Texting driver convicted of vehicular homocide.

[FroOchie]

what we are talking about are two different things. Yes, if you break a laws there are consequences. I'm pretty sure most of us get that. My point again is that the Government regulated something, called it a privilege and some of you now believe that to be the case without question. I'm ok with that, believe what you want. I on the other hand I will believe that some laws and regulations are silly and will only abide by them to avoid imprisonment... not because I respect or believe in what they say.

[defenestrate]

I rarely operate a cell when driving, and when I have it has always taken second place to paying attention to the road. Between being young and dumb once, I also have more driving under my belt than a lot of folks (both personal and professional under all manner of conditions), and I have avoided a ton of accidents with people who were paying more attention to things other than their driving. I still am not perfect, but I have learned to give myself and others some room for error whenever possible, something that texting would often make more difficult. I agree that driving should be a right, but there are so many oblivious, inexperienced and downright incapable drivers that I don't think there is a good one-size-fits-all approach to this.

I heard the guy in the topic got 2 years. It's lousy, but he killed someone because his phone was too **** important to watch the road. I have heard of many other cases, but in terms of being a big legal story this is fairly recent.

[Blerv]

Forget the gov. Most people here are calling it a privilege .

If it was a necessity (not luxury) to drive a car many people would be screwed. They cost a small fortune up front, gas is $4 a gallon, maintenance is all over the place, and insurance is on average close to a grand per year (averaged). It's convenient but a cash catastrophe.

Without a half-decent bus system it would be a necessity and poverty would be a bigger issue. Thanks Mr Gov!


Note: as for the kid he's in trouble because he killed someone. Accident or not crossing the centerline is some pretty crap driving. Doing something illegal simultaneously is what landed him in jail. Protip...most people are crappy enough drivers without distractions.

[Pinetreebbs]

I'll admit that I don't know the circumstances and I can't make that call. I'm not sure if the sender was told prior to the driver driving or by the driver during that he was, in fact, driving. Still, I'm of the opinion that the responsibility lies with the driver alone. Lawyers are another matter, some of them can't be controlled

I can agree that party hosts should be responsible when underage guests are served alcohol and later drive, but I think it's a gray area when everyone is of legal age. It is the host's or the bar's responsibility to cut someone off if they've had enough and arrange for them to sober up or to arrange transportation, but I think their responsibility ends at the door. In some ways, I wonder if I prefer people to have common sense and not try to pass the buck,or if it's just me trying to wash my hands of the situation.

Personally, I tend to agree with what you are saying; personal responsibility is the right approach. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way in the legal system.

I know some people that have been on both sides of lawsuits resulting from car accidents and personal injury. As much as I dislike insurance companies, everyone needs to review their liability coverage amounts. This is especially true if you carry multiple passengers in a car pool. If an under/uninsured driver hits you, even if it's the other driver's fault, your passengers may end up suing you/your insurance company, to cover their medical bills or heaven forbid, their inability to make a living due to their injuries.

[Pinetreebbs]

I rarely operate a cell when driving, and when I have it has always taken second place to paying attention to the road. Between being young and dumb once, I also have more driving under my belt than a lot of folks (both personal and professional under all manner of conditions), and I have avoided a ton of accidents with people who were paying more attention to things other than their driving. I still am not perfect, but I have learned to give myself and others some room for error whenever possible, something that texting would often make more difficult. I agree that driving should be a right, but there are so many oblivious, inexperienced and downright incapable drivers that I don't think there is a good one-size-fits-all approach to this.

I heard the guy in the topic got 2 years. It's lousy, but he killed someone because his phone was too **** important to watch the road. I have heard of many other cases, but in terms of being a big legal story this is fairly recent.

Sage words, on any given day even a good driver can make a mistake and other drivers act to avoid an accident. It is a much safer road with all drivers paying complete attention to driving defensively and looking out for one another.

[Fred Sanford]

I understand that the Government says it's a privilege as I understand you're taking their word without question. What I'm saying is that you should question the premise of that whole scenario.

If you look at the law like this then I guess in your eyes whatever you feel that you need to do is a right. So if someone pisses you off, then just shoot them.

[FroOchie]

David, I was specific in saying some laws, not all laws. In my state it's illegal to frown or smirk at a cop. Yes, I would do that if I felt the need even though in that scenario the Government feels my facial expressions are a privilege. No I wouldn't just shoot someone for being angry. None of that makes txting and driving ok though.

[Fred Sanford]

Fro0chie,

I missed your post at the top of this page which made me eat my words on the post just two up from this, so I deleted it. No worries mate.

[FroOchie]

and I deleted mine in the same fashion. No longer needed and we move on. :shakehands: lol

[BAL]

Impaired drivers have been one of my biggest pet peeves for years. Most people connect an
impairment with drinking and driving. I consider anything that distracts or lowers your driving
skills and awareness as an impairment.

I would liketo see a more standard set of penalties for causing a wreck due to this. If a death
is the result, then obviously the penalty would be much greater, including jail time and loss of
driving priveledges after.

I hate the excuse that a person texting doesn't MEAN to hurt anyone in an accident. Well
I would venture to guess that a drunk person driving doesn't MEAN to hurt anyone either.

It's the same difference. Your actions caused harm to someone else. If you kill a person
due to your negligence then you need to spend some serious time behind bars. I am not
sure the exact amount, but two years as in the original case brought up, is not enough.

If you feel that it is too harsh a penalty, then you probably have never lost a loved one
due to another person. Think about it. Think about getting that call on the phone that
your wife, husband, son, daughter etc were killed due to someone HAVING to get that
text out to their BFF. Their BFF can visit them in jail for the next ten years.

[jackknifeh]

Mistakes and the results/punishments have always intrigued or bothered me. I worked on computers and a paperwork mistake on my part might cost my company 10 cents. Depending on the issue the same mistake might cost my company $1000. Of course the exact same mistake will get different reactions from my supervisors. I could doze off at the wheel and the tires cross the white line or drop off the pavement. I would wake up and get back on the road with no incident. But, if I were to hit someone walking down the road the same mistake is now a different situation. As a supervisor I tried to impress this issue to my subordinates (but now one really cared ) in a working environment. You try to kill someone by shooting them but they survive. All of a sudden the charges and punishment are different because you don't shoot well or don't shoot enough times.

Kind of funny isn't it? Another time the same crime would become two situations. Child molestation "or" child molestation against my grandson. If the punishment for the first is 25 years in prison, the punishment for the second would be 25 years in prison with me being able to decide what happens to the offender on a daily basis if the punishment were my decision. This one is different because it's a crime with bad results and the other two are mistakes or lesser crimes (crossing a line while driving) with different levels of results.

If I were a judge in situations like these my personal experiences in life or maybe just my mood the day of court could change my sentence. This may be a part of being human but not something I'm proud of.

If we imagine the worse case sinario of what we are about to do (texting while driving for example) it might be wise.

Others may feel differently about all this. It's just something I've thought about for a lot of years.


Jack

[BAL]

I know what you mean Jack, it's interesting.
I guess that life is a game of inches.

[2cha]

Been done before doesn't make it right, it doesn't matter if she knew the other party is driving or not, just out of control lawyers who would do anything for a buck.

Easy to say unless you're the one with the missing leg--though I do agree that this one is a stretch, could be the the the sender is joined to compel access to her phone and testimony too.

[jzmtl]

Maybe, but any involved person's viewpoint is even more skewed because they are out for blood and wants to drag down anyone they can, as you and BAL's post above have already demonstrated.

[BAL]

Maybe, but any involved person's viewpoint is even more skewed because they are out for blood and wants to drag down anyone they can, as you and BAL's post above have already demonstrated.

I am not sure what you mean jzmtl. I am not out for blood and have no axe to grind.
You are making an assumption based on the fact that I believe that justice needs to be
in order if a person takes another life do to their negligence.

It's the unnecessary loss of life that bothers me. People drive up and down the road
like they own it, with no regards for others. I don't care what anyone does in the privacy
of their own home, but when you get in public, it is a different story.

Seriously, I'd like to know what you would think would be a fair punishment for a person
driving a vehicle that takes anothers life. Does it matter if they are texting or drunk. I am
not talking about an accident either, such as sliding on ice or a blown tire. If you don't
like jail time, then what.

[jzmtl]

I was mostly referring to your statement of "anything that distracts or lowers your driving skills and awareness as an impairment", and your 2nd part of bold text does reinforce my point of any person emotionally involved cannot make a rational decision. It's a very wide brush there, what about driving home after work and you are tired, or you are pinching a loaf and gotta go, they all qualify as impairment under your definition. but in these cases you didn't choose to be distracted (well I guess you could argue otherwise, but that's why there are lawyers). There are things such accidents, but today people cannot accept that and always out looking for someone to blame.

[Fred Sanford]

If the entire reason that you killed another person with your vehicle is because you were distracted you should get at least 10 years in prison. While you may have not set out to murder someone it certainly was not an accident. It happened because you were not paying attention. If you don't pay attention I think you're being lazy and you do not value human life. If you don't value life then you should be OK with 10 years in prison.

[Blerv]

I don't agree to "murder" but definitely "manslaughter". That said, I am NO attorney but the consequences of the latter is still hardly hand-slap worthy.

Regardless by negligence, not intent, a human life was lost and the people surrounding that life will never be the same. I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes and admit to have texted while driving before. Despite being countless times a better driver than this distracted and tired teen I sure will think twice in the future.

Distracted driving is hard to quantify. Similar people have varying skills and the test to "earn" (ha!) a license isn't a difficult one. People chemically inebriated or participating in illegal activities while driving makes the case MUCH more clear. This teen would be facing similar problems I believe if charged with negligent driving due to speed, erratic behavior, or racing.

[BAL]

I can't believe some of the people in this thread. It's pretty obvious that some people cannot grasp the severity of murder even if it wasn't intentional. If you asked these same people how they would feel if I got blackout drunk and murdered someone their opinion would change if I had to guess....even if I didn't mean to murder the person.

Maybe some of the people are guilty of texting and driving and are just trying to justify it.

BINGO. Great comments Anonymous.
When it's a slobering ole drunk that gets behind a wheel and kills someone a certain
picture enters your head and people want to keep them behind bars forever.
Many people don't picture themselves in this situation, so it's no big deal.

However, when its texting that we are talking about, well that's something that they
do regularly and it's a different story. It might happen to them so the situation changes.
The result are the same. Someone is dead and someone took their life because of their
negligence / bad driving whatever the words you want to use.