Thats the christian ethos

As a Christian turn Buddhist, agree +

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada

Truth, but we need to consider road safety. Lock the lady up, and lock all other texters up. Motorcyclists all over the nation would agree.

or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life

or, sometimes, you just don’t want to make harsh public statements after a loss of a loved one.

or, just, generally being a good human, esp when it matters, in times like these, instead of only when things are going well, then dropping that whenever something bad happens when it's more impactful and important to stay a good human.

There is nothing "good" about wishing positive vibes upon your loved one's killer. It's arguably evil. It's unconscionable.

I'd wager that the driver isn't feeling much guilt or PTSD. A lot of these kinds of blatant bad actors seem wholly disconnected from the concept of self accountability. Otherwise, they tend to get knocked down a few pegs before such a serious incident.

You have no idea what they are feeling. Regardless of if they feel anything now, things like taking a life have a habit of sneaking up on you later down the line, often when you least expect it.

In this case quite literally suicidal empathy.

Literally suicidal? Does that mean that other reckless drivers will find out about the empathy and will thus start hitting them on purpose?

Praying for somebody doesn't mean you have to let them continue their action? You can throw them in jail.

We don't know the full circumstances of the accident. She may have been distracted, but it's also possible the pedestrian crossed unexpectedly right in front of the car. Hopefully the facts come out and justice is served fairly.

Have you opened the article?

> the person driving while on TikTok “wasn’t paying attention to the road because she was reading comments and grinning at her phone”.

One doesn't exclude the other. The fact that she was distracted doesn't necessarily mean the accident happened because she was distracted.

if there is proof that she wasn’t looking at the road at the time of the accident, do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking? with great representation - probably? this will be an interesting trial…

On the video you can see her look down briefly before the sound of impact, but right before and at the time of the impact she appears to be looking forwards.

She probably would not have had enough time to stop, given how recently she’d been looking at her phone. https://www.tiktok.com/@live.catch.up/video/7569917602479246...

> do you think she has any chance to defend herself in court even if say victim was jaywalking

Presumably entirely depends on how egregious the hypothetical jaywalking was and whether or not she can prove it. i.e. if it would’ve been impossible to avoid the accident regardless of her phone use, the phone use is probably irrelevant.

>topic is literal video of a person looking at camera phone and loud thud

>HN commenter who only read the headline squabbles over correlation vs causation

its all so wearisome

I read the article and watched the video.

100ms can make a difference between life and death

If you're at the wheel of a moving car and do anything other than driving you're a piece of shit who deserves whatever comes your way (which preferably should be your sorry ass hitting a chunky tree and becoming tetraplegic)

There are 0 situation in which using a phone while driving improves your odds or the odds of other people are you.

It doesn't even matter if it's the victims fault, these people are dangerous and should not drive

source: reddit comment

> She may have been distracted

It seems clear that one fact we know is that she was paying attention to her phone at the time. Frankly unforgivable in my opinion.

Forgiveness only counts when you believe the crime to be unforgivable, yet forgive the criminal anyway. "Forgiveable crimes" are just crimes you merely tolerate.

“There is a limit to human charity," said Lady Outram, trembling all over.

"There is," said Father Brown dryly, "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness today; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.”

― G.K. Chesterton, The Complete Father Brown

Surely there must be some conception of forgiveness outside those of sin and charity. I'm not even sure what it really means for forgiveness to "count".

I think you’re reading too literally into the words sin and charity. Sin in this case just means a transgression or wrong to you or your community. Charity here is used in the philosophical sense, meaning an openness to tolerating transgressions.

For forgiveness to mean anything at all you need to forgive an actual injury. “Forgiving” someone for doing what you don’t mind them doing anyway is not forgiveness, it’s tolerance.

So what, then, is an unforgivable crime? You have no choice; you must tolerate everything or go insane.

There's no "must" here. Forgiveness is hard. That's why it's a virtue.

It's not without its benefits though. Forgiving someone who grievously hurt you or your family is the first step to letting go and moving on with your life.