actor's *awareness of the risk* that death will result from the act, not whether the underlying act is intentional.

The man did not intentionally plow his vehicle into another vehicle manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.

Certainly, any time a driver takes his eyes off the road, momentarily or otherwise, there is a risk of an accident. The vast majority of the people do not perceive or foresee that death WILL RESULT from their negligent acts, but the law punishes them nevertheless because they should have foreseen the deadly consequences. 

Foreseeability in the context of negligence requires that a reasonable person must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which may be reasonably foreseen as likely to injure another person. The injured person must be in the zone of danger that is created by the defendant's carelessness and the injury must be a type that is likely (not merely possible) to occur in the circumstances.

Certainly, it is always POSSIBLE that a distracted driver will kill someone, but is it more LIKELY than not that he will kill someone? 

The man wasn't keeping his eyes on the road and for that he was negligent at most But, he didn't intentionally ram his vehicle into another vehicle; he didn't shoot someone with a gun; he didn't intentionally stab someone with a knife; and I find it troubling that we can place him in the same category as people who are true murderers. 

The DA is trying to mold pure negligence into something more sinister than it really is. It is possible for the human brain to perceive every negligent or reckless act as a "manifestation of extreme indifference to the value of human life" and therefore completely nullify the purpose for having negligent homicide and manslaughter on the books.


----------



## Stazz (Jun 3, 2009)

Wow very very interesting Rich. I agree, DVD players should in fact be banned in the front of a car, not sure what idiot thought it up in the first place! 
Exactly Rich - he didn't intentionally do anything. I think its a pretty crazy case! Not even sure what else to say haha


----------



## dmmj (Jun 3, 2009)

after reading all these posts I must be the only sane person left here. As I stated before im regards to the DVD player. watching a DVD player in the fromt seat should not be called negligent, it should be in fact be called murder sorry that is the way I feel, using that logic people who drunk drive are not murderers either they just made an acholol induced mistake, sorry family members but becuaese I was watching my DVD player you shgould feel glad that it was not murder but only negligent of me that's great now bury your family members and smile because it was only an accident that prob would not have happened if I was not watching my DVD player. I dont mean offense to anyone but this is getting ridiculous. I am only 35 but my father installed a strong ethic of you do something worng you pay for it. now if he had slipped on the road, pr mechanical failure while being very tragic would be a mistake, watching a DVD player on the front seat should be considred murder maybe not first degree since he did not plan on going out and killing someone but at the very least second degree. This day and age if you can come up with a ggood enough e\xscuse or poitn to an outside influence that may or may not exist then all well it is ok just let it go. Sorry for going off, but I am flabergasted


----------



## Stazz (Jun 4, 2009)

Well the point we're making is the guy IS in the wrong, but in the constitution it states that first degree murder is the INTENT to kill, you KNOWINGLY killing someone, I'm certainly not making excuses for the moron that did this, he should be royally punished, but legally, what we're saying is that first degree murder is not the way to go, 2nd degree maybe, I'm all for manslaughter. But we all have our own opinions.


----------



## richalisoviejo (Jun 4, 2009)

The one to place the blame on is the DA. The district attorney should have charged the man with the appropriate crime. Had he have done his job the man would be facing a manslaughter charge and not Murder. He wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be convicted of murder and that is the only charge he faces. Another misstate by the DA.


----------



## Stazz (Jun 7, 2009)

DA must have been sleeping when charging the guy, of course its not Murder 1. Thanks for all the interesting case stories though Rich!


----------



## tortoisenerd (Jun 7, 2009)

We regularly have a DVD player for the front seat passenger, and neither of us have found it a problem for the driver (driver does NOT watch it at all, and it actually is usually tilted to the side for the passenger too). We usually run the sound through the car for some driver entertainment.

I do agree that this driver should have charges pressed. Distractions are bad.


----------



## richalisoviejo (Jun 9, 2009)

Easy as pie, if you know how to make a pie. Never made one myself. 

Trail lasted a day and a half, jury came back with a not guilty verdict within 30 minutes.


----------



## Stazz (Jun 9, 2009)

Wow that was quick !!! thought it would go that way rich, but that must have been the quickest!!!


----------



## Isa (Jun 10, 2009)

30 minutes, wow Rich.
You must be happy to be home


----------

