Return of the "how could she" article.

[kyrielle]

Followup article. How could she? Why, because "She was simply a frightened, emotionally distraught young woman who had an accident, panicked, and made a wrong choice."

Her attorney says that like her "wrong choice" took only a matter of minutes, not hours. Like she couldn't have recovered from it, had no time for second guessing, etc.

Ummm.

Okay. This is still an article about someone dying because of someone else, it's still cold, and it's still "how COULD she?" But now, they're trying to make it seem like she's also a victim in this. Ummm.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020308/ap_on_re_us/hit_and_run_death_7

Comments

[pheon.livejournal.com]

I see no way she is a victim in this. The guy who died was the victim; she is a murderer. "Wrong choice" my ass!

[kyrielle]

Exactly! The whole idea of casting her as victimized in this is just...ugh.

[pheon.livejournal.com]

Interesting take on this by a lawyer (who starts out saying "Sometimes I can?t understand why some of my fellow attorneys talk to the media") at http://sneakingsuspicions.com/a0303092002.htm#030902 You may have to scroll down a little.

[kyrielle]

Good for that lawyer. Blah. I mean, if it had been an ordinary "failure to render aid" (given how long he lived), it's very likely some other passer-by could have helped him.

Shutting a badly injured man -in your garage- and refusing to help him, after -you- hit him, is -way- beyond "failure to render aid".