Welcome to our world. :mad:
The State of New York requires a hands-free kit to be used when using a cellular phone and operating a motor vehicle.
Cartooniverse ( who has just proven that one does not need to be a member of the Bar to quote case law… 
)
Nitpick.
Legislation is not case law.
You are, in point of fact, utterly wrong. It is prevented by New York State statute, and the use of the odd and completely not impressive Latin phrase cannot change that one bit.
How about if you limit these statements of absolute fact to the State of Virginia? Because in New York State, as is evidenced by the cite I have just provided, citations are given out in what you might or might not be able to admit are copious amounts, and will continue to be given out.
Fatal Crash iN Detroit blamed on cellular phone use at time of crash. The driver was charged with Negligent Homicide. Homicide beats Manslaughter in terms of severity. So. There you go. That took all of 90 seconds to find. You said you can’t find a single case, and I just found a case of Negligent Homicide.
Stop telling us what we all cannot find. If you want to live up to the expectations that come with the monicker " SDSAB", then do a bit more digging. I just did, and found that cite. And this one, too.
Distracted Driver in Texas Criminally Indicted for Negligent Homicide.
You said “manslaughter chargers”, not convictions. Both of the cases I cite are for the charge of Homicide, not Manslaughter. Technically therefore, you are correct, aren’t you? Even though I’ve already proven rather completely that drivers on cel phones are charged with a felony crime for killing people while talking on them.
If this isn’t enough cite to prove that some of us are perfectly capable of finding this evidence online, I will be delighted to find a lot more. You just say the word.
mhendo, good nitpick !! Right you are !! Here, read the cites now provided of case law, not Legislation. Ok?
The driver had drugs in his system, which bumped the charges up to involuntary manslaughter. Therefore it would seem that negligent homicide is a lesser charge. So neglegient homiced doesn’t beat manslaughter.
The case has been brought, but it’s not clear that they would have gotten a conviction based on cell phone use alone. This case can no longer be a great indicator of that since the drug use seems to override the cell phone use.
The statement was ( again… ) charged, not convicted. I cited to prove otherwise. Yes, drugs were in the mix there but they were not in the Texas case also cited.
It’s kind of irrefutable, but I suspect that Bricker will never come in here and admit I’ve already provided two cites - not of legislation, but of legal cases- that prove his incapacity to find legal cases showing that people talking on cellular phones have been charged with manslaughter or homicide.
-shrug- oh well. We can all see the evidence here. I’m off, or I’d be delighted to provide further cases. And you are right- the drugs do indeed muddle the purity of that cite, though celluar phone use WAS a factor as cited in the charges. Any further cites from me will be just cellular phone use, with no drugs cited as a possible contributing factor, ok ? 
You’re pretty stupid.
I said, even if it were prohibited, it’s not malo in se. What in your cite contradicts that? Nothing at all. In New York, it IS prohibited. It’s still not malo in se.
Fatal Crash iN Detroit blamed on cellular phone use at time of crash. The driver was charged with Negligent Homicide. Homicide beats Manslaughter in terms of severity. So. There you go. That took all of 90 seconds to find. You said you can’t find a single case, and I just found a case of Negligent Homicide.
Stop telling us what we all cannot find. If you want to live up to the expectations that come with the monicker " SDSAB", then do a bit more digging. I just did, and found that cite. And this one, too.
[/quote]
Homicide is the killing of a human being. It refers to ALL killing, from manslaughter to murder to innocent non-criminal accident. In fact, from your own cite, the drugs present UPPED the charge to manslaughter. Negligent homicide is a LESSER crime than manslaughter, not a greater.
I said: “I can’t find a single case in the entire country in which cell phone use has been the underlying act supporting manslaughter charges.”
You’ve found drivers charged with a lesser crime. Congrats. I didn’t dispute that. I wasn’t discussing lesser crimes, I was discussing manslaughter.
Um:
I noticed you slipped in “…or homicide” to your statement, as though you were simply repeating my claim.
Interesting tactic.
If we didn’t have the capacity to actually read previous posts, it might work.
Just a call for clarification here.
“Negligent Homicide” is a lesser crime than “Manslaughter”, which in turn is a lesser crime than deliberate murder which is called, what, “Deliberate Homicide”? Not being a lawyer, this is all a bit confusing to me. Could someone define the relevant terms for me so I can update my scorecard accordingly?
Manslaughter and murder are terms typically applied to the unlawful killing of a person. They are distinguished by the mental state that accompanies the act.
I’m using the general, common-law terms here. Different states have different statutes that may use slightly different terms… “capital murder,” “first degree murder,” are all varieties of murder; “second degree murder” may describe murder or manslaughter; and so forth. The question of what those terms mean in any given state is a matter for that state’s law. Again, I’m using the common law definitions.
OK, fair enough. A charge of “vehicular manslaughter” was brought in the case you cite… a special type of manslaughter charge. The judge in the case found that being distracted by cell phone use was NOT sufficient to be guilty of vehicular manslaughter; the driver was found guilty of negligent driving but acquitted of the vehicular manslaughter charge. The judge said that as a matter of Maryland law, he could not convict the driver for vehicular manslaughter when cell phone use was the predicate.
Nonetheless, the charge was brought. I spoke overly broadly and in error.
Let me amend my statement: I can’t find anyone ever convicted in the United States of manslaughter when the underlying negligent act was driving while talking on a cell phone.
I don’t see anything in your link that even implies that
^
|
|
|
Psst, look that way.
Psst. Note the time stamps.
Ne’ertheless, either Bricker is reading more into it then I can see or he has access to information that I do not. This is all your link has to say with respect to cell phone use and the trial–
Note, I am not disputing whether in fact cell phone use was the underlying cause, only that it is not implied in your link.
I guess I don’t understand what you’re missing then. The link says “involving a driver distracted by a wireless phone”, so I’m at a loss as to how you don’t see that it was the underlying cause. Even if you continue to not see it, it was the cause that the prosecution used in the case.
My turn.
You’re stupid. You’re also showing a severe weakness because you seem incapable of saying in public, " I was wrong. " " I spoke overly broadly" is AttorneySpeak because after all, a lawyer is never wrong, is he/she ? 
Go on. It’s gonna feel terrific. Admit you were just plain wrong in your statement, and the cite provided proves it.
Stop acting like The Attorney Of The Americas. You’re a member of the Virginia Bar, yeah? There is no questioning your astonishing understanding of Virginia Law, it’s very very impressive. Might be best to stick to that jurisdiction.
Whoopsie-daisy, you almost tripped over your wig and robes you were backing up so fast.
Thank you for that link, DMC. I suspect it is not the only cite out there that completely refutes Bricker’s assertion. However, that is not what this thread is about, so I will be glad to let that cite stand as proof.
I recently heard on WNYC ( New York Public Radio ) about a movement afoot in Albany, our state capitol, to repeal that statute. Quite the fuss, whether there is realy firm empirical proof that talking on a cellular phone is more or less distracting than drinking your coffee, eating your Big Mac or yelling at your kids in the back seat. ( all of which are currently legal to do in New York State).
It has always seemed that the reaction to the accidents and deaths involving cellular phones has been more vitriolic because they are fairly new, and not considered a “normal” part of operating a car. By comparison, it would be considered outrageous to pass a law decreeing that no driver may speak to or be spoken to by another passenger ever, to keep them from being distracted.
A heated debate with a spouse, driving home from a party late at night might well be MUCH more distracting to the driver than a cellular phone call, but nobody is talking about arresting spouses for arguing with their spouse the driver. ( Not that that’s a bad idea, mind you. 
)
I guess the word “involving” is hanging me up. It does not say “charged as a result of.” Only “involving.” Why not state the reason rather than allude to it?
At any rate, I bow to Bricker on legal matters, generally. Your point is taken.
Why did you ignore the “and in error” from the quote? Seems like Bricker was saying that he was wrong in pretty clear language. Not only that, he said why he was wrong. This part of your response is, IMO, off target.
And you failed to address the other main point in your post that homicide was a worse crime than manslaughter, when in fact in this case it was a lesser crime. You were attacking his attempt to describe the various charges relating to a death in the various states and completely avoided the issue that you were wrong. It’s not a big deal, but it makes your first point a bit difficult to swallow.
Beyond that I have no well informed opinion on the matter so I’ll bow out.
I looked up the case and found a more detailed version – sorry for not making that clear.