Get started with App.net.

  Sign up now  
the_gadgeteur
    What an incredibly stupid ruling - You can now be held liable for texting a driver in NJ, judge says | The Verge http://buff.ly/1dqhm19
    There are 12 new posts
    clarkgoble
      @the_gadgeteur @failgunner I'd imagine it only applies if you know they are driving.
      clarkgoble
        @the_gadgeteur @failgunner It actually makes sense. If you knowingly and intentionally distracted a driver (say with a water balloon or yelling in their ear) you'd be liable. So why not with texting? What makes texting different?
        evs
          @clarkgoble Those examples are different than texting someone. No one is forcing you to look at your phone while you drive, where you have no choice to ignore a water balloon or screaming. // @failgunner @the_gadgeteur
          clarkgoble
            @evs @the_gadgeteur @failgunner I think the idea is a text conversation where you know they are driving, not sending a single text to someone to be read later. There's going to be a big presumption of proof in this, even in the Verge account.
            bioselement
              @the_gadgeteur @evs @clarkgoble It makes more sense if you read the actual court opinion. "only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted."
              clarkgoble
                @bioselement @evs @the_gadgeteur Yes, it seems he's just applying a normal standard for responsibility. It doesn't seem that controversial, honestly.
                the_gadgeteur
                  @clarkgoble @evs @failgunner it’s still not your problem/responsibility for the other person. The lack of self accountability that continues to permeate society is sad
                  clarkgoble
                    @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs If you are knowingly contributing then your responsibility isn't to the other person but to the person they harm and that you contributed to harming. That's the issue of responsibility.
                    the_gadgeteur
                      @clarkgoble @failgunner @evs me texting someone driving has no basis here. It is 100 percent on the driver to willingly pick up the phone and engage in a conversation. They can also choose to ignore.
                      clarkgoble
                        @the_gadgeteur @evs @failgunner If a bank robber hands an other bank robber more ammunition after shooting someone there's an expectation he's contributing. That's the point about texting. Your contributing to an illegal action.
                        clarkgoble
                          @the_gadgeteur @evs @failgunner Simply saying they could ignore your text misses the point that you know they aren't and won't. That latter standard of proof means in most cases this won't be enforced except in exceptional circumstances.
                          the_gadgeteur
                            @clarkgoble that is in no one way the same scenario. @evs @failgunner
                            clarkgoble
                              @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs It's exactly the same. The only thing changed is the seriousness of the crime. Structurally it's identical.
                              the_gadgeteur
                                @clarkgoble them not obeying the law in car is again, not the other persons problem. @evs @failgunner
                                the_gadgeteur
                                  @clarkgoble no, it isn’t. In the bank situation two people are together doing sown thing illegal. Texting someone in a car, they are solely responsible for their actions driving and any distractions. @evs @failgunner
                                  clarkgoble
                                    @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs Once again, the issue is if the other person *knows* they aren't obeying the law and is contributing to them *disobeying* it. You want to say if they could choose otherwise that it's not contributing.
                                    clarkgoble
                                      @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs But to invalidate that all we need do is find other circumstances where a criminal can disregard aid and see if it matches up.
                                      the_gadgeteur
                                        @clarkgoble to say it is someone else’s fault for sending a text to someone in a car that the person in car didn’t use common sense and choose to wait to pick up the phone is ridiculous @evs @failgunner
                                        clarkgoble
                                          @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs But that's presupposing your conclusion. You start from the assumption they are solely responsible whereas we're trying to understand why they are solely responsible.
                                          the_gadgeteur
                                            @clarkgoble *you* are missing the greater point - it is ultimately the person in the cars responsibility and choice to continue. No one but themselves is at fault for choosing to engage @evs @failgunner
                                            the_gadgeteur
                                              @clarkgoble I can send texts all day to someone in a car. If they choose to not engage, no law is broken and no harm done. It is *their* choice and there’s alone @evs @failgunner
                                              clarkgoble
                                                @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs But why do you think it ridiculous? That is what makes aid in one case different in an other?
                                                the_gadgeteur
                                                  @clarkgoble they’re the only one in control of engaging/continuing that situation AND they are driving. @evs @failgunner
                                                  clarkgoble
                                                    @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs LOL. Well I think a court just decided that a law *is* broken. Not liking a decision isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist.
                                                    clarkgoble
                                                      @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs But in the bank example it's the shooter's decision to take the ammunition, not the person handing it to him. I don't see the difference. In each case the criminal has to make a choice.
                                                      clarkgoble
                                                        @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs But in the bank example that's the same thing. Only the shooter is in control of engaging/continuing the situation. The other person is just providing aid.
                                                        the_gadgeteur
                                                          @clarkgoble using the same logic - I would be partially responsible if someone listens to a voicemail I leave while driving @evs @failgunner
                                                          clarkgoble
                                                            @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs Not at all, because I have no expectation of when a voicemail is answered. In the case before the court the tester *knew* the person was driving and continued. It's that knowledge and expectation that matters.
                                                            randolph1
                                                              [Post deleted]
                                                              the_gadgeteur
                                                                @clarkgoble they are both doing the same illegal action in person in the bank. @evs @failgunner
                                                                the_gadgeteur
                                                                  @clarkgoble I guess our definition of self accountability is different. It is ultimately the person driving who has the only choice to ignore or continue. It is not the person on the other ends fault for the drivers disregard @evs @failgunner
                                                                  the_gadgeteur
                                                                    @clarkgoble I could just as easily be sending a text with no expectation on a reply in any sort of timely fashion @evs @failgunner
                                                                    clarkgoble
                                                                      @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs Handing ammo and shooting aren't the same action.
                                                                      bioselement
                                                                        @the_gadgeteur @clarkgoble Our legal system accepts that if you influence someone into doing something, you could be held accountable as well. Not always, and not solely, but it's possible.
                                                                        the_gadgeteur
                                                                          @clarkgoble they are. You’re sole intent in that situation is to steal/harm. Completely different than conversing with someone @evs @failgunner
                                                                          clarkgoble
                                                                            @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs What's your criteria for when your influence on an other person makes you accountable? i.e. the general principle - not this case.
                                                                            the_gadgeteur
                                                                              @clarkgoble there are different scenarios that carry different solutions. There isn’t a perfect ruling for all scenarios. To imply there is with the vastly different bank/texting scenarios is not grasping the differences between the two @evs @failgunner
                                                                              the_gadgeteur
                                                                                @clarkgoble part of it also comes down to common sense, which most governments fail to ever see and apply appropriately. @evs @failgunner
                                                                                the_gadgeteur
                                                                                  @clarkgoble criteria have to be examined on a case by case basis. No blanket ruling @evs @failgunner
                                                                                  clarkgoble
                                                                                    @the_gadgeteur @failgunner @evs OK, take an example where it's negligence rather than intent. I know you're storing explosives in your apartment that I own. They blow up. Am I accountable?
                                                                                    the_gadgeteur
                                                                                      @clarkgoble @failgunner @evs yes. Different scenario and again, case by case basis.
                                                                                      clarkgoble
                                                                                        @the_gadgeteur @evs @failgunner So no general principle? In other words what is behind your reasoning? That's what I don't understand. It seems like you're deciding based upon how you feel about the results. That's fine, but of course courts can't do that
                                                                                        clarkgoble
                                                                                          @rabryst @failgunner @the_gadgeteur @evs Presumably they get a court order for the text contents and they can only prove it if they can show in the texts the tester knew. I don't think it's a new law - just the application of standard legal accountability.
                                                                                          bioselement
                                                                                            @the_gadgeteur @clarkgoble Courts cannot operate like that. Ruling by gut instinct and feeling may seem a good idea, but it's impossible to actually scale and it will quickly reach a point where no one has any idea what is/isn't legal.