Urgh. Many things about that article annoy me.

Quote:
"It's an excessive charge for what happened here," he said. "This was not a murder. Even the state medical examiner said during cross-examination that the manner of death for the people in the other car was accidental."

Because the medical examiner is traditionally the one called upon to determine the status of the person who caused the accident. ("By examining the bodies of the decedents, I was able to determine that the other driver in the accident had had five beers shorty before plowing into them.")

Quote:
But equipping a truck with entertainment options that can be used while driving goes beyond a momentary distraction of putting on makeup or using a cell phone, he said.

"This takes forethought, this takes methodical steps," David Weiser said. "You have to go to the store, plop over money, install it, and install it so it can be used without a brake employed.

Because in order to put on makeup while driving, you apparently don't have to "go to the store and plop over money". Nor do you have to actually engage in the action of distracting yourself. What he's saying is that it'd be different if he'd just instead purchased a portable DVD player/monitor and put it on his dash. He wouldn't have had to install it in a specific manner then. Idiot.

Of course, all that being said, if this moron really was watching a movie while (not?) driving, then he should be locked away for a long time. It's just that the asinine arguments that people use and the equally asinine conclusions that they come to are insulting.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk