You are not logged in.
Offline
I wish they'd amend the law to make it absolutely clear that thinking you hit an *animal* does not qualify as a defense against the law. Jurors seem to buy that explanation far too often.
I wouldn't want this law to apply to somebody who bumped a person at 1 mph and didn't realize it, or somebody who's hand was struck by a car as a drove by and not noticed by the driver (not that I want this to happen, but it shouldn't be a felony), but if the impact was strong enough that any sober driver would obviously notice it (and yes, I realize that said drivers are often not sober), the driver needs to be explicitly required to make sure that the impact was not a person, and failure to make sure in no way excuses the driver from being required to stop if it was in fact a human.
I'm not exactly sure how it should be worded, but you get the idea. To me, getting rid of this "I thought I hit a deer!" defense/excuse/lie is more important than upping it to a 2nd degree felony from a 3rd degree felony.
Offline
[ Generated in 0.014 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 527.71 KiB (Peak: 528.34 KiB) ]