
Vehicular manslaughter charge upgraded to murder because of tweets - icpmacdo
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/calif-mans-charge-upped-murder-after-tweets
======
johnvschmitt
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
It seems way to easily these days for teenage's to ruin there lives with
social networks.

~~~
bdcravens
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.

------
lutusp
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
If physicists ruled the world, speed limit signs would be replaced with
momentum limit signs.

~~~
lutusp
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
Given one, the other is implied though. Only the limit will have to be set
accordingly.

~~~
aa0
You're wrong. The relationship is different, the graph of the speed limit vs
velocity would also be different, for the same masses/cars.

------
lifeisstillgood
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
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
Which seems a little ridiculous in this situation.

~~~
jrockway
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
He was only 18 years old and he was speeding. Murder is a bit of a stretch.

~~~
jrockway
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.)

~~~
jlgreco
He's not saying that actions don't have consequences. He isn't saying that
speeding wasn't idiotic. He isn't saying that he was never provided with the
opportunity to know better.

He is saying that murder is a stretch.

~~~
James_Duval
If you acknowledge that actions have consequences, it follows that if you
commit an action which has a high chance of causing a certain outcome (in this
case, death), you are responsible for the outcome. In this case, I would say
that the responsibility which this teenager has can only be called "murder".

------
newman314
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
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
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
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.

------
cgag
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

