CNN article on video bypass

I'm sorry, the CNN article wouldn't open for me.Do it right the first time

Hello there, I am a 27-year-old male, I have lived in Alaska my whole life, and my wife works at the District Attorneys office (not the one that prosecuted the case). I normally pay attention to the news anyhow, and the fact that this one is car audio related just had my attention from the start. When I see the attorneys at my wife’s office I sometimes get their view into cases and if they think the case is a looser. You might be surprised to find out that not every time a case is prosecuted the DA thinks they have a winner. Sometimes cases are taken, even if they are losers from the start, to increase public awareness and outrage. With that public awareness and outrage, laws get passed. I have not heard from anyone that this is a fact in this case, but it is a fact that it is a tactic used before. Just check out these quotes: Defense after trial - "This case was rotten from head to toe. It was dead on arrival," he said. "They put this man through an unfair prosecution." And to that the prosecution says - "I think this case was really important because it brought out the issue for public discussion," she told The Associated Press. "It's probably an issue the Legislature should address." … Hence we have this case, a looser from the start. I rest my case. The CNN article does not give all of the evidence, the fact is this case was a looser from the start. Not the least of which being that physical evidence was destroyed by the state agency who had “in-take” of the truck after the accident. In a case like this, were there has been a death or questionable malfunction, the vehicle is often taken to a state wrecking yard for inspection. The people who did the investigation for this vehicle got the word to late that the DVD player should be inspected, they had already removed it! Loosing the chance to see if the DVD was in play the last time the truck was running. He never disputed that he had the DVD in the player, just that he was not using it at that time. Physical evidence destroyed or lost. He also told his ex-wife that he was “zoned out” watching a DVD at the time of the accident. He never denies that he made the call, just that he never made that statement. In fact, one of the witnesses to that conversation, who was also the passenger in his truck when the accident happened, did not want to testify at all. Stating that he wanted to take the fifth. The passenger stated he was not paying attention to the road because he was distracted by the DVD players menu screen. Fuseblower stated: “On the other hand the courts can say that he was interested in seeing what his friend was doing and be held liable.” How? Unless he interfered with his friends driving the truck he has no culpability. He was probably afraid they could contradict his testimony with fact, indicating he was lying. Well… I am using intuition on that one. Btw, I am not tying to rip Fuseblower, just that he had some good points I would like to respond to. Fuseblower: “ With all of the new gadgets in cars everyone is going to be going to jail when an accident happens involving a death.” While distractions in the automotive environment have been rising, a movie is a tempting and engrossing distraction. Does anyone actually think that it is good to split your attention between a movie and driving? I really don’t think anyone here was advocating that. However, if you have a pro argument I would enjoy hearing it. Manufactures and people need to take precautions when we use all of the new technology in our cars. I agree that a navigation system can be a distraction, but so can flipping through a MP3 menu, searching for that CD you know is there (somewhere!), or answering your cell phone. The automobile is inherently distracting, with its dials and gauges (and passengers!). I think what is really at question is - what is an acceptable level of distraction. I’ am positive that laws are coming our way. I don’t know if he was watching a DVD, but we do know he was negligent in his handling of his vehicle. We know because he crossed the line into the other lane and hit the other vehicle. However, in a 911 call just after the accident a man stated he saw the deceased driving recklessly. “ The man who made that call told dispatchers he saw the Weisers' Jeep "passing like crazy" right before the accident.” Well this is plenty long, just wanted to bring some insight and opinion to this subject because it hits so close to home for me. I do not have a in-car video entertainment center, but with 4 kids I may consider some backseat cinema in my Suburban sometime in the future. Several of my friends have in-dash DVD’s and I fear for them and the others on the road when they say “we watched XXX on the way home from fishing.” I hope they have the good sense to leave the viewing to the passengers. This is not meant to flame anyone, but debate is welcome. http://www.adn.com/front/story/5413495p-5349514c.html

I figured he was going to be acquitted.Certified Security Specialist

Always check info with a digital multimeter.

I promise to be good.

Tell Darwin I sent you.

I've been sick lately, sorry I won't be on much.