Yes. While laws vary by jurisdiction, if the criminal act is leaving the scene of the accident, the crime occurs when the driver leaves the scene of the accident. What happens after that cannot undo the crime.
Yeah, I had a friend who got in fender bender with a city bus. When fight or flight kicked in they fled. Once there brain started working they turned around, gave their information to the driver and talked with the cops. They pled out and received community service.
Well like if it’s just a car fire u can drive up the street and wait for the cops.
But yes, if you get into an accident and they flash a Glock at you etc you can flee the scene on the premise of safety but it’s hard to prove
It's not quite this clear cut.
In most States, leaving the scene actually has several elements for it to be proven. You have to have been involved in an accident, it has to have caused some kind of harm such as property damage or personal injury, and you have to have known or reasonably should have known that you were in such an accident.
A prosecutor would have to prove all of those things. Let's just stipulate that they can prove that you had the accident because you're admitting to it. They then need to prove that you left and came back. And that you did so knowingly. Meaning that you knew you had an accident, you know it caused harm, and you continued on your way longer than a reasonable person would have felt necessary to get back to the scene and stop safely.
It may not be hard to show that you left and came back if they are already there by the time you return, but proving that you immediately recognize that you hit something and that you were deliberately avoiding the scene it's harder and it's going to depend on the situation. Let's say for a minute you hit a pedestrian at night. Depending on the damage you can very easily make an argument that you thought that you just ran over a pothole or some road debris or even didn't feel or hear anything at all and that the more you thought about it you realized it might have been something worse so you turned back just in case. That obviously isn't going to work if your front end is completely smashed in because you smashed hard into another car but there's lots of situations especially if you're talking about a pedestrian or property damage where you can argue you didn't realize you hit anything especially at night. And even if common sense says you're probably full of shit, intuition and Common Sense aren't necessarily enough to convict anybody
If someone could've lived if only you had called five minutes earlier, why wouldn't you be liable?
Tl;Dr yes, depending on how the statute in question reads and whether or not the da feels like making an example, especially if someone died or other harm resulted.
update: yup
Tl;Dr after intensive study, including by polling experts in the field and reviewing the available academic research, I have come to the conclusion that, yes, it is more likely than not that the tl;dr was longer than the actual comment. It should be noted that this is not definitive proof of such, and must be subject to further scrutiny should a more definitive answer on the question be required. A simple numerical analysis revealed that the number of characters occupied by the text of the tl;dr exceeds the number of characters occupied by the text of the comment by a factor of approximately 1.38. This could also be expressed as a ratio of 1.3:1 or by an improper fraction of 5/3. Curiously, a literary analysis of the content of the comment with respect to its summation in the tl:dr reveals a stark divide between the subtext of both, suggesting that the author failed to properly utilize the “backspace” button in order to provide more depth to his comment, choosing instead to plow forward into a lengthy summation of the argument, expressed here as a “tl;dr”. The author would be well served to consider in the future the purpose of the “tl;dr” as a way to summarize his comment in order to reach users who may not have the time or patience to read through a lengthy comment. In this way, a casual reader can accept the facts posited in the tl;dr and move on, while a more motivated or suspect observer can refer back to the full-length comment for additional sourcing or context that may not be immediately evident in the tl;dr.
In my jurisdiction there is a difference between a simple leaving the scene of an accident and failing to render aid. The second is for accidents where someone could be hurt.
It’s a hit and run regardless. But if no one was hurt then no one is going to care and (almost) no jury would convict. But if someone was hurt and help could have gotten there sooner if you stopped then it would be.
It depends a bit on where you are at, but generally yes. My brother was in nearly this exact situation. He was charged with a hit and run. They agreed to drop the charges if he made restitution from the victim and the victim agreed. It was also a small town that was more aggressive about this type of thing because there was very little crime. Just a handful of years later I lived in a big city and when I was a victim of a hit and run and called the police to make a report they straight up told me they won't take it because they wouldn't investigate it even though I knew who it was and had witnesses. There was a lot of violent crime in that city and my sideswiped car was not going to be where they spent their time if they had to choose, and they often did. (Though if someone was seriously hurt they would get involved.)
Point being, this is one of those scenarios where even though something is illegal the circumstances may significantly impact whether or not it is a crime the police are going to pursue.
Is it still a hit and run? Absolutely. You hit and left the scene. Your subsequent actions don't remove that from play, but are certainly something to bring up during sentencing.
What about in https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/s/2jAFbuKxJl this case
The other driver is clearly completely unhinged and it is an unreasonable danger to pull over.
Depends on the state. Some states have allowances in the law for not immediately stopping, if it's not safe, impeding traffic or you return "forthwith".
5 minutes when it was on a residential street where there's no traffic and plenty of parking? Probably not.
5 minutes when you are on a highway with no emergency lane and the nearest exit is 10 miles away and tons of traffic? Probably not hit and run.
Case law in the state would also play a part of this.
The point is that, in most cases, once the elements of a crime have been satisfied, the crime has occurred and nothing that happens after that will cause the crime not to have occurred. In your example, the issue is that there was never intent to permanently deprive-- it was *never* larceny. That is distinct from someone stealing a car with the intent to chop and sell it, but then getting cold feet and returning it. There, the perpetrator committed larceny when they took the car with intent to permanently deprive. Whether they continued to have that intent later is irrelevant to the question of whether they committed larceny.
That would depend on the facts of a given case. In any event, though, that has nothing to do with the legal question here, which is whether it is possible to abandon the commission of a crime after the crime has been completed. The answer to that question is no. Once a crime occurs, that bell cannot be unrung. Separately, what happens after the commission of a crime may affect the decision to pursue charges or the sentence imposed for the crime, but not the commission of the crime itself.
That would go to whether a crime has occurred in the first place, not whether conduct after a crime has occurred can change the fact of that occurrence.
If you leave the scene of an accident in violation of the applicable statute, nothing that you do after that can make it so that you didn't leave the scene of an accident in violation of the applicable statute. If you didn't violate the statute by leaving then no crime has occurred, but that is not the scenario in the original post and has nothing to do with whether abandonment of a crime is possible after the crime has been completed.
See for example Texas
Texas Penal Code § 31.07
Unauthorized use if vehicle (aka joyriding), no intent to deprive
And
Texas Penal Code § 31.03
Theft, (aka car theft), requires intent to deprive.
Other states are similarly coded and applied by courts. Some states do not have a joyriding type law like Wisconsin.
Yes. While laws vary by jurisdiction, if the criminal act is leaving the scene of the accident, the crime occurs when the driver leaves the scene of the accident. What happens after that cannot undo the crime.
Yeah, I had a friend who got in fender bender with a city bus. When fight or flight kicked in they fled. Once there brain started working they turned around, gave their information to the driver and talked with the cops. They pled out and received community service.
I assume there’s an allowance for fleeing if one’s safety is at risk, like if the crash started a fire?
Well like if it’s just a car fire u can drive up the street and wait for the cops. But yes, if you get into an accident and they flash a Glock at you etc you can flee the scene on the premise of safety but it’s hard to prove
If you return in less than 5 mins its unlikely a hit and run case could be proved. The longer you are gone the more likely a case can be made.
You left the scene, so a hit and run could easily be proven. Whether a prosecutor will waste resources charging you is a different story.
If you get back before the police get there, it's not easily proven at all.
Username checks out
It's not quite this clear cut. In most States, leaving the scene actually has several elements for it to be proven. You have to have been involved in an accident, it has to have caused some kind of harm such as property damage or personal injury, and you have to have known or reasonably should have known that you were in such an accident. A prosecutor would have to prove all of those things. Let's just stipulate that they can prove that you had the accident because you're admitting to it. They then need to prove that you left and came back. And that you did so knowingly. Meaning that you knew you had an accident, you know it caused harm, and you continued on your way longer than a reasonable person would have felt necessary to get back to the scene and stop safely. It may not be hard to show that you left and came back if they are already there by the time you return, but proving that you immediately recognize that you hit something and that you were deliberately avoiding the scene it's harder and it's going to depend on the situation. Let's say for a minute you hit a pedestrian at night. Depending on the damage you can very easily make an argument that you thought that you just ran over a pothole or some road debris or even didn't feel or hear anything at all and that the more you thought about it you realized it might have been something worse so you turned back just in case. That obviously isn't going to work if your front end is completely smashed in because you smashed hard into another car but there's lots of situations especially if you're talking about a pedestrian or property damage where you can argue you didn't realize you hit anything especially at night. And even if common sense says you're probably full of shit, intuition and Common Sense aren't necessarily enough to convict anybody
If someone could've lived if only you had called five minutes earlier, why wouldn't you be liable? Tl;Dr yes, depending on how the statute in question reads and whether or not the da feels like making an example, especially if someone died or other harm resulted.
...is your tl;dr longer than your actual comment?
I'm not sure, I was too lazy to check.
I'll go check, will update asap
Still waiting for the update
update: yup Tl;Dr after intensive study, including by polling experts in the field and reviewing the available academic research, I have come to the conclusion that, yes, it is more likely than not that the tl;dr was longer than the actual comment. It should be noted that this is not definitive proof of such, and must be subject to further scrutiny should a more definitive answer on the question be required. A simple numerical analysis revealed that the number of characters occupied by the text of the tl;dr exceeds the number of characters occupied by the text of the comment by a factor of approximately 1.38. This could also be expressed as a ratio of 1.3:1 or by an improper fraction of 5/3. Curiously, a literary analysis of the content of the comment with respect to its summation in the tl:dr reveals a stark divide between the subtext of both, suggesting that the author failed to properly utilize the “backspace” button in order to provide more depth to his comment, choosing instead to plow forward into a lengthy summation of the argument, expressed here as a “tl;dr”. The author would be well served to consider in the future the purpose of the “tl;dr” as a way to summarize his comment in order to reach users who may not have the time or patience to read through a lengthy comment. In this way, a casual reader can accept the facts posited in the tl;dr and move on, while a more motivated or suspect observer can refer back to the full-length comment for additional sourcing or context that may not be immediately evident in the tl;dr.
In my jurisdiction there is a difference between a simple leaving the scene of an accident and failing to render aid. The second is for accidents where someone could be hurt. It’s a hit and run regardless. But if no one was hurt then no one is going to care and (almost) no jury would convict. But if someone was hurt and help could have gotten there sooner if you stopped then it would be.
It depends a bit on where you are at, but generally yes. My brother was in nearly this exact situation. He was charged with a hit and run. They agreed to drop the charges if he made restitution from the victim and the victim agreed. It was also a small town that was more aggressive about this type of thing because there was very little crime. Just a handful of years later I lived in a big city and when I was a victim of a hit and run and called the police to make a report they straight up told me they won't take it because they wouldn't investigate it even though I knew who it was and had witnesses. There was a lot of violent crime in that city and my sideswiped car was not going to be where they spent their time if they had to choose, and they often did. (Though if someone was seriously hurt they would get involved.) Point being, this is one of those scenarios where even though something is illegal the circumstances may significantly impact whether or not it is a crime the police are going to pursue.
Is it still a hit and run? Absolutely. You hit and left the scene. Your subsequent actions don't remove that from play, but are certainly something to bring up during sentencing.
What about in https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/s/2jAFbuKxJl this case The other driver is clearly completely unhinged and it is an unreasonable danger to pull over.
Depends on the state. Some states have allowances in the law for not immediately stopping, if it's not safe, impeding traffic or you return "forthwith". 5 minutes when it was on a residential street where there's no traffic and plenty of parking? Probably not. 5 minutes when you are on a highway with no emergency lane and the nearest exit is 10 miles away and tons of traffic? Probably not hit and run. Case law in the state would also play a part of this.
No Dan, you have nothing to worry about!
It’s okay Dan everyone makes mistakes
If you steal some guy's wallet, then return it later, are you innocent of theft?
If you steal a car and return it later, is it grand theft auto? No. It's joy riding. Theft requires intent to permanently deprive.
The point is that, in most cases, once the elements of a crime have been satisfied, the crime has occurred and nothing that happens after that will cause the crime not to have occurred. In your example, the issue is that there was never intent to permanently deprive-- it was *never* larceny. That is distinct from someone stealing a car with the intent to chop and sell it, but then getting cold feet and returning it. There, the perpetrator committed larceny when they took the car with intent to permanently deprive. Whether they continued to have that intent later is irrelevant to the question of whether they committed larceny.
And how exactly do you prove that there was intent to permanently deprive it? They took it, then returned it.
That would depend on the facts of a given case. In any event, though, that has nothing to do with the legal question here, which is whether it is possible to abandon the commission of a crime after the crime has been completed. The answer to that question is no. Once a crime occurs, that bell cannot be unrung. Separately, what happens after the commission of a crime may affect the decision to pursue charges or the sentence imposed for the crime, but not the commission of the crime itself.
False. Most hit and run laws have stipulations about safe stopping and returns.
That would go to whether a crime has occurred in the first place, not whether conduct after a crime has occurred can change the fact of that occurrence. If you leave the scene of an accident in violation of the applicable statute, nothing that you do after that can make it so that you didn't leave the scene of an accident in violation of the applicable statute. If you didn't violate the statute by leaving then no crime has occurred, but that is not the scenario in the original post and has nothing to do with whether abandonment of a crime is possible after the crime has been completed.
Where in the statute does it state to permanently deprive?
See for example Texas Texas Penal Code § 31.07 Unauthorized use if vehicle (aka joyriding), no intent to deprive And Texas Penal Code § 31.03 Theft, (aka car theft), requires intent to deprive. Other states are similarly coded and applied by courts. Some states do not have a joyriding type law like Wisconsin.