From the OP:
That actually sounds like the actions of someone who definitely did try to avoid hitting the dog, and then left ASAP as soon as Captain McCrazyPants came storming out of his house at her.
Your reaction would be…what? I’d say anger, rage would be pretty normal reactions to someone purposefully running over your dog. But how would you react?
It is nutty to me that you are characterizing this as the other person “purposefully” running down the dog when the only evidence for that is… well, nothing actually. Why are you so invested in this? Did someone run over one of your pets once? I feel bad for you if so, but that has nothing to do with the situation in this thread.
I don’t get that at all. Slowed before hitting the dog makes it seem as if the person made a half-hearted attempt to slow down, then said screw it, I’m running the dog over. No screech of brakes? Just a slight decrease in speed? In any case, the only person here who saw the incident reported that it looked like it may have been done on purpose. If you’re going to base your replies on the idea that something completely different happened, then…this thread kind of loses purpose.
I’m characterizing it as such because the guy wrote it in his OP. Isn’t that what we are basing the discussion on?
Running over a pet has nothing to do with the situation in this thread? Isn’t that what this thread is about?
You are either a very passive individual or giving a dishonest response in an effort to paint the OP’s reaction as excessively crazy. I would think it strange if someone’s dog was purposefully (as per the OP’s description) run over and the owner was not angry.
Where are you getting “slight” decrease in speed from?
Here is what we know from the OP. The dog ran into the street. The driver slowed, hit the dog, then stopped. She then drove away when she saw the OP coming towards her.
That is all you know. You do not know her actual speed. You do not know how quickly she slowed down, nor whether her efforts were “half-hearted” or serious. Depending on the distance between her car and the dog when it ran in front of her, slowing down may have been all she was able to do. Personally, if I deliberately ran over an animal (which I wouldn’t, but hypothetically speaking), I would not stop afterward. I would just keep going.
Edit: Also, the dog apparently had no injuries, which makes me think that the driver’s attempts to slow down were actually pretty successful.
You are incorrect in stating that the person made little attempt to stop. Cite: “stopped after hitting him.” The person did stop, but was then chased away. Cite: “then took off as I made it to the front yard screaming at her to stop.” As far as your conjecture that the person may have purposefully run over the dog, you have failed to notice that the person slowed down prior to hitting the dog. Cite: “She slowed before she got to him.” Have you ever, in your life, heard of someone slowing down so as to deliberately hit a dog? Somehow I doubt it. You are giving weight to the conjecture of a self-admittedly emotionally unbalanced person (cite thread title: “I may actually go insane with anger”) rather than looking at what that person put forward as facts.
If you make an attempt to stop, then no. But that is different than what the OP describes.
Look, it seems clear that you are assuming the OP is making stuff up and the person tried to stop, but accidentally ran over the dog.
I am taking the OP’s post as an accurate description of what happened. Thus, the differences in our responses.
The OP may be making stuff up, but since his is the only description of the incident, if we don’t base our responses on that, what are basing them on?
I would also suggest that the amount of rage displayed in the OP is also evidence that this was not simply an accidental running over of a dog.
It’s not my conjecture, it’s what he SAID IN THE OP. Were you there? Neither was I. So, all we have to go on, is what the eye witness said.
He’s not an emotionally unbalanced person if he says he “may go insane with anger” after someone purposefully runs over his dog. First, it’s a figure of speech, not a literal description. Second, just for a second, imagine that he is not lying, and that the person actually purposefully ran over is dog. I would expect most people to be beside themselves with rage.
I think there’s an excessive amount of excessively crazy in this thread. What, did someone turn on the crazy beacon or something?
Nobody is suggesting the OP is lying. Where are you even getting this stuff from? The OP gave a reasonably clear description of someone encountering a loose dog on the street, attempting to stop her car in time, and failing.
No, the fact that the OP is obviously extremely emotionally distraught does not mean that someone deliberately tried to run over his dog. It might mean that he has anger management issues. But it is not any sort of evidence about what actually happened.
At least if they all gather into this thread it will keep them busy and out of the other threads for a while. Maybe.
Fact: the car slowed before hitting the dog.
Fact: the car stopped after hitting the dog.
Conjecture by the OP and by you: the person may have purposefully ran over the dog.
Being besides oneself with rage is being emotionally unbalanced at that time.
It’s not my conjecture, it’s what the guy who saw it said. For some reason, you don’t want to believe him. Probably because a few choice phrases in his post didn’t help his case, you suspect him of being a racist jerk, and you want him to be in the wrong. He may be, he may not be, I don’t know.
But rather than argue over what actually happened, which is pointless, because neither of us were there, let me ask you this:
Imagine, just for a second, if you can, that what the OP suggests was in fact the case – that the woman purposefully ran over his dog, then drove off. Is his rage misplaced then? I say certainly not. What about you?
I will also add that running over someone’s dog (accidental or not) and then simply driving off is a shitty thing to do. I think it is much more likely that that act inspired the rage that we see before us, rather than being a response to said rage.
If you meant at that time, I agree. I thought you were trying to paint the OP as a general day to day lunatic because he was mad at the time of the incident.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the driver purposefully ran over the dog. People slow down to avoid or minimize the impact. People do not slow down to hit dogs. People who purposefully hit dogs do not stop afterwards. If you honestly think that the person who slowed down prior to the impact and who stopped following the impact purposefully hit the dog, then your ability to reason is as questionable as the OP’s. Don’t expect rational people to try to imagine the same things that you and the OP are imagining – don’t expect rational people to think crazy just because you do.
Your evidence that it didn’t happen that way is based on a dissection of the OPs sentences that were obviously not written with carefully chosen words.
Let’s try this:
I say that if things happened the way you suggest, that the person actually tried to stop, then drove off because the OP was running at her frothing at the moth, then the OP was clearly in the wrong. See, that wasn’t hard. It didn’t hurt for me to imagine that scenario. Or to say that he would be wrong in that instance.
Now you try it. Imagine things transpired as the OP suggests. Then tell me what you think of his reaction. I promise you can go right back to imagining things happened differently.
fenris, monstro, MsWhasit, and Muffin all referenced part of the post - ducati’s description - that indicate the driver did not deliberately hit the dog and/or immediately drive off. The choice phrases are “slowed before”, “stopped after”, and “screaming at her”.
There is nothing in the post to support the accusation the driver deliberately hit the dog. Nothing. Even the OP only says something to the effect of “don’t know that she didn’t.”