The Remy Ong case has hit the mainstream papers.... and from the
looks of it, he's not only digging a deeper hole for himself. He's
digging his own grave.
I quote TODAY: Mr Ong, who is a dog
owner, insisted it was not a case of hit-and-run. He said: "I
thought the dog ran underneath or past my car. If the dog hit my
car, I would have felt (the impact) ... If it was a hit-and-run,
would I have turned back in the first place?"
Dude.... I'm not an auto mechanic, but I do know that it takes
quite a large force to break your licence plate off your car. There
have been plenty of road traffic accidents where the car can be
totalled and yet the licence plate remains intact because of
insufficient force at that spot. The only logical explanation for
the licence plate to break off in this case is a head-on collision
with the dog at high speed.
And also, once you hit a dog, you are expected to pull over
immediately. If you don't, it counts as a hit-and-run
regardless of whether you turned back later on.
I always thought this fella was a good bowler, but now I'm
wishing for him to see the inside of Changi Prison.
how long did he take before he went back?
