7 ms·

Vehicular manslaughter charge upgraded to murder because of tweets

27 points by icpmacdo 13y ago

johnvschmitt 13y ago
Seems fair. It's not because of "tweets" but because of evidence of intentional recklessness that resulted in the death of an innocent. As a society, we tend to lack accountability when a car is involved. If he, for instance, killed someone by swinging an axe around a playground for fun, there'd be no question about murder charges.
- icpmacdo 13y ago
  It seems way to easily these days for teenage's to ruin there lives with social networks.
  - bdcravens 13y ago
    This isn't one of those situations. This guy ruined his life by ending another's. Even without the tweets, he'd probably be facing 10+ years in prison.
- tjoff 13y ago
  Cars are dangerous, but we humans get numb to the idea that any mishap could be yours and/or several others final moment. If it were common practice to be swinging an axe around in the classroom for hours straight we'd probably be more lenient to the accidents that would have occurred as well.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  You usually don't ride your axe to work? Axe is a tool that's used in woods. Cars are used on the street.
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Murder is intentional killing, this guy appears to have only said "I'm going to drive really fast" not "I'm going to run over that particular woman". There is a difference between shooting your neighbour because you disagree over loud music and standing in your garden and firing up to celebrate the superbowl win and the bullet comes down killing your neighbour. You should do time for both yes, but they are different crimes.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The mens rea requirement for common law murder could be satisfied by reckless indifference to risk to human life (among other things) as well as intent to kill; this is reflected in most murder statutes in US jurisdictions.
  - icpmacdo 13y ago
    Which seems a little ridiculous in this situation.
    - jrockway 13y ago
      You think it's ridiculous that it's considered reckless to drive twice the speed limit? If he was driving 40mph, it would be an accident. At 80mph, it's murder. He made the premeditated decision to kill when he threw everything he knew about driving safely out the window and put the pedal to the metal. It's that simple.
      - pfisch 13y ago
        He was only 18 years old and he was speeding. Murder is a bit of a stretch.
        jrockway 13y ago
        Actions have consequences. 18 year-olds can understand that. This wasn't a freeway where he was going 80 in a 75 zone. It was a normal road with intersections and many other road users going the speed limit or below. It's simply idiotic to drive 80 there, and it's very easy to accidentally kill someone when you're going that fast. (You have no time to react.) Driver's Ed is 6 months of you being told this every single day. He knew it was dangerous. He did it anyway. He killed someone. That's murder. (Personally, I think 40mph is way too high of a speed limit for roads like this. 20mph would be a much better. Car/pedestrian collisions are much more survivable at that speed, and cyclists can move in and out of traffic freely. But 80mph is just fucking insane.)
lutusp 13y ago
A related topic -- I wonder how many young drivers realize that, reaction time aside, it takes four times the distance to stop a car at 80 MPH as at 40 MPH. Four times the distance, not twice, as many people think. The reason? A moving mass has a kinetic energy equal to 1/2 mv^2 -- note the squared velocity term. I think this is something that young drivers should be taught. Older drivers learn this by experience and acquired instinct, but young drivers, especially those who don't learn physics or mathematics in school, may learn it the hard way. Reference: http://arachnoid.com/conservation_of_energy/#Kinetic_Energy http://arachnoid.com/conservation_of_energy/#Kinetic_Energy
- dalek_cannes 13y ago
  If physicists ruled the world, speed limit signs would be replaced with momentum limit signs.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Cute, but momentum and kinetic energy aren't comparable. Momentum: p = mv Kinetic Energy: E = 1/2 mv^2 IOW E is the first integral of p with respect to velocity. Your suggestion has something important going for it, though -- more massive vehicles would have to slow down.
    - dalek_cannes 13y ago
      Given one, the other is implied though. Only the limit will have to be set accordingly.
      - aa0 13y ago
        You're wrong. The relationship is different, the graph of the speed limit vs velocity would also be different, for the same masses/cars.
  - rcthompson 13y ago
    So Smart cars and motorcycles should be allowed to drive at 100+ mph?
cgag 13y ago
Thank god this kid will be spending many years behind bars. How else would he ever realize the mistake he's made? Without charging him with murder, he'd surely continue driving recklessly after gaining a taste for blood.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  I know this is probably sarcasm, but that depends on individual.
- dagw 13y ago
  I kind of have to agree with you. A short stint in prison, pay financial compensation to the victim's family and a 10 year ban on driving (followed perhaps by a 5 year probation period where any speeding violation would lead to losing his license) would seem a more reasonable punishment. I still think he should be charged with murder though.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Thank god this kid will be spending many years behind bars. How else would he ever realize the mistake he's made? Moral education of the offender isn't the only purpose of criminal punishment.
newman314 13y ago
I realize this is probably going to be an unpopular view but I'm concerned that this is yet another slippery slope. We have all said stupid things in the past but should that all be held as evidence in judgement?
- DannyBee 13y ago
  If they are evidence of intent, yes, they can and should be evidence in judgement. This particular example would be absolutely no different if he had written down "I really liked speeding today!" repeatedly on pieces of paper and put them on his fridge or whatever else would show intent.
  - newman314 13y ago
    But speeding != intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. "I really liked speeding today" could mean a day at the drag strip. Admittedly far-fetched but not implausible. Hence, unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that his tweets signaled his intent to hurt/maim/kill, it is hard to see how this should be allowed. Different example: you are having a bad day today and someone overhears you muttering "I'm gonna knock someone out". Your coworker shows up shortly after sporting a black eye from when he slipped and fell earlier. Is it reasonable to assume you beat the crap out of him then?
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Doing 80 in a 40 and then bragging about it isn't evidence of intent to kill. It is, however, evidence of a state of mind that comprehends the speed limit and not only disregards it entirely, but does so deliberately. The law calls that (among other things) "depraved indifference". Similarly: imagine you got drunk at a friends apartment, picked up a rifle, and fired several rounds through the floor and into the apartment before (this happened with a friend of mine, now deceased). Imagine you killed someone. You clearly didn't intend to, but no reasonable person could fail to grasp the implication of firing a gun blindly into someone else's apartment. You were recklessly indifferent to the lives of the tenants below you, and have committed second-degree murder. Driving 80 in a 40mph residential zone is no different from firing a gun blindly through the floor of a top-floor apartment. When my late friend did that, I'm sure he had no comprehension that he might have killed someone. Thankfully, he didn't.

27 points by icpmacdo 13y ago

Seems fair. It's not because of "tweets" but because of evidence of intentional recklessness that resulted in the death of an innocent. As a society, we tend to lack accountability when a car is involved. If he, for instance, killed someone by swinging an axe around a playground for fun, there'd be no question about murder charges.

icpmacdo 13y ago
It seems way to easily these days for teenage's to ruin there lives with social networks.
- bdcravens 13y ago
  This isn't one of those situations. This guy ruined his life by ending another's. Even without the tweets, he'd probably be facing 10+ years in prison.
tjoff 13y ago
Cars are dangerous, but we humans get numb to the idea that any mishap could be yours and/or several others final moment. If it were common practice to be swinging an axe around in the classroom for hours straight we'd probably be more lenient to the accidents that would have occurred as well.
Ygg2 13y ago
You usually don't ride your axe to work? Axe is a tool that's used in woods. Cars are used on the street.

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

Murder is intentional killing, this guy appears to have only said "I'm going to drive really fast" not "I'm going to run over that particular woman". There is a difference between shooting your neighbour because you disagree over loud music and standing in your garden and firing up to celebrate the superbowl win and the bullet comes down killing your neighbour. You should do time for both yes, but they are different crimes.

dragonwriter 13y ago
The mens rea requirement for common law murder could be satisfied by reckless indifference to risk to human life (among other things) as well as intent to kill; this is reflected in most murder statutes in US jurisdictions.
- icpmacdo 13y ago
  Which seems a little ridiculous in this situation.
  - jrockway 13y ago
    You think it's ridiculous that it's considered reckless to drive twice the speed limit? If he was driving 40mph, it would be an accident. At 80mph, it's murder. He made the premeditated decision to kill when he threw everything he knew about driving safely out the window and put the pedal to the metal. It's that simple.
    - pfisch 13y ago
      He was only 18 years old and he was speeding. Murder is a bit of a stretch.
      - jrockway 13y ago
        Actions have consequences. 18 year-olds can understand that. This wasn't a freeway where he was going 80 in a 75 zone. It was a normal road with intersections and many other road users going the speed limit or below. It's simply idiotic to drive 80 there, and it's very easy to accidentally kill someone when you're going that fast. (You have no time to react.) Driver's Ed is 6 months of you being told this every single day. He knew it was dangerous. He did it anyway. He killed someone. That's murder. (Personally, I think 40mph is way too high of a speed limit for roads like this. 20mph would be a much better. Car/pedestrian collisions are much more survivable at that speed, and cyclists can move in and out of traffic freely. But 80mph is just fucking insane.)

lutusp 13y ago

A related topic -- I wonder how many young drivers realize that, reaction time aside, it takes four times the distance to stop a car at 80 MPH as at 40 MPH. Four times the distance, not twice, as many people think. The reason? A moving mass has a kinetic energy equal to 1/2 mv^2 -- note the squared velocity term. I think this is something that young drivers should be taught. Older drivers learn this by experience and acquired instinct, but young drivers, especially those who don't learn physics or mathematics in school, may learn it the hard way. Reference: http://arachnoid.com/conservation_of_energy/#Kinetic_Energy http://arachnoid.com/conservation_of_energy/#Kinetic_Energy

dalek_cannes 13y ago
If physicists ruled the world, speed limit signs would be replaced with momentum limit signs.
- lutusp 13y ago
  Cute, but momentum and kinetic energy aren't comparable. Momentum: p = mv Kinetic Energy: E = 1/2 mv^2 IOW E is the first integral of p with respect to velocity. Your suggestion has something important going for it, though -- more massive vehicles would have to slow down.
  - dalek_cannes 13y ago
    Given one, the other is implied though. Only the limit will have to be set accordingly.
    - aa0 13y ago
      You're wrong. The relationship is different, the graph of the speed limit vs velocity would also be different, for the same masses/cars.
- rcthompson 13y ago
  So Smart cars and motorcycles should be allowed to drive at 100+ mph?

cgag 13y ago

Thank god this kid will be spending many years behind bars. How else would he ever realize the mistake he's made? Without charging him with murder, he'd surely continue driving recklessly after gaining a taste for blood.

Ygg2 13y ago
I know this is probably sarcasm, but that depends on individual.
dagw 13y ago
I kind of have to agree with you. A short stint in prison, pay financial compensation to the victim's family and a 10 year ban on driving (followed perhaps by a 5 year probation period where any speeding violation would lead to losing his license) would seem a more reasonable punishment. I still think he should be charged with murder though.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Thank god this kid will be spending many years behind bars. How else would he ever realize the mistake he's made? Moral education of the offender isn't the only purpose of criminal punishment.

newman314 13y ago

I realize this is probably going to be an unpopular view but I'm concerned that this is yet another slippery slope. We have all said stupid things in the past but should that all be held as evidence in judgement?

DannyBee 13y ago
If they are evidence of intent, yes, they can and should be evidence in judgement. This particular example would be absolutely no different if he had written down "I really liked speeding today!" repeatedly on pieces of paper and put them on his fridge or whatever else would show intent.
- newman314 13y ago
  But speeding != intent to commit vehicular manslaughter. "I really liked speeding today" could mean a day at the drag strip. Admittedly far-fetched but not implausible. Hence, unless you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that his tweets signaled his intent to hurt/maim/kill, it is hard to see how this should be allowed. Different example: you are having a bad day today and someone overhears you muttering "I'm gonna knock someone out". Your coworker shows up shortly after sporting a black eye from when he slipped and fell earlier. Is it reasonable to assume you beat the crap out of him then?
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Doing 80 in a 40 and then bragging about it isn't evidence of intent to kill. It is, however, evidence of a state of mind that comprehends the speed limit and not only disregards it entirely, but does so deliberately. The law calls that (among other things) "depraved indifference". Similarly: imagine you got drunk at a friends apartment, picked up a rifle, and fired several rounds through the floor and into the apartment before (this happened with a friend of mine, now deceased). Imagine you killed someone. You clearly didn't intend to, but no reasonable person could fail to grasp the implication of firing a gun blindly into someone else's apartment. You were recklessly indifferent to the lives of the tenants below you, and have committed second-degree murder. Driving 80 in a 40mph residential zone is no different from firing a gun blindly through the floor of a top-floor apartment. When my late friend did that, I'm sure he had no comprehension that he might have killed someone. Thankfully, he didn't.