Driver Sued For Updating Facebook In Fatal Crash 365
An anonymous reader writes "21-year-old Chicago motorist Araceli Beas has been accused of attempting to update her Facebook page on her cell phone when she allegedly struck and killed 70-year-old Raymond Veloz. The victim's daughter, Regina Cabrales, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, asking for an unspecified amount of money. Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident. As proof, she points to the fact that Beas' Facebook page showed an update posted at 7:54 AM on December 7, 2010, which is the same time that Veloz's cell phone records showed a call being made to 911."
Same time? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is, of course, assuming that the person making the call isn't psychic and made the call before the wreck.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think it's important what was posted. If her status update is "Oops just killed an old guy" then fair enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Subject of Facebook Message (Score:5, Informative)
Rosario Rodriguez said her daughter, Araceli Beas, posted that she needed to go to the gym as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home near East 80th Street and South Commercial Avenue last Dec. 27.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-womans-mom-denies-facebook-allegation-20110215,0,4906576.story [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, if it was something like OMG I was in a car accident, then really no case.
No case??? Seriously?? If you hit a man with your car and first thing you think about is "oh, I need to update my facebook status", than .... WTF is wrong with you???
Re: (Score:2)
No case??? Seriously?? If you hit a man with your car and first thing you think about is "oh, I need to update my facebook status", than .... WTF is wrong with you???
Actually, yeah there would be no case for wrongful death. If you were posting about the event that occurred, how do you propose that facebook status update caused the accident? You got some new physics?
If you are making a case against uncouth behavior, sure, but last I checked thats not illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
"Negligence" is a failure to exercise reasonable care. Hitting someone and then Facebooking about it before calling 911 is pretty plainly negligent and would be a slam dunk with a jury.
Re: (Score:3)
WTF is wrong with people that think they need to update their Facebook status at all? Not just after car accidents...
Re: (Score:3)
There are laws in most places protecting so called "good Samaritans" If however you act in a malicious or irresponsible way when you render said help, you may still be vulnerable to legal action. Realistically, if you are the first person on the scene of an accident, you should do what is in your capabilities to assist, even if all you can do is call for more capable help.
Honestly there is no excuse to not know Basic Life Support (aka CPR) in this day and age. Most communities have classes on the cheap, it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The sequence could have been this:
* Facebook updated at 07:54:03
* Crash occurs at 07:54:06
* 911 call occurs at 07:54:47
It's quite possible that the update, collision and 911 called happened within the same minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Same time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it really matter if she had 2 seconds to regain her focus on the road after composing and submitting a facebook post? She was still driving recklessly by posting to facebook while driving.
mods on crack (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Wise acknowledged that he still needed to review whether the timing mechanisms in both cell phones were in sync and whether Beas’ Facebook page updated immediately after she sent her message.
“We will find out from the system how those times are recorded,” he said. “We are going to subpoena everything.”
That's from the Tribune article. Depending on the facts, this could get very nasty for the girl driving if she's found to be facebooking while driving (a moving violation in Illinois, which could lead to vehicular homicide charges).
Re: (Score:3)
That aside, to get the DA's office to pursue the charges as a result of the civil action would be a bit tough. Keep in mind, civil cases require only a preponderance of the evidence, while a criminal action requires proof beyond a rea
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Same time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same time? (Score:4, Informative)
Cant tell without the time of the accident (Score:4, Insightful)
He was calling 911 about the first accident when she struck him.
Classic bit of false inference.
Assuming the phone times were accurate and in sync (big assumption), someone was calling 911 on the victim's phone at the same time as she hit "submit" on her Facebook upgrade. That this was the victim reporting the first accident is a reasonable surmise, but there's no evidence of this. Nor is it stated anywhere that the victim was on the phone at the time of the second accident.
The critical bit of missing information is the precise time of the second accident. If you read TFA-within-TFA this is given as "about 8:00".
So even if the timings are in sync and "about 8:00" was precise, the defendant could reasonably have finished Facebooking 6 minutes before the fatal accident. That sounds like enough time to be parked up, put down your phone, pull out and drive 2 miles. Even easier if "about 8:00" means "8:05" or "8:10".
Its really not worth delving into the details of when the calls/postings were made unless the time of the accident can be pinpointed with comparable accuracy (unless you plan on baffling a jury with bullshit).
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming the phone times were accurate and in sync (big assumption)
Its not that big an assumption. Phone networks have some pretty tight tolerances on time synchronisation in order to work (they tend to use GPS receivers and rubidium clocks all over the place to keep things in sync), so it is reasonable to believe that the time stamps on phone records will be pretty accurate. Of course, the handsets themselves may not be that accurate (although they tend to have clocks set from the network these days anyway), but any subpoenaed call records should be pretty reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
From the article...
Veloz [ the dead guy] had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas [the facebook poster].
Presumably, he was making the call to 911 rather than paying attention to oncoming traffic, which was really his mistake as one should always be paying attention to traffic when on the road, especially when standing in the road. However, it doesn't mean that the presumably distracted driver had any right to ultimately take his life
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how it says that Bea's Facebook page was updated at the same time Veloz's cellphone called 911.
No, I don't. I notice how it says that Beas' Facebook page was updated. Not Bea's. Unless this woman was channeling the spirit of Bea Arthur, that is.
Whoooops (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meaning Beas did hit submit - at 7:54 AM.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that those who are quickest to accuse others of poor reading comprehension often have the worst? Obviously I know she hit submit, I just question the timing. You would have to hit submit, look up, and be running somebody over. What are the odds? See my above comment for the unreliability of Facebook mobile--that's a pretty thin straw to convict somebody of manslaughter, even if it's only in your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that those who are quickest to accuse others of poor reading comprehension often have the worst? Obviously I know she hit submit, I just question the timing. You would have to hit submit, look up, and be running somebody over. What are the odds?
So was she updating her Facebook page while she was driving, or was she not? Is it legal to do that where she was? Does the fact that she had a fatal accident during the same minute she was updating her Facebook page in her car indicate that maybe she wasn't giving her full attention to driving? No one is saying that she hit the guy at the exact goddamn second. Look at the charges:
Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident.
Do any of those charges require that she was striking the guy at the exact goddamn second that she was posting to Facebook?
Re: (Score:3)
Possible, sure, but what's more likely? That somebody did those exact sequence of events, which requires no more than about 10 seconds between hitting submit and hitting the person in order to not have time to react (and even that is stretching it pretty damn far, I'd put it more on the order of 1-2 seconds max), or that they hit submit somewhere in the other 50 seconds in that minute? Or maybe the sun in the eyes that caused the first accident, also caused the second?
And of course, this is supposing that t
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not missing that fact, you apparently are. How long does it take to accelerate from a full stop, when there is absolutely no danger in writing a novel on a typewriter if that's what you choose to do, to a speed that can rip an old man's leg off? In a 3-cylinder Geo Metro with a flat tire you can do it in probably less than 10 seconds.
I'm not saying the scenario is impossible, where she posted, looked up, and killed someone, but I do think it's unlikely, and there's a lot of more likely scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
It shows that there was a sixty second period where FB was updated, accident happened and 911 call occurred. The order of event is yet to be determined, however, it would seem easy postulate the order based on the Status Update actual content. But don't let the whole 60 seconds thing get in the way of a good /. rumor mongering.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, the post could have been right before the accident. It could also have been a couple of minutes before or after the accident, depending on the time difference between Facebook's servers, and the victim's mobile.. knowing what the update said would help somewhat. But it seems pretty obvious that it would have been before, because if the tweet was "oops, I just killed someone" then it would be almost guaranteed that it was posted after the crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Updating her Facebook status instead of dialling 911 is a mite cold. But is it illegal?
FTFA: Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital.
Two accidents took place here. Veloz had a fender bender with another driver, then Beas hit him with her car. So, before you condemn actions that didn't take place
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you're being sarcastic, the least you could do is RTFS.... Beas is a her.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting the gender of the driver wrong is an obvious sign that you are unqualified to comment about any of the facts in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, AFTER the FIRST accident perhaps - a minor one involving the victim who was standing by his car after a minor bump exchanging insurance details and other post-accident stuff with another driver when he was hit by Facebook girl because she wasn't looking where she was going. Her excuse was she was blinded by the sun, in which case, why was she driving so fast and not paying extra attention? Driving into oncoming winter sunlight is like driving in fog - slow down!
It's in the FA, but hey, this is /.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It shows that Beas used her phone at the same time as the 911 call - which obviously was after the accident.
There were 2 accidents. The old guy got in a minor accident first, got out of his car, presumably dialed 911, and then was struck by another car.
Re:Whoooops (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is confusing, but the article is a bit better. Here's a (hopefully clearer) summary.
- Veloz (pedestrian victim who was killed ) was on the phone with 911 at or about the time he was struck in regards to a separate minor accident that had just happened between him and another driver. For clarity, let's call this driver "Frank".
- Beas (driver who killed Veloz) struck and killed Veloz while Veloz was on the phone with 911 operator discussing the separate minor accident. Veloz had exited his vehicle and was talking to "Frank" about their minor accident, which means Veloz was presumably either in the road, or just at the road's edge.
- Facebook published a post from Beas' cell phone at some time very close to the time of the accident.
- Veloz's daughter is suing for wrongful death and is alleging that Beas was paying attention to her cell at the time.
So, no, Beas did not update her Facebook status instead of calling 911. The 911 call had been placed by Veloz in relation to his accident with "Frank". Beas' update to Facebook happened at about the same time as that call was going on.
In fact, while it's possible she was distracted, it's by no means proven. According to the article:
- Beas claims, and it is corroborated by relatives, that the post was typed and submitted when she was in her car two miles away waiting for it to warm up. It's quite possible that the post was published on Facebook a few minutes after it was posted from the cell phone (I have this happen on my Blackberry all the time, and the delays can be 5 minutes or so, easily enough to drive the two miles from where Beas claimed to post her update to the spot where the accident occurred). I know I've hardly ever seen a Facebook update appear from my cell within a minute. So cell company logs of data usage should prove the timing of this (yea or nay), when correlated with cell company logs of Veloz's 911 call.
- Beas claims and "Frank" corroborates that the sun was blinding and that it's quite possible that Beas simply did not see Veloz standing in the road due to sun glare. "Frank" claimed that he and Veloz were similarly blinded by the sun (it's not stated whether this was a contributing factor to the accident between Veloz and "Frank").
I'm the last person to defend someone who is actually distracted by a cell phone or electronic device while driving. But, given the information provided in a couple of articles, it just doesn't appear to be the case. Beas has testimony (albeit biased) that her Facebook update was not happening during the accident, and testimony (from "Frank", who is presumably unbiased) that the sun was a major factor (which could explain why Beas didn't see a pedestrian in the road where a reasonable driver wouldn't necessary be looking for one).
I sympathize with Veloz's daughter, but the apparent moral of this story is simple. Don't stand in the road between the sun and an oncoming car. A temporarily-dazzled driver might not see you. Even the best driver in the world can't instantly stop their car when they get dazzled by the sun.
Re: (Score:3)
Too bad that "the sun was in my eyes" provides no mitigation whatsoever for culpability (legal or otherwise) in hitting someone with your car. You're supposed to factor in hazards like glare when driving. The sun is not carte blanche to plow over grandpa, as this dumb bitch seems to think.
I guess she can take solace in how many other drivers are just as irresponsible as she is.
If its legal to use a smart phone (Score:2, Funny)
while driving, then it should be legal to take bong hits.
Civil versus criminal law suits (Score:5, Informative)
Criminal suits ==> "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
Civil suits ==> "Preponderance of evidence"
As this is a civil suit (wrongful death is civil), the rules for civil suits apply. Most knee-jerk reactions want to look to "reasonable doubt" and then look into any time disparities among the phone, Facebook and other services and factors involved in the establishment of this evidence. (for example, timezone data could have significant impact on the reported time(s) from the phone company, the 9-1-1 service, Facebook and more.)
If all of those time issues are in correct synchronization, then the preponderance of evidence rule would probably result in the plaintiff winning the case.
Re: (Score:2)
I think most juries would see that as meeting both standards (if the devices were in correct synchronization and they couldn't show that someone else updated the Facebook page).
Re: (Score:3)
That's because most juries are idiots. I've personally seen my Facebook app sit there and retry over and over for more than a minute to post an update. You could hit submit, put your phone in your pocket, get in the car, drive 2 miles, and the whole time your phone is trying to submit the update. Hope it doesn't succeed at the wrong time!
Re: (Score:2)
At least for SMS the phone company will have a very exact time of when it was sent, I imagine Facebook will too. The only uncertainty is how long the message has been stuck in your outbox. At least for writing SMS messages people have been convicted of manslaughter here in Norway, passing even the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Must not have been Verizon. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On two separate phones? One belonging to the victim and the other belonging to the driver? You know, like in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like a facebook feature request (Score:2)
Enable 17 minute fuzzy time stamp modulator. I'd also like a random "anywhere but here" comment updater for use as an alibi, since facebook updates are now legal evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the impression that legal admissibility grants a piece of information the totemic power of a logical axiom or a videogame powerup. I'm pretty sure that most evidence you could care to name would trump a facebook update's timestamp or geotag.
Were the times on 911 and Facebook in sync? (Score:2)
The girl's mother is claiming that her daughter made the updates when her car was parked in front of her boyfriend's house before she started driving. It is certainly reasonable to believe that there was sufficient differential between the devices p
Re: (Score:2)
And that's what we be found out. It's a really simple system.
First you notice the timestamps and that they may indicate the person was posting to facebook while driving and that may have contributed to the accident.
Second you file a lawsuit (you may have done that first of course and have noticed that first part in addition to your initial motivation).
Third you convince the judge at ht epre-trial phase with the data you do have to let you do some discovery and subpoena facebook for more fine grained data an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's not even relevant - her defence is "blinding sunlight" so she was already driving without due care and attention if she couldn't see him and stop in time by driving far too fast for the conditions, whether she was using her phone or not.
Re: (Score:3)
ah, so you nailed someone while being blinded by the sun too!
Yep, turned out she was only hot b/c the sun was in my eyes =/
Re: (Score:2)
Most cellphones, unless explicitly instructed otherwise, correct their RTCs against the cell network pretty regularly. The cell guys keep a pretty good timebase.
Facebook, or any reasonably sized internet entity, is almost certainly correcting their RTCs with NTP or better, if only because things like logging and authentication are really, really hairy if you can't trust your timestam
Might not be entirely the driver's fault. (Score:5, Informative)
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital. Beas told police that she had been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the collision, which resulted in a ticket for striking a pedestrian in the roadway. The driver involved in the earlier minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun as well. Beas’ mother, Rosario Rodriguez, came to her daughter’s defense claiming that she posted the Facebook update as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home, which is located two miles away from where the crash occurred.
So. The woman could very well have been unable to see due to the sun. Was the victim standing in the road? Did they move their vehicles to the side of the road? It's impossible to prove that the driver was using her phone at the time of the accident.
Re: (Score:3)
My blackberry logs any facebook updates I make as well as calls... so the timestamp on my phone would be consistant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So apparently in Chicago when drivers can't see what is ahead of them, they continue forward at full speed?
Re: (Score:3)
So apparently in Chicago when drivers can't see what is ahead of them, they continue forward at full speed?
It's possible in Chicago (or anywhere) to be temporarily blinded by the sun while driving with very warning -- for example, by early morning sunrise reflecting off a large shiny building (with mirrored windows) into your car. In a case like this, the sun's reflection can be onto a single small area of the road even when you are not driving in the direction of the sun (such as North/South rather than East West). Also, some of the roads curve and it's possible to get a blinding glare from the sun only at a
Re: (Score:2)
Driving 2 miles in one minute from a dead stop while blinded by the sun? That means that you have to accelerate fast enough to surpass 120 mph and keep going enough to make up for the time you spent below 120. You might be able to do that in a super car like a Lamborgini or a high end crotch rocket.
That is either more reckless than driving while facebooking, or something is wrong with that story.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about Chicago, but in most jurisdictions blind people can't get driver's licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
In Massachusetts (yes, I know, different state, different laws), if you, as a driver, are unable to view the road and continue to operate your vehicle, you are liable for what happens. If, for example, your windshield is covered in ice and you have a head-on collision, it's your fault. If the sun is in your eyes and you don't slow down to avoid hitting things, your fault if it happens. If you have sunglasses on at night and can't see the pedestrian crossing the road, your fault. If you turn your head to
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, it doesn't matter. If the power went out in your house and it was pitch black, would you sprint through the house and down the basement steps to get some candles? No, you wouldn't you can't see. You would move as slowly as you could to feel your way
Should be banned from driving... (Score:2)
If she is found guilty she should simply be banned from driving for 10 years, as she has proven she cannot be trusted with operating a motor vehicle. She's from Chicago, she can take the El like everyone else. Also such a punishment not only fits the crime but is a far better deterrent for such irresponsible actions than jail time (which everyone believes could never happen to them) or financial burdens (which the government usually makes sure you're not made homeless by).
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the circumstances, she would never be found guilty in a court of law. There's just too much reasonable doubt.
Was the sun in her eyes like she and another witness said?
Can they prove she was actually driving when she posted to Facebook?
Why was the victim in the road and not on the sidewalk?
Could've been a Facebook update (Score:2)
zomg fatul crash lol
Negligent Homicide, Open And Shut (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course, other than niceties like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt".
I like Slashdot. It reminds me of important facts of life, like "In the court of public opinion, all the jurors are douchebags."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Details will matter (Score:2)
facebook update (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ironic punishment time. Every one of the victims relatives and friends who desires to do so gets to run over Beas while they update their facebook page.
Wouldn't that be considered 'cruel and unusual punishment'? The victim was 70 so his wife would probably take forever to update her status with a cell while driving over Beas.
Re: (Score:2)
She's 21. How many assets could she have?
What, are they going to give Veloz her meal plan card and iPod?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
She's 21. I bet she has some really nice assets.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
She's 21. I bet she has some really nice assets.
She is America dude, big maybe, but nice ... not a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:May as well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally agree if she did it.
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
That said, I'd say there are enough questions here that it's 50/50 whether she is guilty or not. Luckily that's what investigations and trials are for.
Re: (Score:2)
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
Agreed. Could we start by punishing people who drive under the influence? Right now copyright infringers get worse punishments.
Re: (Score:2)
Beas basically committed a murder
No, Beas basically allegedly committed vehicular manslaughter, or is there evidence of evil intent you're secretly aware of?
Re: (Score:2)
The court may as well just give Veloz every asset that Beas has. After all, Beas basically committed a murder and should be put away for life at a minimum. No need for any assets.
Well considering that Veloz was killed those assets are not going to do him much good
Re: (Score:3)
This has nothing to do with computers. She should be banned from driving for life.
Re:Ban them from computers.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are millions of people who text, update facebook, and talk on the phone while driving every day, it could happen to you, me, anyone!
.
Where I live, it is illegal to do so. If whatever you're doing is distracting your attention from safe control of the 1000-3000kg object travelling at likely more than 30mph, then stop fucking doing it.
What's This "We" Stuff? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
She killed someone while in charge of a motor vehicle, ostensibly while using a phone while driving, but even taking that out of the equation, her defence is that she was "blinded by sunlight" in which case she should have been driving more carefully - much more slowly and with greater attention paid to the scene in front of you which is obscured by the strong light source. Either way, phone or not, she killed someone by being careless. It's no different to her waving a gun around that she's not sure is loa
Re: (Score:2)
How does being banned from driving translate to being supported in prison for $200k/year for life in your mind?
I don't have driving license, can I get that $200k government money thing without the prison part? Should I be on the look out for the cops coming to throw me in jail for the henious crime of not being allowed to drive?
Re: (Score:2)
The people who need to have that explained to them should never be trusted with a driver's license.
Also, permanently revoking her license doesn't imply prison time. There may be prison time, but it's not a requirement of taking her license away for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should she be banned for driving from life when she was in the wrong place at the wrong time (an accident)?
First, it's illegal to do exactly what she was doing while driving in Illinois. Second, she killed someone while doing so. What happened is pretty much a word-for-word description of vehicular homicide/manslaughter [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Except it isn't. As numerous people have stated, she has witnesses to the fact that the Facebook post happened two miles from the accident in her driveway while waiting for the car to warm up. The other party in the first accident was a witness to the fact that the sun was right in motorists eyes, and may have been the cause of the first accident. The 70 yo guy was standing presumably in the street when struck, and even at 30 MPH, you are going quite fast enough to injure someone as badly as he was injur
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing from the poor? not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Well obviously what Mitnick did was much worse than killing people... he stole money from wealthy people! I think it's pretty obvious by just about every measure of our American society that stealing from the wealthy is a much more dire crime than murder.
Stealing from the poor? not so much.
And God help you if you infringe someone's copyright.
FYI the primary method of stealing from the poor and middle class is inflation. Why would you go through all the nastiness of taking the money itself away from them when you can leave the money right where it is, safe and sound in their bank accounts, and just take its value away instead? It's the biggest hidden tax in existence and incredibly regressive, since the truly wealthy don't keep piles of cash in a giant vault; they tend to invest most of thei
Re: (Score:2)
This is the reason the USA is in such an economic swirly. THE COST OF A LIFE IS NOT INFINITE! The sooner people accept this the sooner we can get on with a health care plan, welfare system, prison system, and most importantly defense budget that actually make sense. The military has put the cost of a human life at 2 million dollars for a long time, did you know that? The public needs to do the same, meaning even though Kevin Metnick did not kill anyone, he caused great financial harm, and that is just as bad. Even though you cannot rationalize it your head, the economy doesn't care. Since Metnick admitting that he caused 5 to 10 million dollars in damages, that would be equal to him killing 2-5 people, now what do you think his sentence should be?
Does that mean that if a wealthy person spends $300 million on a huge mansion he didn't really need, then he's actually a mass murderer?
Of course that's absurd. I see that you disagree with this, but personally I draw a (gigantic) distinction between causing financial damage to those fictitious legal entities we call corporations, versus directly causing the death of another real human being. If you understand nothing else, note that money can be paid back or earned back or restitution made, but resurrect
KIDS! DON'T DO FACEBOOK! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Deterrent (Score:4, Insightful)
A few public executions would very likely reduce the number of fools that use smartphones while driving
I strongly doubt it. Even for the person causing them, car accidents are risky and expensive. Even hitting a pedestrian will probably involve getting a face full of airbag, a bumper replacement, and whatever re-fit is necessary to get the airbag system re-armed. Collision with a more solid object can easily result in serious injury or death, as well as a totalled vehicle.
Even without legal intervention, spikes in insurance rates, and the like, causing a car accident is, a nontrivial percentage of the time, something that carries an automatic punishment with it. Once you add insurance companies, healthcare hassles, and vehicular manslaughter charges, the odds get worse.
If all that doesn't dissuade the dumbasses from keeping their eyes on their toys rather than the road, I'm not thinking that remote odds of execution would...