Texting While Driving Homocide Suspect Found Guilty

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Article

Massachusetts Teen Aaron Deveau Found Guilty in Landmark Texting While Driving Case
By LINSEY DAVIS | Good Morning America

Aaron Deveau, 18, was the first driver to be charged and convicted of motor vehicle homicide by texting under Massachusetts law.

Prosecutors said Deveau, who pleaded not guilty, was texting on Feb. 20, 2011, when his vehicle swerved across the center line of a Haverhill street and crashed head on into Donald Bowley's truck, killing the 55-year-old father of three.

"My brother received such severe head trauma that ... there was no hope for him," the victim's sister Donna Burleigh testified in Haverhill District Court.

Deveau was charged with motor vehicle homicide and negligent operation of a motor vehicle, using a mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle, reading or sending an electronic message, a marked lanes violation, and two counts of negligent operation and injury from mobile phone use.

Deveau's lawyer argued that there was no evidence the crash caused Bowley's death. When Deveau testified Tuesday he said he was distracted by the amount of homework he had to do and was not sending or reading a text message in the moments before the crash. He said he sent his last text message while parked in the parking lot of the grocery store where he worked. According to Deveau's testimony, his phone remained in the passenger's seat until after the crash, when he called his parents.

But prosecutors argued that Deveau was not paying attention when the vehicles collided. Phone records indicated he sent a text message at 2:34 p.m. and received a response at 2:35 p.m. Police said the crash occurred at 2:36 p.m.

"The defendant sent and received 193 texts on Feb 20, 2011," a prosecutor told the court.

In a videotaped statement recorded after the crash, Deveau, then 17, had a question for police: "If anything happens to them, if one passes away, what would happen to me?"

Texting while driving is a crime in Washington, D.C., and 38 states, including Massachusetts. Deveau faces up to four years in prison.

**Kanluwen**

"Landmark case" is an understatement.

**Nicorex**

Good.. mabye all these morons will learn something and put there damm phones in their pockets before putting the car in drive.

**purplefood**

Deveau's lawyer argued that there was no evidence the crash caused Bowley's death.

So...
He received head trauma from nothing?
I'm a touch confused here...
4 years also seems like a light sentence...

**KingCracker**

Nicorex wrote:Good.. mabye all these morons will learn something and put there damm phones in their pockets before putting the car in drive.

Agreed completely here. My blood boils when I see people driving and texting or yapping on the damn phone. I just want to know whats so damn important that it cannot wait

purplefood wrote:
Deveau's lawyer argued that there was no evidence the crash caused Bowley's death.

So...
He received head trauma from nothing?
I'm a touch confused here...
4 years also seems like a light sentence...

I wondered the same thing when I read that

**notprop**

This is good news for Americans.

I think we are sightly further along this road here and recently heard that 3/4 of all insurance companies here will not offer a poliy to those convicted here of texting while driving. Presumably the remaining 1/4 levy huge premiums.

It pleases me that these offences are taken so seriously.

**Monster Rain**

I'm actually not sure that 4 years is long enough for killing someone due to negligence, but this is still a very good thing.

**Orlanth**

If its not hands free it shouldn't be on if one is driving.
This person should get the same punishment as a drink driver.
its good that the US is catching up on this issue, its important to do so.

Cases like these are common in the UK, and treated very seriously and not as accidents. there are even poster campaigns to raise awareness.

There is one local bus shelters which says : One txt read, three mates dead.

**Experiment 626**

Monster Rain wrote:I'm actually not sure that 4 years is long enough for killing someone due to negligence, but this is still a very good thing.

Our laws need to catch-up with the modern era.
Canada is also appauling in it's sentencing regarding vehicular crimes, typically no more than 8-10 years in the most extreme of cases, but it seems like a 'standard' sentance of only 2-5 years is ever applied. (hell, we have one moron who killed a cop 5 years ago by crushing him against a tree with the car he was stealing the airbag from, and was up for parole last week!

)

IMHO, vehicular homicide should be punished just as harshly as homicide with a knife, or gun, or poison, or whatever else! You rob an innocent person of their life, you shouldn't breath 'free' air anytime in the near future.

**angel of ecstasy**

Wow, Sweden has a lot to learn. Unfortunately we love criminals over here

**dogma**

Orlanth wrote:If its not hands free it shouldn't be on if one is driving.

No phone is completely hands free, and turning off a cell phone is generally not an option. Then of course there are hands free devices, like GPS, that also feature video screens. These are legal of course, while televisions are not, which is confusing, or would be if it didn't point to the standard of convenience or commerce over safety. Another example would be road signs not related to traffic regulations, such as those posted by businesses, and the manner in which they serve to distract the driver from pedestrians and other cars.

Of course, one could make the argument that everyone takes the same risks when they choose to drive or walk near a road, and that both should be avoided if those risks are unacceptable.

Orlanth wrote:
This person should get the same punishment as a drink driver.

Disagree completely, the offenses aren't related in severity. It would be like punishing someone for driving while drowsy the same way you punished someone who drove while drunk.

Experiment 626 wrote:You rob an innocent person of their life, you shouldn't breath 'free' air anytime in the near future.

The problem is that with vehicular homicide determining innocence isn't usually cut and dry.

**hotsauceman1**

While its sad that the man died i also consider it sad that the kids life is ruined from one mistake. MAkes ya think sometimes.

**A Town Called Malus**

hotsauceman1 wrote:While its sad that the man died i also consider it sad that the kids life is ruined from one mistake. MAkes ya think sometimes.

His choice. He made the decision to text on his phone whilst driving, now he has to live with it.

The other person doesn't get the chance to live with their choices, so I guess that makes the kid the lucky one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
This person should get the same punishment as a drink driver.

Disagree completely, the offenses aren't related in severity. It would be like punishing someone for driving while drowsy the same way you punished someone who drove while drunk.

Driving whilst drowsy is just as dangerous as driving drunk or whilst under the influence of drugs, hence why truck drivers are legally required to take breaks every several hours.

How can you say the offences aren't related in severity? Because of this driver's inattention to the road due to him being on his phone another person is dead. How does the reason for his inattention make that any less severe? You could argue that the drunk driver is less culpable as their decision making abilities are impaired from alcohol, whereas this person was in full control of his when he decided to use his phone. He has no excuse.

**Kilkrazy**

Drowsiness can creep up you, while texting requires a conscious act of will.

**Vulcan**

Personally, I think driving while drunk/high/applying makeup/on the phone/texting is attempted murder; killing someone while doing so is 1st degree murder. You commited the impairing act knowing that killing someone was a possibility. If we quit pussyfooting around, maybe people will finally get it through their heads that driving while distracted is DANGEROUS!

Of course, I think selling illegal drugs harder than pot should be attempted murder as well (they are just poisons with odd side effects in not-quite-lethal doses); making it clearly murder if someone ODs on your product. USING these drugs is, of course, attempted suicide and should be treated as such - with therapy.

So long as alchohol is legal, pot should be as well. It is no worse, and it can be argued that it isn't even as bas as, alchohol.

All of which is off topic, sorry.

**Mannahnin**

Killing someone because you're texting/applying makeup/on the phone while driving is the definition of manslaughter. Attempted murder and 1st degree murder are based on intent. You wanted to kill someone and planned to kill someone, respectively.

---------

Penalty looks right, to me. 2-5 years is more than enough to wreck your life and pound the message home. Longer wouldn't really serve a useful purpose.

**Experiment 626**

Mannahnin wrote:Killing someone because you're texting/applying makeup/on the phone while driving is the definition of manslaughter. Attempted murder and 1st degree murder are based on intent. You wanted to kill someone and planned to kill someone, respectively.

Actually, it's automatically 1st degree murder if you kill a cop while driving impaired/texting/reading/applying make-up or whatever other distraction you can think of.

**Ahtman**

Experiment 626 wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Killing someone because you're texting/applying makeup/on the phone while driving is the definition of manslaughter. Attempted murder and 1st degree murder are based on intent. You wanted to kill someone and planned to kill someone, respectively.

Actually, it's automatically 1st degree murder if you kill a cop while driving impaired/texting/reading/applying make-up or whatever other distraction you can think of.

I thought it was usually a different charge for killing a police officer, or it a separate charge that enhances the penalty. I doubt it works out quite as simple as a change from manslaughter to Murder 1. Anything to substantiate the claim?

**dogma**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Driving whilst drowsy is just as dangerous as driving drunk or whilst under the influence of drugs, hence why truck drivers are legally required to take breaks every several hours.

Well, not quite as dangerous. Drowsy people don't vomit, or get the spins, due to being drowsy.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
How can you say the offences aren't related in severity? Because of this driver's inattention to the road due to him being on his phone another person is dead.

I didn't pay attention to a number of life savings charities this past year (Made even worse because I knew they existed, shows intent)., and because of my inattention I'm certain that people are dead. Clearly, I should be tried for murder.

Or, to spell it out, the result, while important, must be considered in the context of what led up to the result. This is why we have manslaughter and murder, instead of just murder.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
How does the reason for his inattention make that any less severe? You could argue that the drunk driver is less culpable as their decision making abilities are impaired from alcohol, whereas this person was in full control of his when he decided to use his phone. He has no excuse.

You could make that argument, but generally being drunk isn't considered an excuse for anything in a legal sense; except possibly determining murder 1 vis. murder 2 (not sure though).

**A Town Called Malus**

dogma wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Driving whilst drowsy is just as dangerous as driving drunk or whilst under the influence of drugs, hence why truck drivers are legally required to take breaks every several hours.

Well, not quite as dangerous. Drowsy people don't vomit, or get the spins, due to being drowsy.

No, it is just as dangerous. Not almost as dangerous, exactly as dangerous. Just like drink and drugs it slows reaction times, decreases concentration and affects your hand-eye coordination.

To argue otherwise is ridiculous. Whether you are drunk or tired, you are unfit to drive.

dogma wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
How can you say the offences aren't related in severity? Because of this driver's inattention to the road due to him being on his phone another person is dead.

I didn't pay attention to a number of life savings charities this past year (Made even worse because I knew they existed, shows intent)., and because of my inattention I'm certain that people are dead. Clearly, I should be tried for murder.

Or, to spell it out, the result, while important, must be considered in the context of what led up to the result. This is why we have manslaughter and murder, instead of just murder.

How about a reply which isn't a straw man? There is a large difference between not donating money to a charity and not paying attention to the road whilst you are driving a vehicle. The first just makes you a bit of a dick or someone who doesn't have the cash in which case you might need some charity of your own, the second makes you a complete idiot who should have his head smashed against the bonnet of his car until he realises that being hit by several tons of metal is not a nice thing to happen.

dogma wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
How does the reason for his inattention make that any less severe? You could argue that the drunk driver is less culpable as their decision making abilities are impaired from alcohol, whereas this person was in full control of his when he decided to use his phone. He has no excuse.

You could make that argument, but generally being drunk isn't considered an excuse for anything in a legal sense; except possibly determining murder 1 vis. murder 2 (not sure though).

I'm not saying that it would work in court, just that this kind of idiot is worse as he has no excuse to have not been paying attention to the road. A guy who drove drunk is still a moron but his decision to drive without due care and attention was made when he was under the influence of a drug. The phone moron made that decision when in full control of his brain, so if anything he's possibly even thicker than the drunk driver as his mental capacities when he's completely sober are equal to that of the drunk person.

**dogma**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
No, it is just as dangerous. Not almost as dangerous, exactly as dangerous. Just like drink and drugs it slows reaction times, decreases concentration and affects your hand-eye coordination.

To argue otherwise is ridiculous. Whether you are drunk or tired, you are unfit to drive.

Binary arguments are really, really easy to defeat.

Being so impaired that X happens is not the same as being so impaired that Y happens. The argument that X and Y are the same is nonsense.

If that which decreased concentration, and negatively affected hand-eye coordination were necessarily the issue then radios would be illegal, as would passengers.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
How about a reply which isn't a straw man?

I am the absolute last person you want to debate fallacies with, word to the wise.

Anyway, that isn't a strawman. Strawman arguments require misrepresentation of the point being argued against, I did no such thing. Your stated position was that the result, death, was more important than what led to the death. That might not have been the position you meant to represent, but then the fault is yours for being careless in the way you represented your position.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
There is a large difference between not donating money to a charity and not paying attention to the road whilst you are driving a vehicle. The first just makes you a bit of a dick or someone who doesn't have the cash in which case you might need some charity of your own, the second makes you a complete idiot who should have his head smashed against the bonnet of his car until he realises that being hit by several tons of metal is not a nice thing to happen.

Its also not nice when you have no clean water to drink.

Your standard of judgment seems to be irrational. After all, having to stop for a pedestrian when I'm late make the pedestrian a bit of dick.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
I'm not saying that it would work in court, just that this kind of idiot is worse as he has no excuse to have not been paying attention to the road.

An 18-year-old probably doesn't, but a business person might. Or perhaps a father who is supporting his family, and needs to take that critical business call.