6 ms·

"The lead officer came and told me that they were not arresting me - there was no indication that I was negligent or distracted or impaired in any way - but he

• dsego 9y ago
  What investigation? They measured the tire tracks. Unless there was an eyewitness, there is nothing else to do.
  • dudul 9y ago
    I guess. I'm just baffled picturing the scene. This young woman just killed a little boy and the cop is basically saying "ok, well, he's dead, just be careful next time. Ok, have a safe trip home, bye". You're right, without witnesses what can you do? But I would imagine a procedure a little more involved when somebody kills a child.
    • chris_7 9y ago
      Cops are predominantly drivers and don't want to enforce anything against other drivers, because "it could be them".
      • tragomaskhalos 9y ago
        Too true: my uncle's stepson was killed by a police car that T-boned his car as it (the cop car) jumped a red light in response to an emergency call (that later turned out to be bogus, as if the story wasn't grim enough). I imagine that the possibility of this happening to them preys very heavily on the minds of police drivers everywhere.
    • epitrochoidal 9y ago
      The procedure later, away from the accident scene, probably was more involved, but at the scene, unless there was evidence of negligence or bed intent I wouldn't expect an arrest. She didn't flee. Apparently didn't appear impaired. What would they possibly arrest her for?
      • chris_7 9y ago
        If you're driving fast enough on a local street that you can hit and kill someone, you're incredibly negligent (see: all NYC taxi drivers).
        • thr0waway2a7 9y ago
          Whilst you're correct that the higher the speed the more likely a fatality, it's also possible to cause death at very low speeds.
        • usaar333 9y ago
          Did you read the article? It was a rural road with a high speed limit.. very common in many parts of the world. Engineers assumed people wouldn't run into the middle of the street without looking.
        • 0xfeba 9y ago
          So 90% of drivers are incredibly negligent now. If you slow down to non-lethal speeds for every parallel parked vehicle or obstacle in anticipation of some kid sprinting out from behind it, you might as well walk (not ride a bike, because that problem still exists).
        • xenophonf 9y ago
          I live out this way. These aren't local streets like in a city or suburb. It's very rural with houses spaced far apart. Speed limits are 45-55 MPH (70-90 KPH) depending on the road. See for yourself on Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5080693,-84.689404,3a,75y,283.67h,83.95t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st5kwhAku-E9VIh0CIwYuPQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dt5kwhAku-E9VIh0CIwYuPQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D357.59302%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5080693,-84.689404,3a,75y,28...
    • nkrisc 9y ago
      But what procedure are you imagining, exactly? Grilling her until she confesses to something? There was no indication of any crime, just a tragic accident.
      • chris_7 9y ago
        http://crashnotaccident.com http://crashnotaccident.com
        • lr4444lr 9y ago
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence
        • rhino369 9y ago
          Accident doesn't imply it wasn't avoidable.
        • nkrisc 9y ago
          But unless she intentionally hit the child it was an accident on her part. I'm referring to a specific incident, not crashes in general. I thought that would be abundantly clear from the context. I certainly doubt she foresaw or planned on hitting a child. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident > 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance
          • icc97 9y ago
            A crash isn't intentional either. Meriam Webster has the following definition for crash: "to fall, land, or hit with destructive force" To me that is more accurate.
  • ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
    Right, this is sadly the unfortunate answer in many cases and the raw reality of our world. Too many people have been watching CSI and think the police could just go back and start 'zooming in' to see what happened.
    • 0xfeba 9y ago
      Agreed. Even murder clearance rates are as bad as 60% in some areas of the US. If you're not a complete idiot, you can get away with most crimes.
    • fenwick67 9y ago
      Yeah this happened to me, my house got shot up and a bullet whizzed over my desk (where I would have been if I was at my computer) and into the wall over my sleeping head. The police response was basically "well, sometimes people do this, but they usually don't hit anybody LOL". I didn't expect a full-on CSI investigation but really, my girlfriend or I could have died, I wanted something. There were never any charges, and I'm pretty sure there was no investigation beyond writing the report. It was really disappointing and disillusioning.
• corpMaverick 9y ago
  Clearly who was mainly worried about her mental health knowing how hard it can be. > you need to make sure that you never do this again Just a stupid sentence that came out not knowing what to say.
  • erik_landerholm 9y ago
    It’s not stupid it’s a morally wrong thing to say and very mean. She was what, 19? He obviously knew it was an accident (why did he let her go? He obviously thought it was an accident, probably unavoidable), more the little boys fault (if you have to blame someone) than her’s..what a jerk-off.
    • lolsal 9y ago
      How is it morally wrong?
      • rev_bird 9y ago
        The cop said it wasn't her fault, she didn't do anything wrong, but ALSO that "you need to make sure that you never do this again." How is she supposed to do that? The cop is pretending to absolve her of guilt while explicitly saying she is somehow in control of an uncontrollable situation.
• UncleEntity 9y ago
  > Was I the only one shocked by this? I think anyone who was actually alive in a time when it was possible for an accident to occur and people didn't automatically look for someone to blame aren't shocked. I'm a lot more shocked by what happens today. You know, back when the police's job was to 'protect and serve'. I think half the stuff my parents did to us kids in the '70s would lead to them being arrested today...
• bryanlarsen 9y ago
  IMO, the only person to blame in this incident is the person that thought a 50mph speed limit was appropriate for a road that kids live on.
  • _Wintermute 9y ago
    It's a limit not a target, if it's not safe to drive at that speed then don't.
  • mavhc 9y ago
    True, although drivers shouldn't drive at the posted speed limit if it's not safe.
  • erik_landerholm 9y ago
    Uh...have you ever driven anywhere rural...anywhere? If you have to drive 100 miles in rural area, going 30 mph would never fly. But, people ( including children) often live along these roads. I grew up in a place like that. People live directly off of highways. So highways should be 25 mph? 30mph?
    • bryanlarsen 9y ago
      99% of Sweden is rural, most of it with a significantly lower population density than the areas you're referring to, and they too had a lot of people that lived directly on their main roads.
  • luckroy 9y ago
    Perhaps you've never been on rural roads that also have houses? There are many places where a 50+ mph speed limit is appropriate even though there are little clusters of houses dotted along the route. It's not practical to lower the speed limit for every house that has children.
    • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Those houses are generally located far away from the road (farm houses) or are in some other way separated from the road way. If it’s a rural highway and houses are near the road, it typically results in a speed zone, even in desolate Nevada.
• peatmoss 9y ago
  Not sure why this is being downvoted. Whether you agree with the values expressed or not, it is a fact that people who kill people with their car rarely face any sort of legal repercussion. And yeah, I don’t think the fragility of the agent of death is a reason not to conduct even a cursory investigation into whether there might have been factors related to the crash. Was there anything in the car that might indictate impairment or distraction? Was there something about the place in the roadway that limited visibility? Might she have been speeding, and might speeding have been a factor? I mean, yes, some crashes are truly accidental, but some (especially nowadays with digital distractions) aren’t exactly without culpability on the part of the driver. When I was in college a beloved professor of mine was struck by a man who got out of his pickup truck, looked around, and got back in his truck and drove off. My professor was left injured in the middle of the road only to be struck and killed by a second car. The first driver’s defense? The one that absolved him of all criminal and civil liability to my professor’s surviving child? He didn’t see her. In this country we are pretty quick to assume innocence on the part of the driver. It’s been said that, if you want to kill someone and get away with it, do it with your car. So, yeah, this woman probably wouldn’t have been convicted by a jury of her peers. But it’s pretty cavalier to suggest that we—out of deference to the operator of a deadly machine—that we shouldn’t even ask some questions.
  • lr4444lr 9y ago
    It's being downvoted because there is no reason to arrest the person. "They looked for skid marks on the road and took some measurements", and presumably they concluded there was no foul play.
    • peatmoss 9y ago
      Yeah, still not getting it. Wouldn’t normally a person be detained for questioning if they had just killed a person in some other context? Maybe arrest isn’t warranted—maybe a, “hey you look pretty shook up, would you mind coming down to the station with me to answer a few questions? Cool, I have to let you know before I get started that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” But I also don’t think “nah, I’m good and don’t intend to come with you to answer your questions.” Is an acceptable answer either. So, if someone were NOT cooperating with the police in a fatal crash situation, I don’t think arrest is unreasonable in the least.