Girl killed in accident, police games



  • Sadly, a girl was killed here in Florida earlier today. The vehicle she was riding in flipped into the median. During the flip, she was ejected from the vehicle she was riding in ("Seatbelts!") and then struck by a car going the other direction, on the other side of the median.

    The other car left the scene.

    The police note that they have evidence from the scene that will help them identify the other car, but they are, "...hoping that the other driver will turn themselves in." The newsies asked if that driver will be charged and the police blandly reply, "It's too early in the investigation to know."

    :wtf:

    Oh, yeah, right. How about leaving the scene of an accident? You really think that just because you're coy and say, "It's too early...," that the driver in question doesn't know they're going to be charged instantly, if they turn themselves in?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Sometimes people are actually that dumb.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Plus, its Florida.



  • @FrostCat said:

    Plus, its Florida.

    "Flori-duh", you mean.

    Yes, some people will decide to turn themselves in (guilt, fear); and some few of those will be dumb enough to think no one will charge them. The police statement is still a :wtf:.



  • I assumed they meant "charged for the death of the girl".



  • @ben_lubar said:

    I assumed they meant "charged for the death of the girl".

    Perhaps. But given the circumstances, that's not a certainty: what can you do when an accident on the other side of the median flips a girl in front of you? So maybe, maybe not; depending on the investigation. Leaving the scene, though, that's a certainty (it could be misdemeanor or felony, but it's going to be a charge).

    The driver of the vehicle the girl was originally in survived, and is in trouble, irregardless. We have a seatbelt law.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    irregardless

    DANGER WILL ROBINSON



  • @ben_lubar said:

    @CoyneTheDup said:
    irregardless

    DANGER WILL ROBINSON

    Not creative enough for a spellar/gramming flag, but I will say thank you for saving me the bother of flying into an apoplectic, spittle-flecked rage.

    Oh, and on the subject of the topic (that just sounds wrong), I don't know the laws in Florida, but I'm pretty sure that where I spent almost all of my driving life, leaving the scene of a fatal accident is pretty much certain to be a felony, even if you're not at fault for the accident itself.



  • It's not a spelling error so much as a "this isn't a word no matter how hard you try to make it one" error.



  • More than likely the other driver was a cop.


  • Fake News

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    given the circumstances

    For all intensive purposes, you mean?

    <irregardless of the situation :trolleybus:


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Details. Well a few...



  • I guess turning yourself in you might get some small consideration in sentencing that at least at some point you realised you were a moron.


  • BINNED

    @FrostCat said:

    Plus, its Florida



  • @ben_lubar said:

    It's not a spelling error so much as a "this isn't a word no matter how hard you try to make it one" error.

    It might be "informal" or "non-standard" but it is a word. Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, and The Free Dictionary, Then there is Yes, 'Irregardless' Is a Word and Regardless vs. Irregardless, Sneaked vs. Snuck, Assure vs. Ensure vs. Insure.

    Informal and slang words are half the fun of a language.

    Bunch of nit-picking, nusaince, troublemakers...mutter...mutter...got no problem with Flori-duh, but make a big deal about a word like "irregardless".

    @HardwareGeek said:

    Oh, and on the subject of the topic (that just sounds wrong), I don't know the laws in Florida, but I'm pretty sure that where I spent almost all of my driving life, leaving the scene of a fatal accident is pretty much certain to be a felony, even if you're not at fault for the accident itself.

    It will probably be charged as a felony here as well. However, it is often bargained downward unless the person actually had a responsibility in the death (DUI, etc.). As I noted above, that may make this case rather gray, depending on the circumstances: It would be hard to say the other driver is responsible if the girl was flipped in front and he couldn't reasonably stop or avoid her.

    The person who is possibly in worst trouble is the driver of the original car. Seat belt wear is mandatory in Florida and the driver is responsible to see to it that the passengers wear them. If the girl wasn't wearing one, that's a crime, which makes her death manslaughter, for which the driver can be charged.

    @lolwhat said:

    For all intensive purposes, you mean?

    No, as reported. Of course, TV reports...well, you know. But as described, and as I note above, the responsibility isn't clear at all at this point. The original driver may bear it all and the other driver none, or even vice-versa.

    I posted the topic on the :WTF: of the cops saying (paraphrased), "Gee, we have no idea if we'll charge the other driver." Which was an idiotic statement because, whether responsible for the death or not, whether felony leaving the scene or misdemeanor, reduced or not, the other driver will be charged for leaving the scene; and the police know that. So it's just a tiny bit disingenuous and a :wtf: to say they don't know because...investigation. Other charges depend; leaving the scene is a given.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    The police note that they have evidence from the scene that will help them identify the other car, but they are, "...hoping that the other driver will turn themselves in." The newsies asked if that driver will be charged and the police blandly reply, "It's too early in the investigation to know."

    And the WTF is ... what?

    If the other driver was in charge of a large truck, he may not have even been aware of the accident. It's tragic, but it happens.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    Oh, yeah, right. How about leaving the scene of an accident?

    That's only illegal if you know it's the scene of an accident. That's not a given yet. Which is why the police are saying "we don't know yet." They gave the correct answer to the question.



  • That's correct, even in the case of a smaller vehicle the driver may not have seen or known what happened. It obviously depends on where and how the vehicle hit her (or where and how she hit the vehicle), but it's not automatically safe to assume that the vehicle's driver knew that they had struck a person rather than a rock, pothole, etc.



  • "I didn't know there was an accident, I was texting at the time!"



  • What? That's an outrage! Don't you know you shouldn't be texting while drunk?


  • area_deu



  • @hungrier said:

    What? That's an outrage! Don't you know you shouldn't be texting while drunk?

    That's why I didn't know I was driving!!!



  • @lolwhat said:

    intensive purposes

    But there can be intensive purposes.

    Irregardless of X implies that it actually does regard X.


  • sockdevs

    @xaade said:

    But there can be intensive purposes

    And in tents if poor poises ;)



  • N tents have porpoises.
    Porpoises do X tents public classes.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If the other driver was in charge of a large truck, he may not have even been aware of the accident. It's tragic, but it happens.

    You are right; except that it's been explicitly stated that the other vehicle is a car. You can now read about it here.

    Trust me, that may not help the other driver: they may charge him/her on presumption. The charges may be dropped later, but usually they start out by charging. The important indication in this case is that they seem to think the other car should have been aware.

    @blakeyrat said:

    That's only illegal if you know it's the scene of an accident. That's not a given yet. Which is why the police are saying "we don't know yet." They gave the correct answer to the question.

    That's true as well. However, the police presume you should know, as a matter of course. You have to produce evidence that you didn't know, in court.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    You are right; except that it's been explicitly stated that the other vehicle is a car. You can now read about it here.

    That's the same article I read earlier. It explicitly says:

    Investigators are following leads, she said, but as of Monday afternoon police could not release any details about what type of vehicle may have been involved.

    I think you're seeing the word "car" in the top paragraph and assuming it means "not a truck" instead of "goddamned journalists are lazy and wouldn't bother using a more correct word like 'vehicle'."


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.