Murder is with the intention to kill. This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
But they are too lenient on deathly accidents with gross negligence.
This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
Unless the driver admitted to wanting to kill someone on purpose with their car, the grey area between “I didn’t see them” to “I don’t know what happened.” makes it so that drivers are often only given a citation for a traffic violation (i.e. not stopping at a stop sign), if the victim is lucky enough for that level of “justice”.
With a random killing you might get indeed away, but murders are usually targeted. In case a deadly accident happens, and it can be proven the driver had a conflict with that person, it does turn the case around.
Murder is with the intention to kill. This would apply for using a car as a weapon as well and courts do go after these cases in practice, of sniping a target with a car.
But they are too lenient on deathly accidents with gross negligence.
Unless the driver admitted to wanting to kill someone on purpose with their car, the grey area between “I didn’t see them” to “I don’t know what happened.” makes it so that drivers are often only given a citation for a traffic violation (i.e. not stopping at a stop sign), if the victim is lucky enough for that level of “justice”.
It’s very rare to see a driver be convicted of anything beyond vehicular manslaughter, including when you have a history of driving offences, and run off like a coward after running over a cyclist.
edit: grammar
With a random killing you might get indeed away, but murders are usually targeted. In case a deadly accident happens, and it can be proven the driver had a conflict with that person, it does turn the case around.
Plot twist, the person killed is a protester.
do that next year, and you’ll get a medal and a cabinet post.