Discussion in 'Current Events' started by stevethrower, Jun 1, 2012.
So he received 2 texts one minute before the crash... so they're claiming he was either reading those or typing a reply? Yet there's absolutely no proof that either of those happened, and you can't convict someone on assumptions. The best the prosecution can come up with is the vague fact that he sent 193 texts during that day.
If he caused the accident, charge him with whatever negligence you can prove.
I'm sure fenrir is about to disagree with me, he just seems like the type.
If you can prove that he was engaged in a text exchange from the time he started travelling you can build a case. This seems more circumstantial. If they found his phone, with a partial message on it, then it's a slam dunk. If he had just sent a message, same thing.
Yeah but it sounds like if that happened they would have reported it. I've seen news reports that state someone sent a text message one minute before causing a bad accident... seems like an odd fact to omit if it happened.
I've also been wondering this lately... is it illegal to text at all, or just to text using your hands? Most phones have voice-to-text capabilities these days. It probably varies state-by-state, but if I was in a similar situation that would be my defense.
they have been playing this up on the Ma. News stations...It's a dogshit case. They have NOTHING to prove he was texting at the time of the accident. Even the lead officer on the case stated he has no proof he was texting. It's absolutely a case of the State trying to make and example of someone by tacking on the extra umph of texting while driving...he said he was tired and may have dozed off...they can't prove that didn't happen..He's a shithead for causing the accident but the state is also retarded for bring the case as such
Receiving a text isn't the same thing as sending, or even reading one. I get emails & texts all the time while I'm driving, but I wait until I'm at a traffic light or at least on a clear stretch of road before looking at them. But according to prosecutor's bullshit theory, if I have an accident 10 seconds after my phone went off, that's proof I was texting even if the phone's still in my pocket. If they at least had proof the texts had been read before the accident, then they might have a case. Here, they only have one if they get a judge with something to prove.
It may be something you wouldn't get a ticket for but if you got in an accident you would still be liable because you were distracted. Talking in the phone with a Bluetooth in your car is legal but if it can be proven that you allowed yourself to become distracted you're still in trouble.
I remember when Siri came out for the iPhone that a lot of the tech blogs said that it would still be illegal to text like that in some states that have banned simply "touching" your cell phone to turn on the feature while driving.
There's a bill that just passed the California Assembly that would specifically ALLOW voice-activated texting, so we'll see how it goes.
I don't get it. So the government has to tell me that it's wrong to drink and drive, it's wrong to type away on a keyboard and drive, it's wrong to hold a phone and talk away while I drive, etc., because I'm too stupid to know on my own, right?
But figuring out whether it's right or wrong to use text to voice while I drive, I am perfectly capable of? Now all of a sudden I'm a responsible adult?
Fuck this. If we're mindless children who need to be told what to do, then let the people in charge be liable for when we do something wrong.