Originally Posted by
dcrowell
There was no reason for a plea-bargain in this case. Once he left the scene, the doubt is over. Why did he leave the scene? Was he drunk? Have drugs in the car? I don't know. In any case, leaving the scene after an accident with injuries isn't even debatable anymore. That should be enough to convict him.
Also, somewhat unrelated, any felony (and some misdemeanor) driving related sentence should be an automatic lifetime ban from driving. This guy could have afforded to not drive. He wouldn't even need to become a cyclist. He could have afforded an alternative.
Your secnd paragraph illustrates where "discussions" about things like this
so often go off the deep end. Your first paragraph is merely a result of your feelings expressed in the second - to me.
Get out of the emotional argument/emotional side of your brain and deal with the objective reality of the situation and you really might "understand" what the OP has said. Reality is nothing can bring a dead person back to life or even completely restore any injured person to a pre-injured state - memory of the accident itself prevents that. So one is left with "appropriateness".
"leaving the scene after an accident with injuries isn't even debatable anymore. That should be enough to convict him." No allowance for exigent circumstances not reported by the media?
"automatic lifetime ban from driving"? Really? !
"He could have afforded an alternative." Really?!
These are rational arguments? I think not.
But to each his own. I prefer rational argument and thought.
Harsh and insulting as that may sound, I really do not mean to be insulting - only direct and concise in responding to your post.
Then again, I am called a curmudgeon by "friends" and family alike.