Teen becomes the first person convicted of homicide after killing someone while driving and texting. Is this too harsh?

by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru Posted 2012/06/07 15:07:39

Related Topics: Driving, Texting, Guilty, District, Father, Court, Mobile, Teen, Massachusetts

132 votes
Read all 126 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	No its not too harsh.	110 votes	83%
	Yeah this seems too harsh.	22 votes	17%

Aaron Deveau, 18, was the first driver to be charged and convicted of motor vehicle homicide by texting under Massachusetts law.

Prosecutors said Deveau,
who pleaded not guilty, was texting on Feb. 20, 2011, when his vehicle
swerved across the center line of a Haverhill street and crashed head on
into Donald Bowley's truck, killing the 55-year-old father of three.

"My brother received such severe head trauma that ... there was no hope
for him," the victim's sister Donna Burleigh testified in Haverhill
District Court.

Deveau was charged with motor vehicle homicide and negligent operation
of a motor vehicle, using a mobile phone while operating a motor
vehicle, reading or sending an electronic message, a marked lanes
violation, and two counts of negligent operation and injury from mobile
phone use.

+19

Add a comment above

MandaLynne 2012/06/07 15:10:45

No its not too harsh.

+11
How is this harsh? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that texting while driving is dangerous. He is responsible for his actions, which in this case killed someone. He is now reaping the consequences of those actions.
>> See Replies

More polls by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru

Britt 2012/09/12 15:50:32

No its not too harsh.

I am 16 It not to harsh by all means your told not to do it, you do it any way and it causes severe accidents, death/ serious injury, and teens have been told. time to grow up were old enough to do the time bc they did the crime. it enviolves other ppl u have changed their lives forever and it wouldnt be the time to be like "oops" these are the consequences they made a choice and they need to follow through with the consequences.

reply
Charmedtears♥ 2012/07/01 06:22:07

No its not too harsh.

They should make every watch this video.

reply
CHUCK 2012/07/01 02:57:03

No its not too harsh.

THE PERSON IS DEAD ..

reply
lucythetooth 2012/07/01 02:41:55

No its not too harsh.

His actions caused the death of another - the very definition of homicide - so no, being convicted is not too harsh. He made a choice and he has to accept the consequences of that choice.

reply
Brosia 2012/07/01 01:48:08

No its not too harsh.

He only got like 3 years for it. Someone died because he was too distracted to pay attention. And he only has to loose 3 years, less for good behavior.

reply
BongRipper 2012/06/10 14:27:27

Yeah this seems too harsh.

I always thought "homicide" implied intent, but that sucks, he should have learned how to multi-task

reply
NoHandlebarsAttached 2012/06/10 08:14:06

No its not too harsh.

+1
If I'm distracted by my hand while I'm walking down the sidewalk, and I accidentally step on someone's baby, I'm going to prison for that. The same rule applies here.

reply
Dickens 2012/06/09 21:03:49

No its not too harsh.

+1
..."harsh" is what happened to his victim. No one is SO stupid that they can't figure out how dangerous texting and driving is; he just didn't care who he harmed...

reply
TheDeadAreLiving 2012/06/09 02:11:06

No its not too harsh.

+2
Honestly, put the damn phone down. Any conversation you're having is not more important than someone's life you may endanger while doing that

reply
Iamfree 2012/06/08 20:58:35

Yeah this seems too harsh.

+1
I could understand vehicular manslaughter, but to me, the word "homicide" implies that he intended to kill Mr. Bowley. I guess I would need to better understand Massachusetts law.

reply
frank 2012/06/08 17:58:05

No its not too harsh.

+1
I do not feel sorry for him. Texting is close to drinking or being under the influence, in all three cases you can't consecrate on the driving.

reply
EricVanSingleton 2012/06/08 16:34:15

No its not too harsh.

+3
He still comes out of this so much better than the other guy. Despite laws in place and common sense, there are still people who are addicted to being in the communication loop 24/7. My heart is with the victims of this carelessness.

reply
Rocko 2012/06/08 13:20:47 (edited)

No its not too harsh.

+3
its about damn time this is shown for the absolute danger it is maybe the dumbasses who do it will think first now . meh probably not that is why they are dumbasses right?

reply
Chancy99: Plague Rat 2012/06/08 07:00:19

No its not too harsh.

+2
No it's not to harsh. He chose to text and drive, he ended up driving into someone and killing them. it's the same as someone who's drunk, and kills someone while driving. They aren't going to lighten the sentence on a drunk, just because they didn't realized what they were doing. Why should they give a lighter sentence to someone who wasn't paying attention, because apparently their cell phone, was more important then driving.

And coming from someone who was almost run of the road into a wall because of someone on their cell, I think laws against using a cell while driving should be more sever.

reply
ButterbeerMe 2012/06/08 06:50:44 (edited)

Yeah this seems too harsh.

+2
Homicide makes it sound like someone has the intent to kill. I would expect Involuntary Manslaughter perhaps, since I highly doubt he started texting with the intent of killing anyone, he was just being an idiot.

reply
Chancy9... to Butterb... 2012/06/08 07:03:06

+2
Still, He knew he was on the phone and driving. He made a choice. And As I'm pretty sure most states now have anti phone laws, while driving(Unless hands free). He was in violation of that law. Like a drunk, if they kill someone while driving, they aren't going to lighten the sentence, because he was an idiot, He Made the choice to drive while intoxicated.

reply
Butterb... to Chancy9... 2012/06/08 07:13:04

+2
I agree that he made the choice to partake in a stupid activity and he made an unwise decision (the same as with drinking and driving) but as with drinking and driving, he never actually made the choice to kill anyone, which is why I think Involuntary Manslaughter would be more appropriate. Like people who drive when they know they're too tired to drive, and so they keep falling asleep at the wheel and eventually kill someone. The decision to drive when they didn't have proper alertness was a stupid choice to make, but they never thought anyone would die because of it. That's not murder, it's just a tragedy. But regardless, I do think people who make stupid decisions that result in the death of someone do have to face consequences of their actions, whether light or severe.

reply
Lanikai to Butterb... 2012/06/08 19:53:11

The teen made the CHOICE to break the law and risk others lives.

HE decided to do that, so HE should be in jail for straight MURDER. Anyone who texts and drives should catch an attempted murder if they cause a crash, and murder if they manage to kill someone.

reply
Butterb... to Lanikai 2012/06/09 05:03:45

Well, we just have a difference of opinion. You see it as murder, I see it as involuntary manslaughter. If someone made the decision to run a red light because they were late for work and ended up killing someone I wouldn't call that murder either, just a tragedy. A tragedy which the person would have to face the consequences for, but not a murder.

reply
Lanikai to Butterb... 2012/06/11 14:14:17

Well, when I see a car, or drive my car, I understand that I am navigating a 5000-8000 pound GAS FILLED potential bomb. Where I point it and HOW I navigate it means the difference between someone living and someone dying.

Any person who carelessly navigates that mobile bomb, is a clown who deserves a full out murder charge.

reply
Butterb... to Lanikai 2012/06/12 01:50:11

+1
You'd be surprised how many people can drive who don't take it as seriously as you do. A lot of people just don't seem to realize exactly how dangerous cars are, I suppose because they're in and around them every day so they become desensitized to the potential dangers. It's sad, really.

reply
Lanikai to Butterb... 2012/06/12 14:03:58

+1
True, I am near an Army recruiter in traffic throughout the school year, he always has a newspaper over his steering wheel, a texting device in his right hand and a coffee cup in or on the left side dash near his hand. He is a car crash waiting to happen.

Called in his tag number and it did no good.

reply
lucythe... to Butterb... 2012/07/01 02:48:32

hom·i·cide
noun
1. the killing of one human being by another.

The definition says nothing about intent. The boy was convicted of motor vehicle homicide which means he killed another person with his vehicle. Whether or not he meant to do it is irrelevant. He was convicted for what he DID, not what he intended.

reply
Butterb... to lucythe... 2012/07/03 04:12:49

+1
It depends on where the definition comes from. I've found some definitions like yours, but I have also found some that say the act would be deliberate for it to be considered homicide.

If someone chooses to call it a homicide, that's fine I suppose. It's the people that are calling this kid a "murderer" who are the ones I think are going overboard.

reply
Marvelous Wildfire 2012/06/08 06:07:59

No its not too harsh.

What would, those who thought this was "too harsh", have thought was "justice" if the POS had instead; walked into a crowded theater, closed his eyes, pulled out a gun and started spinning around simply firing the gun straight ahead as he spun?

In my eyes, there is no difference.

reply
««Gingey, the Master Debate... 2012/06/08 06:02:43

No its not too harsh.

+3
He killed a human being

reply
Jdogg 2012/06/08 05:11:04

No its not too harsh.

+2
I wish that texting thing was taken off of all cell phones.

reply
JohnT 2012/06/08 03:45:34

No its not too harsh.

+1
Waiting for more to get a clue so they quit texting or talking while driving. I think it was about time. People don't need to die because of inconsiderate self serving people.

reply
apachehellfire65 2012/06/08 03:17:32

No its not too harsh.

+2
considering he killed someone. four years does not sound that harsh.and thats IF he gets the full four years.four years he will be out in two or less. vehicular manslaughter would have got him alot more time.

reply
lcky9 2012/06/08 02:47:26

Yeah this seems too harsh.

Involuntary manslaughter..loss of his license .. and community service at a hospital after he serves 10 years.. letting it sink in WHAT he did and how he could have AVOIDED it..

reply
Jannis 2012/06/08 02:19:34

No its not too harsh.

+1
He made the choice to do it and he should pay for it.On the road that i have to travel to and from work,i often have to drive on the far right of my lane to avoid oncoming traffic that has crossed the line.They have their heads facing down or are looking the other way while talking on a cell phone.

reply
Freeranger 2012/06/08 02:01:10

No its not too harsh.

+1
He got a year in jail. The father of three that he killed on the other hand, will never see his kids grow up in to young adults.

reply
Max 2012/06/08 01:54:44

No its not too harsh.

This post doesn't mention what the possible sentence could be like: 20 years in prison.

reply
PoliticallyIncorrect 2012/06/08 01:52:06

No its not too harsh.

Ask the dead man's family. It's about time this liberal progressive crap about how the poor murderer is doing and whether he's being punished too severely got tossed in the toilet where it belongs. People have gotten away with too much as it is. You do the crime, you do the time. Those three kids don't have a father because of this utterly irresponsible behavior.

reply
AngelaDuke 2012/06/08 01:20:16

No its not too harsh.

He needs to take responsibility for his actions. Why they picked this kid and not one of the ones that have done it prior is a little unfair. Change the law, and then once the law is changed then start charging everyone the same. I don't understand how they pick which case is worse. They essentially all killed someone doing the same thing. Why give them one punishment and this kid another. But yes this should be the consequence for ANYONE who kills another accidently or intentionally.

reply
TruBluTopaz 2012/06/08 01:17:01

No its not too harsh.

+1
Homicide means killing of a human. Negligent homicide means doing something carelessly that caused death. I believe that is what this teen will be charged with and it's justified. I've watched people of all ages weaving on the lanes of the highways and big streets only to see that they are on the phone. It's dangeorus. Worse, it's addictive and indicates a lack of concern for self preservation as well as the safety of others.

reply
Dawn Wells 2012/06/08 01:09:48

No its not too harsh.

A lot a young people are braking the laws because they can get a way with it. The laws needs to be more strict, and protect the innocent, not the stupid, or irresponsible ohh and young affenders. If theirs strict laws not many people will want to brake them.

reply
Jackal 2012/06/08 00:34:14

No its not too harsh.

Because the law states that you will be punished for texting and driving. It is the same as drunk driving. You kill someone while drunk, you get charged with vehicle manslaughter. If you are texting and you kill someone, the same thing happens. That is the way it should be. I can't tell you how many times I almost got into an accident because some idiot is texting and driving...

reply
Gordon 2012/06/08 00:20:07

No its not too harsh.

+2
His careless, reckless and selfish driving caused the death of another person. He should have been given 15 to 20 years of hard time, in part to set an example. I see too many inconsider drivers texting, applying makeup, etc. and not paying attention to the road.

reply
WhereIsAmerica? ~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/08 00:09:49

No its not too harsh.

+1
I almost had an idiot kid talking on his cell phone drive right into me yesterday, he went to change into my lane and I beeped because I was there and he was going to hit me, so I backed off then he cut me off and gave me the finger. He could use some jail time to learn how not to act like an animal.

reply