Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Movies News

DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder 613

Posted by michael from the now-he'll-never-find-out-how-it-ends dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder More

DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

Comments Filter:

  • Keeping Up With Technology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:20PM (#9816482)
    Driving laws have not kept up with technological changes, Weiser said.

    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.

    • Re:Keeping Up With Technology (Score:5, Informative)

      by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:26PM (#9816541) Homepage Journal
      Careless driving is still careless driving. When laws address general principles, ephemeral trends don't make any difference.
      Well said, Sir. The UK government passed a law against using a mobile phone while driving - totally unnecessary,there was already the offence of "driving without due care and attention". The Belgians passed a similar one and they can't even enforce traffic lights.

      If you drive, you concentrate on the road, and if you don't do that, you face the consequences when the inevitable happens.

      • Re:Keeping Up With Technology (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:55PM (#9816828)
        Perhaps the point of that law in the UK was to really get the point across that using a Cellphone and driving at the same time is unaccpetable.

        Without the law, people wouldn't be bothered as much by the Law (fuzz), as much as perhaps they should be. Hence they passed the law to leave no room for argument: ****Getting caught talking on the cellphone whilst driving will ensure that you get ticketed!!!!****

        Well, officer!!!! I wasn't driving THAT badly! *sob*--Here's your ticket, bitch.
      • To be fair to the UK parliment, they knew that. As did the police. Some forces were for a new law, some were against.

        In principle, the offence was covered under 'driving without due care and attention'. In practice, most people felt that they were in full control of the vehicle, whilst chatting on the phone (in spite of studies to the contrary) [0]. Mobile phone use was endemic, so the legistlative decided to make it perfectly clear that is was not accpetable, by a specific and clear new law.

        I understa

      • The reason for laws like that (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lorcha ( 464930 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @06:35PM (#9817213)
        The reason for laws like that is to make life easier on prosecutors. This way, they don't have to take the time to prove to a jury that driving while yacking on a cellphone is driving without due care and attention every time someone does that. The legislature simply states the obvious: that if you are driving while on a cell phone, then you are not paying enough attention to the road.

        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).

        • Legal systems already have a concept to make life easier on prosecutors (not sure this is a good thing) which is called case law. IANAL, obviously, but the results of earlier cases sets precedent which is considered in later ones.

          Hence, if there is an overwhelming history of cases being prosecuted along certain lines, it gets easier and easier to do so in the future.

          Now I do already think we have too many laws, and I think that case law makes the legal landscape essentially a sandbox filled with land

      • Re:Keeping Up With Technology (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:27PM (#9817644) Journal
        Actually, for the benefit of the wider audience, I would like to clarify that.

        The law actually prohibits drivers from using hand-operated mobile phones whilst driving: the use of a totally hands-free phone is still permitted, although dangerous driving whilst using a hands-free phone can still be penalised.

        The facts about mobile phone usage whilst driving are pretty clear though. Studies have shown that your attention is far less focused on the road, and your reaction times are slower, whilst talking on a mobile phone than it would be if you were driving whilst drunk. But, of course, everyone who regularly drives and chats away on a mobile at the same time doesn't think that this applies to them, because they're a "good" or "safe" driver.
    • Or the cops have been following the example of Law & Order -- you know, charge them with Murder 2 in order to get a plea bargain on Manslaughter.

      but yeah, the idea that you need "special" laws for "special" cases, like killing a pregnant person, or driving with a cell phone (as opposed to the general "distracted driving" laws that every state has), or "killing a fellow teen as a gang-related crime" vs "killing a teen", or any of those damned things.

      all it does is complicate things and make the lawyers very happy for the higher amount they can charge their clients...
    • That's something that I've never understood about laws that make for exacerbated charges if a crime is committed with X implement. If laws against armed robbery, assault, murder, causing a fatal accident, and the like are enforced the way that they ought to be then use of a gun, or of a knife, or of being in some altered state short of being stupidly out of control of one's faculties (drunk, high, etc) wouldn't need extra charges or laws.

      I'll leave DUI laws alone for the most part, due to the extreme an

    • Re:Keeping Up With Technology (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jhunsake ( 81920 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:29PM (#9816581) Journal
      You're only looking at the small picture. There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal. While they are wrong, as you point out, they do happen to sit on juries all the time. Some of these people are so dense that it doesn't matter how much the prosecuter or judge explains the law, unless they can read the "no DVD players in cars" law themselves, they won't convict.

      What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

      • Re:Keeping Up With Technology (Score:5, Funny)

        by Dizzle ( 781717 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:35PM (#9816652) Journal
        You're only looking at the small picture

        So was the driver.
        Sorry about that.
      • It's not IQ related, it's a certain mindset. It's the same mindset that got us 'It depends on what the definition of is is'. (I'm not meaning this as a political statement, btw - it was just the first example that came to mind.)
      • unless they can read the "no DVD players in cars" law themselves, they won't convict.

        BS. People will convict on this, all the prosecutor needs to do is remind them that it could have been THEM on that road. It could have been their mother, father, sister, brother, husband, wife or child that was killed because someone was too busy watching a movie to pay attention to the road.

        If the prosecutor fails to get a manslaughter conviction in this case, that prosecutor needs to get fired.

        LK
      • What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

        Great. Like I don't already get called for jury duty enough. Of course, maybe I have too high opinion of myself. Maybe this would exempt me from jury duty forever.

      • "unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal"

        That's because that's pretty much how it works. If their is no law that says it's illegal to speed, than guess what? I can't be charged with a crime of speeding.

        This doesn't mean this guys isn't guilty, but it doesn't mean watching a DVD while driving is illegal. Laws aren't their to tell us what we can do. Quite the opposite.
    • If only it were that simple. Unfortunately unless the law is explicit, it becomes unenforcable. You can lawyer/weasel your way around being "distracted."
    • No, what he is really saying:

      "Because there is no specific law against this (or it is not mentioned specifically in a current law), I (or my staff) will actually have to do some work to convict someone of a crime"

      It has nothing to do with not having applicable laws, which as you pointed out, they do. It is all about making it EASY for them to convict people. It should never be easy to convict people of a crime, as guilty as they may appear to be.
    • Absolutely, this is how the whole DMCA catastophy was excused.

      By claiming new laws were needed to cover things that were already against the law. The result is that no legitimate copyright violation is now illegal that wasn't before and many legitimate uses are now illegal.

  • The story behind the story (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:20PM (#9816488) Journal
    a driver in Alaska is being charged with second-degree murder
    Astonishing. In my experience, you can drive for hours--even days--at a time in Alaska and not even see another human being. To cream one on the road is, well, amazing [alaska.edu].

    With a vehicle, it would seem more likely in Alaska you'd cross the median and strike an elk, grizzly, or something like that.
    • I initially thought that the headline referred to a software driver for watching DVDs.
    • Because, as we all know, there are absolutely no major cities in Alaska. Thanks for the insight.
    • That link actually suggests that there are MORE fatalities per mile traveled than the national average ...
    • I'm not sure that link you provided said what you wanted it to say. In each of the data provided, the rate of fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled was the same or greater than the U.S. average. Percentage of fatal crashes where alcohol was involved was also greater.

      As for the population of Alaska... well, Anchorage clocks in at 260,283 [epodunk.com]. Not bad, really, but I live in a metro area population of 7,000,000... so those figures cited above can be what is expected.

    • South central Alaska has lots of traffic, even traffic jams. Not to mention infamous moose-crossings.

    • Re:The story behind the story (Score:5, Interesting)

      by axjms ( 167179 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:41PM (#9816706) Homepage
      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.

  • This is YRO how? (Score:5, Funny)

    by JohnGrahamCumming ( 684871 ) * <slashdot@ j g c . o rg> on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:20PM (#9816489) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:This is YRO how? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:22PM (#9816507)
      Well, that depends. Are we talking about a digital aardvark?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:30PM (#9816590)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • I don't see how the premeditate installation of a DVD player is that different from the premeditated purchasing of fast food at a drive up window. Eating while driving is more dangerous then cell phones or DVD's. The officers originally thought his was reaching for a soda was the cause of the crash, and no one was so worried. What's next, specific laws against drinking soda while diving! The only reason we don't out law that is everyone does it, and they have forever.

          Regardless of what distracted him,
      • If what you say is the truth, then in theory, during his fair trial, the jury declares that he is not guilty of murder. They can charge you with whatever they want-- it is the fair trial that decides whether you actually committed the crime or not.
    • 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?

      If he were distracted by an aardvark he'd let loose in the truck, he would not have been charged with manslaughter in the first place.

      That's not to say, however, that his DVD-watching behavior wasn't negligent.

    • YRO now extends to driving around while not watching the road?

      No, the right that was violated he was the other person's right not to be killed by some idiot watching "road trip".
      Road trip!!!!!!??????
      Yeesh! I hope whoever kills me at least has some taste.

  • I'm confused... (Score:5, Funny)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:20PM (#9816493)
    Was he arrested for killing somebody, or watching "Road Trip"?

  • Make an Example Out of This Guy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by windside ( 112784 ) <pmjboyle.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:22PM (#9816509)

    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.

    • Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StillAnonymous ( 595680 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:33PM (#9816632)
      While I agree that what he did was wrong, and he should face the consequences, I don't agree with "making an example" out of anyone when it comes to the law. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally, with no exceptions.
    • 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.

      I disagree. I've priced MP3 players for my car, and I've priced DVD players that support MP3. I have to say that the DVD players offer more bang for the buck except most offer on sc

      • I think a better statement would be that an in-dash movie player is too distracting, and it'd be true. When most people watch a movie, they focus in on the screen and tune out everything else. When you're driving, this is very probably lethal - either for you or for whoever else happens to be around. Cars should be (and most are, or were) designed to eliminate unnecessary visual distractions within the vehicle. (Some, like the "Engine About to Explode!" light, are necessary visual distractions)

    • Music on DVDs will increase driving safety. Hey, brain dead, did you even read the blurb? DVD players also do music. 4.7GB of music is most of my ogg collection. Having one of those puppies burned and in my dash will keep me, and about 100,000,000 other drivers from having to fumble with CDs, tapes and radio dials. The screens also can be used like a Jedi mind trick on young children. If you think "road trip" is distracting, try taking a real road trip with a two year old. The average 2.5 child fam

  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • It doesn't matter if he was watching a DVD or picking his nose. If he killed someone, he killed someone.

    • Nose-picking while driving doesn't really demonstrate total disregard for human life. Unless you're talking about some monsterous Olympic-grade nosepicking that I'm totally unaware of..

  • doesnt that headline presume guilt? I think thats the only part of our rights online here
  • I think they are reaching a bit with second degree murder. If he really was watching a DVD while driving though, I don't think vehicular manslaughter would be out of the question, as his carelessness with the vehicle would most likely have been the cause.

  • Lawer Speak (Score:5, Insightful)

    by riptide_dot ( 759229 ) * on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:26PM (#9816538)
    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 [hypermart.net]:
    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.
    • As far as I'm concerened they should be! When you are drunk and you are behind a wheel that's no different then walking into my house and pulling a trigger.. you are JUST as irresponsible.

    • Thinking the same thing. It's a little bit easier than what you found though - they have to prove he had a blatent disregard for human life in order to get the conviction. That's a bit easier to prove than implied malice. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how it goes. I agree that this is a bit of a publicity stunt - I guess the family or lawyer wants to make a public point. Not that I would blame him; I'd probably feel the same way given the sitaution.

    • Re:Lawer Speak (Score:3, Informative)

      by KefabiMe ( 730997 )

      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 am not a lawyer, but I do know this:

      Killing someone while driving drunk will get you charged with MURDER in some states, not vehicular manslaughter.

      It's not the Webster definition of murder, but I'm sure people who are facing murder charges care a *lot* more about what

    • Re:Lawer Speak (Score:5, Informative)

      by dillon_rinker ( 17944 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:43PM (#9816718) Homepage
      You are missing the very subtle distinction between EXPRESS and IMPLIED malice. Expressing a desire to kill someone would be express malice. Exhibiting a reckless disregard for human life would be implied malice. See the discussion here. [wmich.edu]

      I think driving while watching a DVD could be a classic example of a reckless disregard for human life. The driver knew he was manuevering a ton of steel at high speed in a place where human beings were expected to be. I doubt that the DA had a choice in what charge to file, given both the letter and the spirit of the law.

    • Under the statues of many states, if there is gross negligence or significant disregard for human life (usually meaning the act could reasonibly be expected to kill someone), then it is murder. If slight carelessness combines with bad luck, in order words, that's manslaughter. Doing something that your average adult with functioning common sense could tell is dangerous to others and then killing someone falls under murder. IMHO, it is realistic expectation that driving down the road while watching a DVD wil

  • Well.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 222 ( 551054 ) <stormseeker@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:26PM (#9816539) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 222 ( 551054 )
      Im not sure what to make of your post, but can i also assume that you would find partial justification for me to fire a gun wildly in the woods, as long as I believed i was in a remote location, or to throw bricks off of an overpass as long as i didnt see any vehicles approaching?
      Dangerous behaviors dont cease to be stupid, regardless of how unlikely they are to harm someone else.

  • Prison sucks. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:27PM (#9816551) Journal
    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.

    • Re:Prison sucks. (Score:3, Informative)

      by winkydink ( 650484 ) *
      Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.
      • Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.

        What they should do with drunk drivers is take away their regular liscense and give them a motorcycle-only liscense.

        Either they'll quit driving drunk in a hurry, or they'll fix the problem themselves while causing MUCH less damage to their surroundings.

      • Re:Prison sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by j-turkey ( 187775 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @06:09PM (#9816973) Homepage
        Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.

        How do you know that he was watching a DVD? Did you read the article? Do you know what their proof was? Here's a quote if you didn't read up:

        "We know it was," she said. "It was wired so that the screen was in the open position when the ignition key was turned out."
        So I'll sum it up. The video screen was open while the car was turned off (and there was a video disc in the player). That's all of their evidence...for a murder case. I sure hope (for all of our sake) that the DA has to produce better evidence than that to destroy a third life.

        • Re:Prison sucks. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sg3000 ( 87992 ) *
          > How do you know that he was watching a DVD? Did you read
          > the article? Do you know what their proof was?

          Before you chastise the parent poster further, it sounds like the he may have been watching a DVD. The passenger admitted to his wife as much:

          > Within hours, Douglas called his ex-wife and told her he was
          > not sure how the collision occurred because he was "spacing
          > out on a movie they were watching," according to prosecutors.

          Even if a DVD were playing on the dash, and the driver wasn'

  • YRO? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by randyest ( 589159 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:27PM (#9816553) Homepage
    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.
  • You get if you watch a DVD while driving. Ah what the heck I got cruise control! The car will know where to take me! Let me pop some popcorn with my battery powered microwave owen.
  • If this car [slashdot.org] is coming out soon, we'll have drivers killed or charged when trying to communicate with each other :)

  • First Off... The irony! He was watching Road Trip while driving? What a laugh!

    Now, for the real comment: Who cares whether watching the DVD is a crime or not? In fact, as long as people don't get hit or cars get crashed, I couldn't care less what the driver next to me is doing. (However, watching DVDs would probably cause these kinds of accidents, so if they wanted to prohibit it, I'd be glad to hear it.).

    I'd be glad to see this kind of driver put away, not because of watching a DVD per se, but for not wa

  • Simple Law for Future Use (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jimmyCarter ( 56088 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:33PM (#9816630) Journal
    All vehicle DVD players or other video screens must be behind the driver's head and facing away from said driver. Problem solved. Sound reasonable?

    But wait.. decent smart laws like this will have to get in line behind laws to take away citizens' fair use rights and campaigning!

  • Ok, I agree that this guy deserves to be punished. But how did this get into the YRO section? It has very little to do with my rights. Regardless of what the law says, I do not have a moral right to operate a device in my car that will distract me to the point where I will have an accident, whether it be a DVD player or an iPod or whatever. And it's certainly not online...he was driving his truck in Alaska!

    Editors, care to explain?
  • News for automotive bling-bling, stuff that matters (if you're a rap star, or want to just pretend you are).

  • Two points here:

    First off, an in-dash dvd player can be used safely, namely for entertaining a passanger in one of the other 1+ seats in the car. It does however require that a driver have the sense and discipline to keep his attention on the road.

    Second, regardless of if the state laws explicitly mention DVD's in their laws, this would still have to fall under distracted driver laws...those same laws that ensure that I can't play solitare on the dashboard. Which is a good thing...because I suck at solita

  • Mens rea (Score:4, Informative)

    by cenonce ( 597067 ) <anthony_t@@@mac...com> on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:40PM (#9816692)

    The question will be what was his men rea [nolo.com], 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.


  • joke-boy [dweeb.org] writes "CNN reports that a driver in Alaska is being charged with second-degree murder [cnn.com] for allegedly causing a fatality accident by driving while watching the movie 'Road Trip [imdb.com]' 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."

    Look at that! Now people who have no idea what "Road Trip" is can just click that hyperlink and know. Astounding :-O!

  • Speaking of Technology... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @05:50PM (#9816786)
    ...why not disable in-dash DVD players or TV's when the vehicle is in motion? Bored front-seat passengers can console themselves with the thought that the driver is actually looking at the road ahead.

    Now, if we could just deal with the other morons who think it's just fine to drive and read a newspaper, or put on makeup, or turn around and smack a kid in the backseat, or steer with one finger while holding a coffee cup as their left arms hangs out the window.

  • Updated laws? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @06:02PM (#9816899) Journal
    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.

  • And this infringes on my rights how? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @06:25PM (#9817126)
    It certainly doesn't infringe on My Rights Online. He probably wasn't watching an illegal copy of the movie. He probably wasn't watching on a region-free player. He almost certainly wasn't coding DeCSS while driving. I don't get what this has to do with my rights online?

    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.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @07:04PM (#9817474)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Tuesday July 27, 2004 @08:34PM (#9818048)
    Pedestrian and runner here.

    Throw him in prison for a couple decades. The idea that a driver's license gives somebody a right to treat the windshield like a video game is psycho and anybody who thinks otherwise should grow up. It is a responsibility and actually does require the full attention of one's brilliant mind (unless one is a Senator from South Dakota).

    No excuses. No "oopsy!" No "two kills and you're out." Just no excuses. I remember a few years ago when some local kids were randomly shooting a rifle out a car window and "accidently" killed a guy on a porch. They got several years in reform school. What's the difference between a rifle and a car when it is wielded irresponsibly in a death?

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close