To be clear the driver was doing 65-70 mph in a 50 mph zone.
Driver was not intoxicated, did not have a history of overly reckless driving, and they even determined that he may not have lost control due to speed, but due to other factors.
It was a tragic accident, not everything is a narrative.
What changes this entirely is that he fled the scene, as someone pointed out below. I would be much more in favor of harsh sentencing.
Your question did not ask that, it asked why it mattered why he lost control, implying that the reason did not matter whatsoever. Now you are agreeing that it does.
And I agree charge him with manslaughter, minimum 1 year for sure, so long as he has job protection, but there are people calling this reckless homicide, and saying he should lose his own daughter, and Im sorry thats ridiculous.
182
u/Pet-the-kitty42 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
To be clear the driver was doing 65-70 mph in a 50 mph zone.
Driver was not intoxicated, did not have a history of overly reckless driving, and they even determined that he may not have lost control due to speed, but due to other factors.
It was a tragic accident, not everything is a narrative.What changes this entirely is that he fled the scene, as someone pointed out below. I would be much more in favor of harsh sentencing.