hit and run - a life is lost

When our self preservation outweighs our guilt, we cover up the wrongful things we do. Would you do differently?


I am a very forgiving person but when a life is lost and you lie in the hope of setting you unaccountable, it is just plain wrong.

A convicted killer is released after 2.5 years. Why? She's rich and manipulated facts to suit her needs.

Scenario: A poor motorist ran out of gas, while filling on the side of the road at night, with his blinkers on, was hit and killed by a drunk rich woman. Two witnesses saw the accident and came forward. Amy Senser, the woman who was driving a Mercedes SUV, fled the scene and never reported the accident. Deleted all her text messages after that. First lied that she wasn't the driver, eventually accepted it and declared she thought she hit a cone or an animal?

You be the judge. What makes me sick is how the rich can pay their way out of a crime and meted a light sentence.

(Please read all articles regarding the case on Google)

Question: Is there a lesson we can draw from this?

Of course, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE is one. Second, if you do, you have to be rich to buy your freedom.

Thanks all for your reads and comments.
Post Comment

Comments (37)

I wouldnt take any sides in that story.
First of all if I were that poor dead motorist I wouldnt care too much about what happens to the woman, whether she's sentenced for life or let go for money, my last thought would be of whom I love and care, of what I did right and regret of what I did wrong.
As to the woman she might have family, children, who risk to be go to foster care in case if she's in jail, because you know men are not too reliable to leave your kids with.... There may be so many sides you would never know of, it's better off judging...
Aisha yes I do agree with you. Well the whole story is that she's rich married to a very prominent athlete, Minnesota Vikings, no kids but I am more into the lesson really.

For the dead man, well I am more for the family who lost a bread winner. But thanks for your comments.
When I first came to Spain you took your life in your hands crossing the road at a pedestrian crossing uh oh wow then a famous opera singer killed a pedestrian on a crossing & fled the scene, it was later found he had been drunk, the courts wanting to make an example of him gave him 20 years, overnight it was safe to use crossings here dancing laugh
My point exactly Z. Thanks for sharing. If we truly want to create awareness with lessons heeded then the maximum should have been meted. 2 years? Specially with all the lies she put on? But I guess some people's lives are worth more than others Z.
Drink driving is a catastrophe that I do not wish on anyone!!!!!!!!
IF it does happen many reasons can be found
ie Peers pressure or whatever pressure, ie overtired with work
ie WHATEVER problem

Something or somebody driving you mad in short

People in general don't choose to become occasional drink drivers

AND they certainly don't choose to kill or damage themselves and someone else

NOBODY for sure is proud to undergo this fiasco

YES it is expensive to get back the licence
AND I think it is for the best
AS it is a caution towards safety

WHAT IS MONEY COMPARE TO DEATH????????????????


Hit and run WELL maybe they panic or maybe they don't realise the problem being under the influence of alcohol

NEVER would I allow myself to be a judge.........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT can happen to anyone rich or poor,,,,,,,,,,
Another possible lesson, as any good Hit man (person) knows, never leave a witness behind.
Alright .........Ken

NOW that is a funny declaration about independence
cheering
SR,

I think it was last year, a similar story to yours. A rich kid, around 19 years old, driving while drunk and on drugs. Like your story, a person broke down along the road and a couple of peopled stopped to help out. The drunk kid ended up killing multiple people along the road by smashing into one of the parked cars.


The court found the kid from the rich family guilty of "affluenza." lol He was not guilty because he grew up in a family that was too wealthy. The father told the court that he would put his kid in rehabilitation. They showed on tv the rehabilitation center the kid went to and it looked like some sort of fancy resort.

The laws should reflect on everybody equally. However, it is impossible to write laws that have distinctive meaning to any and all situations that may occur in life. That is why good lawyers make so much money, they are good at finding those gray areas in the law.
5 years for the south African athlete who shot his girlfriend.....doh he'll be out in months....frustrated
Something was annoying me today
AND
IT SEEMS that I answered the blog hastily

and the result is .............. I AM OUT OF CONTEXT

ooooooooooooooops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nozeal thanks and I do love your comments because it can truly branch out to several blogs.
Seriously Ken, I think that kind of thinking is what the problem is. But. . Well..
Johnny it is sad when the system choose to determine our values based on what we have. Where's justice of every one is equal in the eyes of the law?
It is very sad Cal.

Nice to see you and the picture, just gorgeous.
Nozeal, it's OK, it's not like treason is committed. Thanks just the same.
Hello Lindsyjoneswave I ve always thought the sentences given to drunk drivers by the courts should set presidence, and influence to other drunk drivers, it doesn't.Drunk driving in both our countries just goes on and on. It seems that when you hear of one horrific accident caused by a drunk driver, give it time and another one will happen. Maybe its time our legal systems handed out some horrific punishments.
LJ,

Almost every day you can read in the newspaper or online about something similar to this. It is a tragety! I think the courts are way to soft. As you say, if you have money, you can get away with "murder".thumbs down
You're right Ito, it's way too lenient and it doesn't make people learn.
Jim I am so agreeing with you.
@ lindsyjones - wave .. If I were the judge, I would make a ruling on each account such as punishment for:

1) Driving without due care.

2) Leaving the scene of an accident.

3) DUI (equivalent of refusing a breath test).

4) Tampering with evidence (deleting texts).

5) Manslaughter 1.

After paying her dues on the first 4 rulings E.G. Fines, suspension of license etc I would then make this decision as to her sentence on the Man. 1 charge.

If she has children who still need their Mother I would leave her in the community but she must do weekend detention, enter into an AA program and pay a weekly, tax-free amount to the family who lost their Father/Partner equivalent to the amount that he was already earning plus 10%

The pay-out amount should also be increased in accordance with normal wage increase.

Sending her to jail is costing the community and doing nothing in return for the family of the deceased.

..... grin hug wine
Hans I'm touch with your compassion. Now would that make the public learn?
lind
I thought our lady of justice was blind folded for a reason...all too often a good lawyer will get the rich out of predicaments most people cannot due to lack of money...this says a lot for our justice system...sadly...
Hello Lindsyjones,wave I m back again, It was announced on our National news, that the police in Ontario figure there are as many people killed by people texting while driving as by drunk drivers.doh From one extreme to another. Years ago when I got my drivers license , I figured it was a privaledge not a right.
In fact that kind of representation my friend is dead. Yes, if you read the whole story how it got laid out, I'd make you cringe to the stomach.
@ lindsyjones - wave .. By 'rich' I assume she has a well paid job so I believe that it would be a huge deterrant..... Imaging this lady having to front up to the door of the dead man's family every week for the natural life of the widow and handing over several hundred of her hard earned dollars. She would not be allowed to give her the money by any other means, any holidays would be limited to 4 days in any one single week because 2 days are spent in detention and on the 7th day she would have to be on the widow's door step again.

The chances are that she would have lost her license for up to 3 years so she would have to travel by cab or public transport to pay the weekly amounts to the widow.

The only way out of this arrangement is to top herself (justice done) or if the widow dies, if the later happens she still must pay until the widow's children have all turned 18.

Weekend detention would be up to 25 years.

For someone who is unemployed and or not rich, they would have to work for the county by a court order and then hand over most of their pay to the widow.

To stay out of jail most would abide by these rules.

.... grin hug wine
Now that is a new wave of activities that guarantees the rise of a new roads destruction Ito.
@ lindsyjones - To understand where I am coming from, Girl, it needs to be stated that I am a proponent of Universal Law and not man-made laws. Universal Law does not allow any one person incarcerating another against their will. Therefore the choice to go to jail must be at the request of the perpetrator after being given a harsh alternative such as I have mentioned in my previous posts.

Also jails must be reformed. Different jails should be used for different crimes. Murderers should not be incarcerated with thieves etc.

There should be no TV’s or other electronic devices allowed in any cells, jails are not meant to be holiday resorts, all inmates must do community work such as digging ditches, mining, production etc and the money that they earn should be paid to their victims and not kept for themselves to buy sweets and smokes. If they wish to have such privileges it should be paid for by someone else in their own family or by friends

No country can ever progress well by incarcerating their productive citizens. People should be given the choice to remain a productive citizen wherever possible.

grin hug wine
I so agree with you Hans, it truly is very positive approach to view punishment for rehabilitation but what impact does it create on the population.

We must look at three different angle here. First she is a very rich person who never exercise compassion. She lied and had it not been for the witnesses, she wouldn't have even ever come out. Had a very manipulating lawyer to make the case so twisted up. Now on the second view, she was only to pay $6,000.00 to the poor breadwinner of a family.
Now the last, wouldn't make it so easy for the public to think that it is not a ser
@ lindsyjones - wave .. Personally I believe that the ideas of lawyers should be left out of the trial until all the evidence has been brought before the court and all the experts and witnesses have had their say and the sentence handed down..... Basically the first trial should be run similsr to an inquest.

Lawyers etc should only be brought into court in the event of an appeal to show due cause why a sentence should be quashed or reduced.

In this day and age forensic evidence can tell the truth better than anyone else.

The only thing that lawyers do is muddy the truth throughout the trial IMO.... conversing

The media should also be kept out of preceedings until the final sentence has been handed down because all they manage to do is confuse public opinion.

..... grin hug wine
Wow Hans I love the idea. Therefore all truths would come out as it is. Then no diluted arguments to further damage the wrong things done.

Plain and simple.
@ lindsyjones - wave .. The impact that it does create on the population is much more profound because they will see that the perpetrator is being publicly shamed for their actions and they see that the widow is actively receiving redress.

Regardless of how rich someone is, it always hurts to have to hand out money for one's own stupidity.... conversing

... grin hug wine
Maybe we should create a universal law that benefits everyone.
Thanks Hans and sleep well.
handshake
A not-so-good friend of mine killed another friend of mine, the passenger in the car at the time, in a drink driving accident. The judge gave him the lesser sentence of 5 years because the passenger knew before getting in the car that the driver was drunk. I thought this was fair.

But 2.5 years for killing someone completely blameless and then lying through your teeth about it? That's sick. She should get at least 10 years and the initial judge should be made to serve 2.5 years.
Now that is a fair sentence for that kind of situation Obs. Too bad our system is so flawed and justice is never well served.
civil court settlement hurts them/ask OJ,he moved out of state broke.
Reb I remember that fiasco.
Post Comment - Let others know what you think about this Blog.
Meet the Author of this Blog
lindsyjones

lindsyjones

unknown, California, USA

Not looking, thanks for your visit.

I am here for the blogs and poetry writing. I learn a lot from the dynamics of the discussions. Part of my lifetime learning.

I am forever grateful with this gift called, LIFE. After all what I've been thro [read more]