紧急求助!!!!@

把LZ换成这里的许多人,包括您,事故不会发生。就这么简单。


That's because u did not meet that young driver.

As somebody said here, even if u don't move in the parking lot, other car can hit you.
 
把LZ换成这里的许多人,包括您,事故不会发生。就这么简单。

当我们手扶方向盘的时候,不是每做一个动作都首先想想交通法规是如何规定的。

we are talking about fact, not assumption.
 
说句题外话,那个警察局里有个女警是很歧视的。有次我去DAYCARE接小孩,停车的地方很窄,我尽量靠边停了,好让里面一辆黑色的SONATA能倒腾出来。大家平时都是倒腾来倒腾去才能出来进去的。好在从没发生什么刮擦事件。结果那太我领了女儿出来,看见另外那车正倒车,觉得离我的车好近,就赶紧打手势叫那鬼女司机停下,别往后倒了。在我走近我的车时,那鬼女司机又倒腾了两下,就开出去了。她车一开走,我就看见我的前BUMPER上有好几个擦痕,显然是她的车蹭的。这时候她的车还没完全拐出去,我向她大喊,让她停下,可她装没听见,右拐上了主路就开跑了。我就只有看她的车牌,记了下来,又找DAYCARE的老师来看了看现场。那老师一下子就说出了那鬼女是哪个小孩的妈妈,并建议我去报警。这是明显的HIT AND RUN,我认为是犯罪行为,立刻去警察局报告了。接待我的就是个女警,态度一般,把我说的情况记了记当时没觉得怎样,我还很肯定我有足够的证据证明那个车HIT AND RUN了。那女警也说我告诉她的车牌号是个VALID的车牌号,她打电话给车主,但没人接,她让我先回去,以后等报告结果。第二天我又看见了那鬼女司机,但没看见她的车,看来她是不愿让我看到车的。我就质问她为什么要跑。她硬说她没碰到我的车,我问她可不可以让我看一下她的后BUMPER,她说第二天给我看,但后来她就一直避开我。我可以肯定 她是心虚的。过了几天我还没听到警局的消息,就打电话找那个女警,并给她留言,指出那鬼女司机的所做所为。没过多久,那女警就打回电话给我,说有结果了,结果是那鬼女的车没有撞我的车,因为她坚决否认,而我又没亲眼看见。我跟她争论,说我看见了,只是视线刚好被她的车挡住,直到她的车离开才看见擦痕。但我怎么说也没用,这女警就说这个事情就这么结了。我还在继续跟她理论,突然间电话断掉了,我马上又打回去,没人接听,我留了言,希望她再打给我。但是没有。后来我又留了几次言,她始终都没再打回给我。

我终于愤怒了,找了有关部门投诉她。知道没用,但也不能让她就这样子为纳税人服务。辗转找到了她的SUPERVISOR,好不容易跟他投诉了一把,并要求他重新指派人员处理这个事情。我特别要求他们检查那辆SONATA的后BUMPER,在我说的一个部位有没有擦刮的痕迹。后来他回复了我,说都照我的要求做了,没发现有擦痕什么的。没有证据,所以还是维持原判。这已经是过了好些天了,那鬼女司机从此不再把车停在DAYCARE门口,她停在一个远一点的地方,然后走过来接小孩,所以我一直都没有看到她的车。直到有一天,我接了女儿,正好看见她停车然后走过来,于是我就开车到她的车旁边看了一眼。天哪,就在后BUMPER我想象的地方,我看见了很明显的擦刮痕迹。原来那些警察根本不办事的呀,根本就是睁着眼睛说瞎话的。如果HIT AND RUN是犯罪,这些警察根本就是在保护犯罪分子。我越发愤怒了,但能有什么办法呢?当事人完全抵赖,警察跟本不办事。为这么个事我已经花费不少精力和时间,再没心情折腾下去了。也许这就是本地人的文化,能赖就赖,赖不过去再说。要证明一个人有罪,真的很难呀。

那个女警,我是记住她了。她的SUPERVISOR后来要她打电话给我解释为什么不回我的电话,她解释是解释了,但态度很恶劣。尽管投诉不一定有用,但至少给她提个醒,她是为纳税人服务的,纳税人是她的衣食父母。

说了这么多,就是想提醒楼主,一定要据理力争,不管说什么都要很肯定,不能摸棱两可;前后要一致,不要自相矛盾。我相信LZ没错,祝好运!


Is that female police in Green bank station? It's possible that we met the same person.
 
we are talking about fact, not assumption.

You've just assumed the info provided as the fact. Nobody knows/has any fact except LZ herself.
 
You've just assumed the info provided as the fact. Nobody knows/has any fact except LZ herself.

I don't know how people came up with the idea of LZ going across three lanes. Is that a fact any where in her statement? I think it's more than assumption. A more suitable word for that is "imagination".
It would be really stupid if LZ knew she's lying here, wasting all her time and our time along, earning some mental support,knowing the comments from here wouldn't even be listened in court.
 
I am not going to take any more guess, rather I'd wait for LZ's update when it is all done.

Just wish LZ the best of luck in court.
 
I don't know how people came up with the idea of LZ going across three lanes. Is that a fact any where in her statement? I think it's more than assumption. A more suitable word for that is "imagination".
It would be really stupid if LZ knew she's lying here, wasting all her time and our time along, earning some mental support,knowing the comments from here wouldn't even be listened in court.



Right, at this point, as I've said before, the only FACT, or say evident the police use to charge me is the other parties words.
That's why I say I'm sure I can win.
 
Best luck. LZ

Standing by for updates.
 
It would be really stupid if LZ knew she's lying here, wasting all her time and our time along, earning some mental support,knowing the comments from here wouldn't even be listened in court.


I don't think LZ is lying here or there but I do believe LZ, at least, didn't know what's happened that day until she came to CFC reading the forum.
 
I don't think LZ is lying here or there but I do believe LZ, at least, didn't know what's happened that day until she came to CFC reading the forum.

This poster definitely helps me a lot in clarifying how to address what has happened, therefore helps me a lot in winning over police at the court.

Thanks, all!
 
你这个判例与我们这里正常的理解没有冲突。
Florida高法只是退回下级重审,有争议的是受伤多少和是否由此车祸引起。他们也还是支持责任在后面的司机,因为路口突然停车(由于避让行人、Emergency、冲红灯等)是很正常的。这个跟车过近导致撞车的疏忽责任就是被告也不敢完全否定。
他们的分析也够迂腐的,三车连环撞还让被告强词夺理说第二车无故踩刹车!
说实话,我到是感觉这个案例显示出这里很多人关于追尾在任何情况下一定是后面车的责任的理解与这案例有冲突。如果说追尾在任何情况下一定是后面车的责任,那么就没有这么多争论。初审是原告败诉。高院的这个判决并没有说那个追尾案子一定是后面车的责任,只是允许原告的要求可以有directed verdict。这个案例只是显示出在追尾的情况下还是有条件的象unexpected,absurd stop等词多次引用作为争论的要点。当然,从这案例也可以看出,在非常多的,可以说很多常见的情况下,追尾者是负全责的。
 
这个是没有争议的。前面的人属于危险驾驶,警察可以写单,但轮不到后面的人去教训(撞上去)。
如果后面的人刹不住撞了,要负100%的责任,因为前面的司机有很多理由刹车。
另外的例子是:如果一个人站在视野开阔的路中间,而司机却没看见把他撞飞了,那么司机也要负95-100%责任。
前一段和后一段似乎有冲突。如果前面人是危险驾驶,后面人刹车不及撞上去,后面人没有危险驾驶,前面人是危险驾驶,后面人要负全责?

当然,前面人有很多理由刹车,但只要紧急刹车的理由成立(那就不构成危险驾驶),后面撞上去当然后面负全责。所以,开车要保留足够的距离以防止前面可能的紧急情况。

至于讲到人在路中间被车撞到,如果距离是可以让车停住的,我相信是车的责任;如果人突然之间从路边冲到车前,司机立即反应也刹不住,我怀疑车要承担95%-100%的责任。但人在人行横道上可能又有不同的说法。

我的意思只是想说明:说追尾在任何情况下一定是后面人的责任可能不全面,可能有例外的情况。
 
Is that female police in Green bank station? It's possible that we met the same person.

Yes, it was the Greenbank police station. The female police officer was at the reception that day.
 
后退
顶部