Why is a hit & run so bad?

[zanket]

Yet another hit & run in Seattle last night, another dark and rainy night. This time three cars played bumper pool with a jaywalking lady and all the drivers beat it out of there. Plenty of witnesses saw the third car run over her; she may have already been dead by then. The news report offered the usual eyewitness crying, “How could anybody just leave her there?”

I ask, why is that so unfair? If there are lots of people around when you run over a jaywalker, you can be reasonably sure the victim will get help. You know it was not your fault. Yet, if you stop, you stand an excellent chance of losing everything you worked for or will work for fighting a spurious manslaughter charge brought by a prosecutor pandering to the public’s misguided desire for revenge. What would make me stop is the difficulty in eluding capture. But I can certainly understand those whose fear of castigation over an accident overwhelms their common sense. As a juror in a hit & run trial I’d give almost no weight to the run part.

What would you do?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I plan on doing a purposeful hit and run in my lifetime.
Hit and runs are so villainised because they can't have the satisfaction of punishing you. So they're like "whoooaa, weak dude, you gotta sit around and wait for us to come and ruin your life, thats just so weak if you like bail and get away with everything. Thats so not cool."
It's a feeble last ditch effort to guilt people into waiting for punishment after they runover somebody because they know how rational it is to just keep going. They need to provide a reason for you to stay behind. It's weak as piss obviously, and I doubt it's even expected of people to sit around and wait for the cops after they runover someone, that would just be so freaking retarded. The wierd thing is people do wait around for the cops.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to fall for that crap? I wouldn' even fucking slow down.

 

[phlogistician]

Hey this is one for the cesspool.

If you kill someone, you should stick around and talk to the cops. 'Jaywalking' is some fucking lame excuse to use for blaming the pedestrian. If you see a pedestrian in the road, use your brakes. The idea that someone might just run someone over because they aren't supposed to be there appalls me, as does the fact that in this reported case, the dumb fucks driving kept running the corpse over. People like that need catching, putting in jail, and having their driving licence ripped up for good, before they start cruising around your neighbourhood, and mowing down your kids.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Yeah whatever.
If you accidentally hit someone, are you going to sit around?
Think about it, the person's dead, you have 2 options, leave and get on with your life, or stay and be put in jail. What kind of fucking moron would stick around? What purpose is that going to serve?

It's just letting people punish you for their own gratification. Anyone that would hand themselves in after a hit and run can officially be labelled severely brainwashed by modern society. That behaviour makes no sense, anyone who exhibits it should first and foremost suffer the punishment of having others point and laugh at them, and then they should get however many years it is for manslaughter.

 

[phlogistician]

Lou, you're either trolling, or you're a complete cunt.

 

[sideshowbob]

Zanket and Dr. Lou:

We live in a society. Can you say "so-ci-e-ty"?

In a society, we take care of each other. We need to get better at that, not worse.

It's bad enough to turn a blind eye to somebody who is injured and in need of help. It's unimaginably worse when you are the one who caused the injury.

We do not need that kind of person in our society. You can go back to the jungle if you want to live by "kill or be killed". I suspect that you would not last long in that environment. You need the rest of us "bleeding hearts" to protect you.

If I was on the jury in a hit-and-run trial, I'd be tempted to slit the bastard's throat myself - but I think our society would protect even him.

 

[spidergoat]

Even if you are only worried about your own fate, the police will hunt down a hit-and-run driver and the consequences would be much worse than if you stayed. They might, like with an x of mine who hit (with my car) a 80 year old teacher on a rainy night when he crossed a street with a black umbrella in front of him, determine that no one was at fault. You might still be liable for a civil suit, though.

 

[marv]

I cannot believe this post!

This is below the cesspool and belongs in the septic tank! It isn't even a bad joke. I can only think that the best parts of Zanket and LouNatic ran down their daddy's legs.

 

[zanket]

If you kill someone, you should stick around and talk to the cops.

If it was an accident you could not have reasonably prevented (the type I’m talking about here), would you still stick around to face a huge legal bill? As spidergoat noted, you might not be charged but still face a civil suit from a family hoping to win the lottery from you by means of a jury sympathetic to them. Even if you win the suit you become homeless defending yourself. You lose your job because you’ll spend a month in court.

'Jaywalking' is some fucking lame excuse to use for blaming the pedestrian. If you see a pedestrian in the road, use your brakes.

I’m talking about a case where you didn’t have time to react, not where you ran over someone out of laziness or maliciousness.

 

[zanket]

In a society, we take care of each other. We need to get better at that, not worse.

Well that’s just it, sideshowbob: society shits on the hit & stay driver even when it’s an accident that could not reasonably be prevented. How much shit should a driver take from society before he or she can no longer be reasonably expected to stay to help the jaywalker?

You need the rest of us "bleeding hearts" to protect you.

I am a bleeding heart liberal, even to the point where I can empathize with a hit & run driver.

If I was on the jury in a hit-and-run trial, I'd be tempted to slit the bastard's throat myself - but I think our society would protect even him.

Please better explain why you be tempted, when society already exacts a high price from a driver in an accident that could not reasonably be prevented. You’d be adding insult to injury.

 

[sideshowbob]

How much shit should a driver take from society before he or she can no longer be reasonably expected to stay to help the jaywalker?

Answer: All of it. Next question?

Please better explain why, when society exacts a high price for a hit & stay driver in an accident that could not reasonably be prevented. You’d just be adding insult to injury.

You persist in seeing the driver as the victim. The real victim is the one who got killed/injured.

 

[zanket]

You’re being disingenuous.

If you were driving safely when a kid darted out in front of your car and you killed her, and you knew for a fact that if you stopped (and only if you stopped) you’d be ordered to pay a million dollars to the kid’s family, would you stop? Are there not two victims?

 

[sideshowbob]

Yes, I would stop.
The vast majority of people would stop and do stop. They stop because it's the right thing to do.

Even hit-and run drivers instinctively hit the brakes. They only take off when they think they can get away with it. It's the same as stealing when you think nobody is watching. Don't try to make something noble out of it.

And don't project your own lack of moral values on everybody else.

 

[Nasor]

It’s a simple matter of deterrence. Sometimes when a car hits a pedestrian it’s the pedestrian’s fault, and sometimes it’s the driver’s fault. If it’s the drivers fault, he should be punished – if it’s the pedestrian’s fault, being run over by a car is probably punishment enough. So when a car hits a pedestrian, it’s in society’s interest to determine whose fault it was. That’s hard to do if the driver freaks out and runs off, so our laws require the driver to stick around and talk to the police. If you violate that law, you’re punished. What’s the problem here? It seems pretty simple.

 

[zanket]

Yes, I would stop.
The vast majority of people would stop and do stop. They stop because it's the right thing to do.

I think you are lying to yourself. The hit-and-run driver in such an accident takes off when they suddenly realize how unfair society will be to them if they stay. If they do the “right” thing after doing nothing wrong then society skewers them. Disobeying an unfair law is not the same as stealing. There are certainly two victims when you are ordered to pay a million dollars for doing nothing wrong.

 

[zanket]

What’s the problem here? It seems pretty simple.

The problem is that the driver is often punished too when it’s the pedestrian’s fault. Were it not for that it would be simple and more drivers would stop.

 

[Nasor]

I think you are lying to yourself. The hit-and-run driver in such an accident takes off when they suddenly realize how unfair society will be to them if they stay. If they do the “right” thing after doing nothing wrong then society skewers them. Disobeying an unfair law is not the same as stealing. There are certainly two victims when you are ordered to pay a million dollars for doing nothing wrong.

If you have to pay $1 million it's because 12 randomly selected people were convinced that it was your fault. It's not as if your always end up being punished for hitting someone - there are cases all the time where a pedestrian is killed and the police determine that it was his fault for stepping out into the road when he shouldn't have.

 

[sideshowbob]

Disobeying an unfair law is not the same as stealing.

What "unfair law" are you talking about? The "right to run over pedestrians" is not some fundamental right that is being violated by the justice system.

The right thing to do is certainly to stop and see if you can help the victim. And don't you lie to yourself. That is what most people do.

 

[Roman]

there are cases all the time where a pedestrian is killed and the police determine that it was his fault for stepping out into the road when he shouldn't have.

It took fucking long enough for someone to point that out.

I think the reason why hit&run goes down so hard is because it's internalized by most people. If some drunk fuck hit you in their car, wouldn't you want their life to as crippled and ruined as yours?

 

[zanket]

If you have to pay $1 million it's because 12 randomly selected people were convinced that it was your fault.

Juries make mistakes. The jury is convinced you are at fault when you weren’t. Or maybe they think you have the bucks to spare and the victim’s family needs the money. Happens all the time.

That's the case I’m talking about here, when you were driving safely and the accident could not be reasonably prevented (kid darts in front of you, say). By stopping you open yourself up to huge liability even though you did nothing wrong. Because of the liability potential you’d have to get a lawyer immediately; that’s $10K sunk just for the retainer. You won’t get anything back if you’re absolved.