This story, this case, presents a very interesting dilema. The American says he didn't do it, that other witnesses on the scene said a truck hit the motorcyclist. It would seem that the American is 100% innocent. The general consensus amongst DR1-ers seems to be that he should have left the scene of the accident, that he was a fool for staying, despite his innocence.
Why do you all hold this opinion? Is it a total and complete lack of faith in the judicial system in the DR? Is it because you think the hassle of establishing your innocence would not be worth it?
Doesn't he run the risk of making the situation worse by running? He was in a rental car that apparently was not able to move. So presumably the authorities would have been able to eventually trace the vehicle back to him. By running, wouldn't he just be making things worse???
He seems innocent of manslaughter (accidentally killing the motorcyclist) and presumably he will eventually be vindicated of that charge. But if he had run, wouldn't he have been committing some other kind of offense, fleeing the scene of accident, or something.
I guess I am questioning the wisdom of those who are suggesting that fleeing would have been the best, or dare I say it, moral, move to make in that situation.