I get that youre one of those people who doesn’t give a shit about the actual facts of the situation and wouldnt change your mind regardless, but Ill make the point even clearer anyways.

The distance between the house that was robbed and the intersection where she hit the kid is 1.2 miles driving. We dont know if she was already driving recklessly and fleeing the scene before the cops arrived, which is entirely possible. But lets be generous and assume that she was driving the speed limit until the cops tried to pull her over

We know they did that away from the street where the crime was committed. Again we can be generous and say it happened at the Huston/Bradley intersection. Thats 3/4s of the distance from the house to the intersection. If she was driving 45mph until that point, it would have taken her like 40 seconds. If she then took off up to 80+mph, she would have been going 1.3mi per minute, and would have closed the remaining 0.5miles in around 20 seconds. Again we made some very generous assumptions that could have been incorrect, and the time could have been far shorter.

20 seconds is hardly enough time for a chase to have even been initiated. It’s hardly enough time for the driver to decide to stop fleeing or realize the cops backed off if they did. I dont understand how youre so certain that this article is not a very sensationalized portrayal of the events that occurred. The events are certainly not as the article implies that they are at the very least. At most she could have hit the kid like 2 minutes after running out of the house. It probably was even less time than that

The irony in all this is that you probably wont even read this comment, meanwhile you accuse me of not caring about the situation. Obviously I care enough to have written this much about it, but I doubt you care to even think about it long enough to even consider what happened