• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chinese Motorists Hit to Kill, Will Double Back if Necessary to Make Sure

Gathomas88

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,803
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Driven to Kill: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit.

In essence, it seems that China has laws in place which state that, if a pedestrian is struck by a motorist and maimed, the motorist in question must pay for any care resulting from the accident, for the rest of the victim's life. Because of that, it seems to be fairly common practice for motorists who have struck a pedestrian to back-up, and then run them over again, and even again after that if necessary, to make sure they've "finished the job."

The penalties for doing so aren't even particularly harsh either. One guy was caught on camera repeatedly running over a grandmother, and all he got was three years for "negligence."

Wow. Seems like one Hell of a cold blooded oversight!
 
Gathomas88 said:
Driven to Kill: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit.

In essence, it seems that China has laws in place which state that, if a pedestrian is struck by a motorist and maimed, the motorist in question must pay for any care resulting from the accident, for the rest of the victim's life. Because of that, it seems to be fairly common practice for motorists who have struck a pedestrian to back-up, and then run them over again, and even again after that if necessary, to make sure they've "finished the job."

The penalties for doing so aren't even particularly harsh either. One guy was caught on camera repeatedly running over a grandmother, and all he got was three years for "negligence."

Wow. Seems like one Hell of a cold blooded oversight!
Click to expand...

I will admit that is messed up. Unintended consequences of what otherwise sounds like a reasonable law.
 
Any "graphic nature" Youtube video that has caught the act?
 
DDD said:
Any "graphic nature" Youtube video that has caught the act?
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can find something on it if you google around. I won't be posting any such videos here, however.

I suspect that the mods wouldn't appreciate it. lol
 
Gathomas88 said:
Driven to Kill: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit.

In essence, it seems that China has laws in place which state that, if a pedestrian is struck by a motorist and maimed, the motorist in question must pay for any care resulting from the accident, for the rest of the victim's life. Because of that, it seems to be fairly common practice for motorists who have struck a pedestrian to back-up, and then run them over again, and even again after that if necessary, to make sure they've "finished the job."

The penalties for doing so aren't even particularly harsh either. One guy was caught on camera repeatedly running over a grandmother, and all he got was three years for "negligence."

Wow. Seems like one Hell of a cold blooded oversight!
Click to expand...

Chinese Wreckers : snopes.com

[It is] based on an ugly and stubborn urban legend that has been floating around all over SE Asia for at least ten years — with the country changing with the location. I have heard it, several times, about Filipino drivers (here in Manila) and about Chinese Taiwan drivers (in Taipei), with friends reporting instances of the same ugly myth about Thai drivers (in Bangkok) and about Vietnamese drivers (in Hanoi).
Click to expand...

Remember, just because it is on the internets does not mean it is true, and if something seems to outrageous to be true, it probably is not true. Fact checking will save you from being the sucker born every minute.
 
Redress said:
Chinese Wreckers : snopes.com



Remember, just because it is on the internets does not mean it is true, and if something seems to outrageous to be true, it probably is not true. Fact checking will save you from being the sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I'm not so sure. The article actually links to a number of outside sources, and even a few videos. I've seen similar videos elsewhere on the web as well.

Just because the Chinese Government doesn't want to admit to it, doesn't mean that it doesn't necessarily happen. They have shown themselves to be less than reliable in this regard before.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Hmmm... I'm not so sure. The article actually links to a number of outside sources, and even a few videos. I've seen similar videos elsewhere on the web as well.

Just because the Chinese Government doesn't want to admit to it, doesn't mean that it doesn't necessarily happen. They have shown themselves to be less than reliable in this regard before.
Click to expand...

I was first told that story in 1990, about Italy before we went into port(and first sight of Italian drivers made it believable). It is an urban legend.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'm sure you can find something on it if you google around. I won't be posting any such videos here, however.

I suspect that the mods wouldn't appreciate it. lol
Click to expand...

Just one actual video of the criminal act, and two monologues about it with ThinkTank and Youngturk.
 
Of course you hit to kill.

That's 15 Extra Points + Score Multiplier.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Driven to Kill: Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit.

In essence, it seems that China has laws in place which state that, if a pedestrian is struck by a motorist and maimed, the motorist in question must pay for any care resulting from the accident, for the rest of the victim's life. Because of that, it seems to be fairly common practice for motorists who have struck a pedestrian to back-up, and then run them over again, and even again after that if necessary, to make sure they've "finished the job."

The penalties for doing so aren't even particularly harsh either. One guy was caught on camera repeatedly running over a grandmother, and all he got was three years for "negligence."

Wow. Seems like one Hell of a cold blooded oversight!
Click to expand...

This is just what happens when Communism eviscerates a society for nearly a century. To extrapolate from that guy's defense, they don't really see a substantial difference between people and trash bags, which is why they have become so murderous.

Redress said:
Chinese Wreckers : snopes.com
Click to expand...

That's some sort of Snopes article.

"drivers' striking pedestrians multiple times during the same accident"

There's a word for that. I honestly wonder what reason they could have for trying to wrongly discredit this.
 
Redress said:
Chinese Wreckers : snopes.com



Remember, just because it is on the internets does not mean it is true, and if something seems to outrageous to be true, it probably is not true. Fact checking will save you from being the sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...
Blasphemer!!!

:mrgreen:
 
Redress said:
Chinese Wreckers : snopes.com



Remember, just because it is on the internets does not mean it is true, and if something seems to outrageous to be true, it probably is not true. Fact checking will save you from being the sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...

Im just surprised people still trust snopes to be honest.
 
radcen said:
I haven't kept up on them for a few years, but are they not to be trusted? They used to be the "go to" site for questionable stuff.
Click to expand...
This,

Snopes.com said:
Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be "probably false" by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.
Click to expand...

And similar **** describing their people is just part of the reason why I can't take them seriously.

Their "About the Author" parts read like many of the Satire sites out there.
 
Caine said:
This,



And similar **** describing their people is just part of the reason why I can't take them seriously.

Their "About the Author" parts read like many of the Satire sites out there.
Click to expand...

So snopes is inaccurate because random Facebook post says so...well done. Too bad you failed so ****ing miserably...
 
Redress said:
So snopes is inaccurate because random Facebook post says so...well done. Too bad you failed so ****ing miserably...
Click to expand...

Random Facebook post?

That **** is DIRECT from Snopes itself, do you bother to read.... you just made up the facebook ****..

And you talk about fail.....

EDIT..

Here is a hint.... at the bottom of every one of their attempts at "investigating", the "Journalist" or "Author" or what not has a little blurb that reads like a Blog about them....... I got that quote DIRECTLY from the bottom of one.

So next time, why don't you do some ****ing reading before you go accusing people of "failing so ****ing miserably"
 
Caine said:
Random Facebook post?

That **** is DIRECT from Snopes itself, do you bother to read.... you just made up the facebook ****..

And you talk about fail.....

EDIT..

Here is a hint.... at the bottom of every one of their attempts at "investigating", the "Journalist" or "Author" or what not has a little blurb that reads like a Blog about them....... I got that quote DIRECTLY from the bottom of one.

So next time, why don't you do some ****ing reading before you go accusing people of "failing so ****ing miserably"
Click to expand...

Maybe, just maybe you should link to the **** you post. Feel free.
 
The tort system works the same in China as in the U.S., but its application is uneven. Because cops can be paid off, not every person who hits a pedestrian gets taken away. Usually when there's an accident, both people jump out of their cars immediately and start screaming at each other. In China, the louder person is seen as the more correct. It's less about corroborating evidence.

I was riding my bike at an intersection in Beijing one day and this old man going along the cross street got hit by a military vehicle. He got up off the ground and hobbled over to the military truck. You could tell his hip was broken because of the way he was walking. The military guy got out and just blamed the old guy. What could the old guy do? You can't sue the military in China, and the courts would side with the soldier.

Basically, if you don't have money in China to sue someone for hitting you, you're probably not going to get any compensation. And unless the person you hit dies, you're unlikely to go to jail, especially if you can pay off witnesses or the cops who first came to the scene.

One thing that's true is that NOBODY will help you if you get hit. They'll stand around and watch but they won't interfere. The reason is that they believe they'll get sued if they try to help you because you'll accuse them of making their injury worse. In every town there's a story about how this happens to people in ANOTHER town. It's never from the town you're in. :)
 
Redress said:
Chinese Wreckers : snopes.com



Remember, just because it is on the internets does not mean it is true, and if something seems to outrageous to be true, it probably is not true. Fact checking will save you from being the sucker born every minute.
Click to expand...

Here... I linked to it again for you....

And, I'll even provide a step by step system to help you out...

1. Click on your own link in your own quoted section above.
2. Scroll to bottom of article, you'll find a little section about the author
3. Read it. Then come and re-read what I posted. Then read it again.
4. Profit.

It doesn't mean they are lying...... Im not saying it does. I just don't know if I should blindly trust Snopes any more than I should blindly trust anything else, they come across as a pithy blog more so than a serious fact finding group these days. Because As you so eloquently put it....

Redress said:
Remember, just because it is on the internets does not mean it is true
Click to expand...

Now, call me a smart ass if you wish...... but isn't snopes.com also "On the internets" ??
 
Redress said:
So snopes is inaccurate because random Facebook post says so...well done. Too bad you failed so ****ing miserably...
Click to expand...

Im still waiting for your apology for this.
 
Caine said:
Im still waiting for your apology for this.
Click to expand...

So it was not Facebook, it was your inability to recognize sarcasm. I apologize for overestimating you.
 
Redress said:
So it was not Facebook, it was your inability to recognize sarcasm. I apologize for overestimating you.
Click to expand...

Im sorry, I can't take a website seriously as "fact finders" if their website reads like the Onion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom