Re: Singapore Best bowler, Nat athlete, Int'l Bowler - Hit and Run Reported
As I have pointed out, it is very circumstantial. Individuals' reactions and responses to an accident like this can vary. Granted, he did not choose to react in the most acceptable way - legally and ethically, but that says only about his reactions to the accident. I see no need to extrapolate and go full force in assassinating his character like what the media and cyberspace did.
We are living in a world with declining moral values. And within that realm we search for the stories of corrupt and do our daily witch-hunt via cyberspace. What is positive about the whole saga is that there are still people who recognised the motions of apology from him, amidst a tsunami of bloodthirst frenzy all out to crucify him. He served his admission, he apologised, and I am sure he is feeling the guilt.
What's the point of any duscussion if he is already sentenced guilty by the cyberspace no matter what he say?
DrK said:Fully agreed that accidents and collisions are situational. In this situation, unfortunately it speaks for the dog and against the driver. One, this isn't NSW. Two, this isn't Lim Chu Kang. Three, it isn't dark, in fact it was in bright daylight. Four, that stretch of road does not permit travelling at more than 30km/h. I used to cycle there all the time so I know. It is a 2-lane road, very narrow and not possible to overtake without taking calculated risks. Five, the dog's tails brushed against the car - this would surmount to broken hind legs of the canine at best - not internal injuries (with blood oozing from nose and mouth) which suggests a full body impact. Six, the most righteous man is known to find excuses when shite happens. Everyone in this situation would like to scurry out of the pits as unscathed as possible, in terms of reputation and criminal offence record sake. It is his words vs a dead dog. I will take it with a pinch of salt even if he is related to me. Yes, skeptism is necessary when you have to investigate something from all corners.
In the end, the verdict is Driver 1 - 0 Dead Dog. As I had said before, machine vs legs. Who will stand a chance even at 10km/h? This kind of hit-and-run is way too repetitive when comes to verdicts.
As I have pointed out, it is very circumstantial. Individuals' reactions and responses to an accident like this can vary. Granted, he did not choose to react in the most acceptable way - legally and ethically, but that says only about his reactions to the accident. I see no need to extrapolate and go full force in assassinating his character like what the media and cyberspace did.
We are living in a world with declining moral values. And within that realm we search for the stories of corrupt and do our daily witch-hunt via cyberspace. What is positive about the whole saga is that there are still people who recognised the motions of apology from him, amidst a tsunami of bloodthirst frenzy all out to crucify him. He served his admission, he apologised, and I am sure he is feeling the guilt.
What's the point of any duscussion if he is already sentenced guilty by the cyberspace no matter what he say?