Found guilty, teen to serve year in fatal texting crash

123457»

Replies

  • FitLink
    FitLink Posts: 1,317 Member
    .
  • FitLink
    FitLink Posts: 1,317 Member
    My question is how far will this allow law makers to go? No more listening to music, eating, talking with others in the vehicle.. all of these are considered distractions, are they not?

    I guess it really doesn't matter, does it? Is your listening to music more valuable than someone else's life? Using the word "murder" may be emotional blackmail, but your fight to swing your arm ends at my nose, as the saying goes.

    Let's turn your analogy the other way, shall we? I'd like to play video games while I drive. Is there any reason to assume I might harm someone else if I play games while I drive? Since if I do harm someone it won't be intentional, does that mean it should be allowed?

    Most of Dr. Strayer's work did show that music, eating, and talking to others in the vehicle are all distracting. Talking on a cell phone using hands free he found to be no safer than not using hands free. But talking to someone else in the vehicle is different in that when both people can sense what is going on around the other they're better able to gauge what and when they say things. A person in the car with you will change pace, pitch and timbre when it's obvious the traffic situation is tricky. The person on the other end of the phone won't, because s/he doesn't know what is going on around you. Talking to a present person is less distracting. I REALLY don't see any reason to treat eating while driving any differently than texting. Hungry? Pull over. Music, unlike conversation, blends into the background when you need focus--it doesn't REQUIRE thought. For this reason, I don't find audiobooks to be interchangeable with music in this regard.
  • FitLink
    FitLink Posts: 1,317 Member
    Lot of rhetoric about "accidental". Choosing to text, drive distracted or drive impaired is not an accident. It's a choice.

    Making that choice and killing someone is no less a crime.

    Never said it was, but calling him a murderer for being distracted for a moment. You can't tell me, that you haven't looked in the back seat, if you have kids, to check if they was alright or to break up a fight between them.... Same thing here. The only difference is he looked down to press a few buttons... it is still driving distracted, Yes he should be prosecuted.... but being called a murder for it... That is my issue... sorry... He didn't set out to kill anyone, he looked away for a moment, a young driver's mistake. You can't tell me your not also guilty of that. And if you put the bs, "Well, I am not on trial... " every time you did you could have been

    Bad luck, was on his side that day....

    Are we supposed to care what he gets called? REALLY? The crime he was charged with wasn't murder, and the question the OP asked was if the sentence he was given for the crime he did commit was too severe. He wasn't "sentenced" to being called a "murderer." He should be called a killer; he is one, and in all his life he should never, ever, forget that. Those kids whose grandfather was killed by him never will. And yes, I CAN tell you I am not guilty of ever killing someone. I can tell you I am not guilty of texting or using the phone while driving. Yes, most people have been distracted while driving. That is not the same as being INTENTIONALLY distracted. If the kids are fighting in the back seat they are fighting. You pull over and deal with it. Sometimes, you DO have to deal with kids right now. You don't have to send or answer a text right this minute. It's different, you know it's different.

    We have conservative talk radio hosts publicly calling law school students "sluts" and questioning their morals because they take a drug also prescribed for birth control for a medical purpose. Where is the outrage? These women have done nothing to harm anyone, yet they're labelled as having poor morals. This young man did something ILLEGAL and because he COMMITTED AN ILLEGAL ACT someone is dead. Who cares what he gets called? He wasn't TRIED for or CONVICTED OF murder. What he gets called is of no concern to me, he showed no respect for the life or wellbeing of anyone else.

    I think the jail time is sufficiently long; but I am not sure 15 years is adequate loss of license. Someone DIED.
  • vade43113
    vade43113 Posts: 836 Member
    What would be an appropriate sentence for someone who killed your children's grandfather doing something well known to be dangerous and possibly deadly? Remember, he clearly considered the text more important than anyone he hit while making it.

    So your saying that this kid had clairvoyance? He knew he was going to hit someone, and still choose to answer his phone... I doubt that is the case. People do stupid stuff all the time, answering his phone was his this day. Hell, we don't even know what the texts was about.... we get a few paragraph write up, and from that draw swords at the kid.
  • vade43113
    vade43113 Posts: 836 Member
    Lot of rhetoric about "accidental". Choosing to text, drive distracted or drive impaired is not an accident. It's a choice.

    Making that choice and killing someone is no less a crime.

    Never said it was, but calling him a murderer for being distracted for a moment. You can't tell me, that you haven't looked in the back seat, if you have kids, to check if they was alright or to break up a fight between them.... Same thing here. The only difference is he looked down to press a few buttons... it is still driving distracted, Yes he should be prosecuted.... but being called a murder for it... That is my issue... sorry... He didn't set out to kill anyone, he looked away for a moment, a young driver's mistake. You can't tell me your not also guilty of that. And if you put the bs, "Well, I am not on trial... " every time you did you could have been

    Bad luck, was on his side that day....

    Are we supposed to care what he gets called? REALLY? The crime he was charged with wasn't murder, and the question the OP asked was if the sentence he was given for the crime he did commit was too severe. He wasn't "sentenced" to being called a "murderer." He should be called a killer; he is one, and in all his life he should never, ever, forget that. Those kids whose grandfather was killed by him never will. And yes, I CAN tell you I am not guilty of ever killing someone. I can tell you I am not guilty of texting or using the phone while driving. Yes, most people have been distracted while driving. That is not the same as being INTENTIONALLY distracted. If the kids are fighting in the back seat they are fighting. You pull over and deal with it. Sometimes, you DO have to deal with kids right now. You don't have to send or answer a text right this minute. It's different, you know it's different.

    We have conservative talk radio hosts publicly calling law school students "sluts" and questioning their morals because they take a drug also prescribed for birth control for a medical purpose. Where is the outrage? These women have done nothing to harm anyone, yet they're labelled as having poor morals. This young man did something ILLEGAL and because he COMMITTED AN ILLEGAL ACT someone is dead. Who cares what he gets called? He wasn't TRIED for or CONVICTED OF murder. What he gets called is of no concern to me, he showed no respect for the life or wellbeing of anyone else.

    I think the jail time is sufficiently long; but I am not sure 15 years is adequate loss of license. Someone DIED.

    May I ask what does, the birth control issue have to deal with this?

    And how do you know he didn't show any respect for life? Because. he did something most of us do when we hear a phone ring, answer it?

    And you keep on wanting to bring up the fact that his grandchildren will not be able to see their grandfather. Guess what, 4 births, 2 deaths per second... and how many of them would have truly cared to see their grandfather? How about when he is older and in the nursing home? Or when he is mumbling about something that happened 95 years ago? If they truly cared then they would have seen him, and let him know how they feel. You don't have tomorrow promised, you have now to say all your going to say. The world is unfair... deal with it.

    I say he shouldn't be called a murderer, because that is how others are calling him. By definition of the word itself, he isn't.

    You better not look down, look down after dropping something on the floor, or look down to change the radio station... they are intentional just as well and just as easily they could cost someone their life
  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    We're not really going to spin this into a discussion of who has more respect for life: a woman who uses birth conrol or is pro-choice or someone who texts while driving? Are we?
  • Elizabeth_C34
    Elizabeth_C34 Posts: 6,376 Member
    74a4b__mlDBp.jpg
  • macpatti
    macpatti Posts: 4,280 Member
    Awww.....come over to the Debate group on here, Elizabeth! You know we love to "internet argue" there!
  • vade43113
    vade43113 Posts: 836 Member
    We're not really going to spin this into a discussion of who has more respect for life: a woman who uses birth conrol or is pro-choice or someone who texts while driving? Are we?

    If we do, I am out.... cause, pro choice is to kill the life of a unborn yet infant.... how that respects life, I don't know.

    Birth control can be used to save a person's life... or prolong it.... or stop a new life from coming forth....

    And someone who texts while drives, is making an foolish mistake.... but, what else is new? I think the creation of the cellphone was a foolish move, but that is just my opinion

    Ultimately, it is a person's definition of "respect to life". It is, like so many other words and phrases in the english language, has a different meaning to the person speaking it... than to the person hearing it
  • happyfeetrebel1
    happyfeetrebel1 Posts: 1,005 Member
    My question is how far will this allow law makers to go? No more listening to music, eating, talking with others in the vehicle.. all of these are considered distractions, are they not?

    I don't think you SHOULD be eating while driving.
  • tripitena
    tripitena Posts: 554 Member

    So your saying that this kid had clairvoyance? He knew he was going to hit someone, and still choose to answer his phone... I doubt that is the case. People do stupid stuff all the time, answering his phone was his this day. Hell, we don't even know what the texts was about.... we get a few paragraph write up, and from that draw swords at the kid.

    No need for clairvoyance. It's all over the media, drivers education classes teach it, billboards announce it, PSAs announce it,its against the law almost everywhere in the US and - how about this: its common sense.

    What the text was about doesn't matter. Would it be so hard to wait a few seconds and pull into a parking lot to read it? I even pull off to answer the phone, hands free. It only takes a minute to Not Kill Someone.

    When we do things that have the reasonable expectation that it may cause injury to ourselves, others or property we have to accept the consequences. Much like a drunk driving crash, it is no accident.

Categories