Arguably, defendant lived at the scene of the ax
and he used available equipment (his fone at home) to summon help.
Oh, please, David, the defendant didn't live at the scene of the accident.
The accident happened on a public street.
Well, if there r houses there, fronting on the road,
then their inhabitants live at the scene of ax.
It is an ez argument that their nabors also live at the scene.
It will be a matter of judicial interpretation; as I see it,
the result can go either way
You're being absurd.
We 'll see what happens.
When u were in law school,
did u see many judicial opinions
that u deemed to be absurd??
I did; some of them were overturned.
The law required him to immediately pull over and stop his car after hitting the cyclist.
He didn't do that.
Maybe he hit the brake; (a lot of drivers 'd do that reflexively),
subsequent to which he went to use his home fone, as fast as possible,
to summon assistance in a fervent effort
to save bicyclist's life.
He then possibly ingested alcohol, to steady his nerves, after an alarming event.
He hit the man and kept on driving.
He's in a great deal of trouble for leaving the scene of an accident/crime.
It looks like he 's in trouble, but a decent defense attorney
will probably find that he has some opportunities to bring this
to a satisfactory conclusion. Thom needs an experienced guy with some talent.
I 've seen some hopeless cases; this is not among them.