Do the right thing?
I have a serious question.
A friend of mine got into a car accident recently. He was sitting at a stop sign behind a school bus, and the bus just went in reverse and crushed the front of his car.
His license is suspended and my license is good, so we switched seats before anyone could see. Everything got sorted out, insurance info was exchanged, the police officer got the report, and everything looks good.
He contacted a lawyer (John Foye or something like that). The next day I get a call from someone saying he wants to set me up with an appointment at the whip lash center, and he's gonna set me up with a lawyer who'll get me money guaranteed, from $5,000-$20,000, and he'll just get 1/3 of what I get.
I wasn't really driving, and there isn't shit wrong with me (physically). I'm kinda feeling like I shouldn't go thru with meeting the lawyers, and just leaving the whole situation alone. I hate ROB's, so the last thing I wanna do is rip off someone else; even if it's just the insurance company that covers the school/county/or whoever is responsible for what happens with school buses.
Would I be an idiot to pass on that money. I could have a blast in the SC with that kind of money. Of course I'd take some and invest in stolen electronics that I can sell on ebay at a 20% discount from retail price. But it's like I have a tiny Alucard on one shoulder telling me "DON'T do IT, you SCUM", and a tiny Juice on the other shoulder telling me "fu ckk dat... tack da moniy".
What would you guys do: pass on the cash or get the cash to pay for ass? Even your opinion counts here, jester.
A friend of mine got into a car accident recently. He was sitting at a stop sign behind a school bus, and the bus just went in reverse and crushed the front of his car.
His license is suspended and my license is good, so we switched seats before anyone could see. Everything got sorted out, insurance info was exchanged, the police officer got the report, and everything looks good.
He contacted a lawyer (John Foye or something like that). The next day I get a call from someone saying he wants to set me up with an appointment at the whip lash center, and he's gonna set me up with a lawyer who'll get me money guaranteed, from $5,000-$20,000, and he'll just get 1/3 of what I get.
I wasn't really driving, and there isn't shit wrong with me (physically). I'm kinda feeling like I shouldn't go thru with meeting the lawyers, and just leaving the whole situation alone. I hate ROB's, so the last thing I wanna do is rip off someone else; even if it's just the insurance company that covers the school/county/or whoever is responsible for what happens with school buses.
Would I be an idiot to pass on that money. I could have a blast in the SC with that kind of money. Of course I'd take some and invest in stolen electronics that I can sell on ebay at a 20% discount from retail price. But it's like I have a tiny Alucard on one shoulder telling me "DON'T do IT, you SCUM", and a tiny Juice on the other shoulder telling me "fu ckk dat... tack da moniy".
What would you guys do: pass on the cash or get the cash to pay for ass? Even your opinion counts here, jester.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
111 comments
The dilemma you have is a BIG problem over here and it's costing everyone that drives a lot of extra money to insure their cars due to false whiplash claims.
Dougster, that's the main reason I even considered taking the money. The fact that I watched Sicko by Michael Moore again a couple days ago doesn't help.
ilbbaicinl, No, he's drug/alcohol free. But, any situation like that where someone gets hurt or even killed is extremely sad. As a matter of fact me and my former teammates (he's one of them) made a pact to never have more than a few beers if we drink anything at all, after one of our teammates was killed in a car accident with a drunk driver a couple years ago. What made you ask that?
Many or most dancers/escorts don't pay all the taxes they "should". So we're all in a somewhat grey area being a part of that. I'd have to admit I've done my share of shady stuff to come out better money-wise. I would feel bad if I did something that directly caused harm to anybody. But, dealing with the government or big companies, they have very limited concern about whether or not they are ripping you off. So it wouldn't be so terrible to give them a taste of their own cooking.
You would also have to consider the risk of the police using high-pressure investigation tactics, and whether you or your friend would crack under them.
He lost his because of child support payment issues. In GA they can take your license until you catch up on payments.
"I would feel bad if I did something that directly caused harm to anybody. But, dealing with the government or big companies, they have very limited concern about whether or not they are ripping you off. So it wouldn't be so terrible to give them a taste of their own cooking."
This is also true.
That is the problem with insurance. Lawyers go after big entities...ie: schools, cities, etc. because they know they will settle for little or have high limits so they can ask for the moon and get 1/4 of what they asked for and that is considered a win for the big entitie. FUCK Lawyers who do this. The ocean isn't big enough and neither is the rock i want to tie to thier feet.
So, if you get behind on child support, will GA take away your DL rather than garnish your pay? That would be about as mega-fucking-retarded as it gets, but not surprising from the government.
In fact, if the story you've related here is at all in line with reality, you could expect a competent insurance investigator, who isn't constrained by a silly thing like the Constitution, to look into your internet posting habits to see if you perhaps bragged about anything to others.
Well...since you put it that way...
"So, if you get behind on child support, will GA take away your DL rather than garnish your pay?"
That's a good question. Maybe it's for the people who don't have any wages to garnish. I'll have to look into that.
"be a man tell the cops the trouth"
The only question the cops asked ME was if I was hurt. I said no. I told him the truth. He asked to see my license, I gave it to him. He wrote some stuff down, gave it back to me, and sent us on our way.
The bus driver DID crush the car, that was her fault. Their insurance is gonna have to cover that, no question. As far as me getting any money for "injuries" I'm against it. I helped enough with the license thing, other than that, I'm done with it.
I'm still curious to hear how others would handle this situation though.
If you can't tell the ethical difference between theft and sex for money, then I question your implied claim of being a "higher evolved life form".
Thanks gmd.
Are humans the only ones with it? Does an ape have it? A dog? A fish? An insect? A plant? A car?
ranukam, that's the only other reason I even considered it! lol
Apparently you did. If you represented yourself, even by implication, as the driver of a vehicle which was involved in an accident to any insurer for the purpose of having that insurer pay for damages pursuant to that accident, you will have committed insurance fraud. If the bus company's insurance company finds out, they will deny the claim.
If the officer reported you as the driver, your friend might be screwed. Ironically, depending on the location, his suspended license might have made no difference at all in the bus company's liability. He might have gotten a ticket, but the bus insurer would still have paid. However, by misrepresenting yourself as driver, you've given them an entirely legitimate avenue to denying payment. And opened yourself up to criminal prosecution.
Good luck.
That's what I was thinking.
Lol the whole thing with him and the babies mother is the typical drama. He is in the kids life though, and does make sure he's taken care of. Of course, an angry woman is an angry woman, and nothing's enough for her.
This is a bit far fetched. Counter-example. Someone decides to illegally hide persecuted people in some country. (Pick your favorite innocent minority.) So now that person is excluded from being able to make moral judgments against those who disobey insider trading laws in another country?
I definitely agree with this^^.
You do NOT fuck with insurance companies. Insurance, whether it be medical, fire and casualty, life, disability, whatever, is a necessity in life. Insurance companies compete for customers but these companies also have the quaint idea that defrauding one insurance company is defrauding them all. Just as escorts have a 'bad date' list, insurance companies share data about fraudulent claims.
If you do this and are discovered, do not be surprised if you are unable to obtain insurance of any kind at non-extortionate premium rates in the future.
Making Dougster’s head hurt, that's funny.
I'll definitely pass some of this advice on to my friend.
azdd, Thanks, man. I already decided I'm not gonna fuck around with that. I hadn't even done it yet and I was already feeling guilty about it when I got the phone call.
@Doug and Che, please continue. I don't know if it's because I'm high or not, but this is very interesting.
I'm not that opposed to you switching seats that much. Is it technically wrong? Yeah sure. But did you really hurt anyone, no. You kept a friend from trouble and from paying a shit ton to get his car fixed. In some situations I would say it's fucked up, but not this one.
Why you should leave the lawyer alone:
A. You don't want anyone digging into this since you're already legally in the wrong
B. You're not hurt and it would be dishonest to fuck over the tax payers for no more reason than because you can.
C. Shyster lawyers should be discouraged, not encouraged. Today they're helping you (really themselves) tomorrow they're helping some asshole sue YOU frivolously.
And no, I learned a few years ago (back when I thought I was Superman) I'm just as susceptible as the common man.
Not even draculA lived forever.
-Stax Van Helsing
B. You're not hurt and it would be dishonest to fuck over the tax payers for no more reason than because you can.
C. Shyster lawyers should be discouraged, not encouraged. Today they're helping you (really themselves) tomorrow they're helping some asshole sue YOU frivolously. "
I agree 100%. And the lawyer just calling me out of the blue like that (when I had spoken to NO one about the accident) was kind of a red flag for me.
Just like traffic tickets some of these guys are trolling the court records for these instances so they can contact you. I know one lawyer who had an employee simply calling them (for a gift of course) any time anything promising popped up.
A friend of mine whose mother passed in a nursing home received 4 or 5 calls from lawyers a few months after it happened trying to persuade him to go after the nursing the home (she was in her late 80's and died naturally).
These people are the scum of the earth, and are part of the reason healthcare is fucked up.
Also,FYI, I hope this is a great friend of yours. You are in a bad spot. If he files an injury claim and they low ball his offer and he files a lawsuit, you will be deposed. You will be under oath and have to continue the lie or take the 5th abt being the driver as admitting you weren't would be incriminating yourself for giving false statements to the officer. Testifying falsely under oath is perjury. It's a felony and usually comes along with a nice fine and mostly suspended jail time. Which means no voting, no guns, tough job prospects if you ever need to look for one, etc.
Also, this accident is now going down in the insurance index as you being a driver in a collision. That's staying on your index forever. Accidents that aren't your fault aren't supposed to raise your rates, but don't be surprised if your rates increase at some point with little reasoning. Insurance carriers don't like people who are involved in accidents. Insurance rates are all abt risk and someone with an accident on their record when it wasn't their fault is viewed by carriers as a bigger risk than someone with no accidents.
If I were you, I'd stop talking about the situation. No reason to create a bigger footprint about the situation, even if its an "anonymous" Internet board.
That's slimy as fuck!
SuperDude & kg, I use a dummy email address for this site, if that makes any difference.
I wish you guys could see the PM Alucard just sent me! OMG! I'm in a good mood right now, but damn if I wasn't that might've hurt a little bit. lol
What did I even do to you, Alucard, for you to keep calling me names and wishing jail time on me? lol You do realize jail could ruin my young life, right?
That's interesting, kg. Makes me wonder why there hasn't been any raids on my favorite club with all the explicit reviews of prostitution. I probably should stop talking about it though.
Going back to the discussion between Doug & Che:
Would Alucard be an example of a "megalomaniacal hypocrite" with how he wants me arrested for switching seats with the driver (which is a crime) while him engaging in illegal prostitution (which is also a crime) is perfectly fine? He must consider himself immune to any charges, right? He even went as far as recommending a sex act to a fellow member here:
*Alucards profile* "I like reading, movies → [2350+ DVDs/Blu-Rays] & computers and, of course ideally → absolutely SCORCHING HOT 8+ {in terms of Looks & Body & Personality} Adult Spinner Dancers who have NO GAG reflex & provide EXPERT "Wet & Crazy Wild" Deep Throat BBBJCIMWS [You should REALLY learn to love BBBJCIMWS jerikson40, they're AMAZING!!!]"
"That's a CRIME!"
I don't want you to get caught though, Alucard.
-Stax Van Helsing
Alucard, in response the multiple PM's you just sent me:
I still don't want you or anyone else to get caught.
If you have an issue with deogel, T.dice, & Dougster (he said he wishes Yoda were miderator here so he could ban us), you should balls up and address them directly. Yoda can't save you here. Maybe you should follow his lead and take your pink to the pink site.
I'm not gonna put you on ignore. I'm not gonna put anyone on ignore. I just find it funny that you've had me on ignore for a month but you've sent me 12 PM's and counting.
Now, I will say this. alutard is so blind to his own faults, that Che could very well be right if he was alluding to alutard as "meglamanical". Blatant hypocrisy has never bothered alutard before when he is judging others before. He is simply blind to his own fault to the point that seeing something in someone else, or even just imagining he sees it, means it couldn't possibly exist in him as well. That would certainly make him "meglamanical". I'm just not sure the logic to get there is airtight, unless alutard did say that "legal" and "ethical" are synonyms.
A definition:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
Fits you to a "T".
And learn how to spell big words too Dougster. it is megalomaniacal, NOT meglamanical!
Now I'll ask you this, who is the hypocrite? Is it
a) The guy who tries to cast himself as hero (and most others who do the same as the villain) when he pays hookers for sex, because he claims he is one of the few who truly respects them, that they actually enjoy having sex for money with him and that respect him. (These are your claims)
Or is it
b) The guy who admits that, at the end of day, people who pay hookers for sex do not ultimately respect them? These people would not want their own daughters to be doing that, and would have no problem seeing then that those paying them for sex do not respect them. The respecters would not pay them at all. This person claims our actions show that none of us are good guys here as demonstrated by our actual actions rather than my our words or what we want others to think about ourselves. (These are my beliefs.)
I think people will pretty obviously see it's a) as the hypocrite in this situation. If a person "good when I do it, bad when you do" that is hypocrisy. If a person says "bad for both of us", that is just being down to earth.
Now as for the accuracy of my observations about you, I think they hit pretty close to the mark. I also think you are starting to realize how much they do, and finally starting to see that your act is not fooling anyone here. That is why you are lashing out at me here and calling me "meglamanical".
I guess in your mind anyone claiming to be able to see through your oh so, elaborate act but think he has accomplished so some of grand feat, right? Hardly.
Most everyone sees through you now. It's no "grand feat". It's actually something very easy to do. I just don't mind expressing what others (now most people) do see through you as.
Had a dream I got into a car accident last night. Turn off the freeway, and I am going down this long windy road to toward the ocean. There's this slow truck in front of me which I think finally speeds away. So I speed up, but hit a turn fast, and off the road I go. Think I am going to end up in the ocean, but there is this sand dune apparently constructed to catch people who take that turn too fast.
Anyone (alutard?) care to interpret that dream?
Irrespective of whether or not you or your friend benefits from the accident over and above the cost of his vehicle repair, if *you* are represented in official paperwork as the driver of the vehicle when you were not in fact driving, that *will* be construed as fraud by the insurance company, if they ever find out. It will likely then result in denial of the claim, even though that company's client is undeniably at fault, and criminal prosecution.
The insurance company won't *care* that he and you are not claiming anything more than would be your due if you hadn't switched, and likely neither will a court if it every comes to that. You lied, and that gives them legal grounds to deny the claim. Period.
Any other supposition is wishful thinking.
This whole conversation begins and ENDS with the fact you mis-represented yourself as the driver. Now it's best to let sleeping dogs lie.
Ok, let's assume that's true. The fact remains no one was injured. Sure, the damages to the car will be paid, but do you think the insurance company is just going to write you a fat check because a "whip lash center" said you sufferered an injury?
You don't think they will need an independent second opinion? The insurance adjusters just didn't fall off of the turnip truck - I think they've seen this a time or two.
Karma, juice. Besides, I would've felt too guilty about it. I'm an honest guy for the most part.
Thanks for all the comments, guys. I'm always learning something from you guys.
And remember:
"Everything written on this site should be considered a work of fiction."
@OP you can't be totally sure you don't actually have whiplash. Head rests are required in cars to stop your head from snapping back on a rear impact. Did your head snap forward when the bus hit you all? I don't know if the symptoms from whiplash always show up immediately or if they can (really) show up later.
One more question:
So the seat switching was wrong, right? What if you guys were in a situation where your life long friend (who has been there for you in the past) needed you to lie to a cop for him/her? Would you do it? <---(If it's not hurting anyone else of course.)
Dougster, I'm getting ready to do that right now. lol
mas0n, welcome to TUSCL.
Prostitution itself, while illegal, isn't any more immoral or unethical than any other human interaction that occurs between consenting adults.
My wife knows what I'm doing, and I never promised not to do it anyway, and doesn't object.
The girls I deal with are all adults, and as far as I can tell, able to decide what and what not to do for themselves. I'm not going to claim the none of them have ever been coerced, but *I* have never been the one doing it, and when I've been able to detect it, have terminated my involvement with that person.
Check your premises, assumptions and preconceptions at the door, my friend.
Riiiight... And if it was your own daughter doing it you won't think guys were taking any more advantage of her than if they paying her to place stock trades for them. Got it!
While prostitution may be illegal, isn't it a so-called "victimless" crime. Insurance fraud, esp against a public school district, has countless victims. Poor argument, I know, but just sayin.
If she decided to take up prostitution, I would expect her to own every politician in town before too long.
Bear in mind that it's not like I don't have plenty of qualms about prostitution as a profession. However, *ethics* is not one of them. The potential for victimization *is* high, no denying it. I can say with a high degree of confidence that *I* have not victimized anyone, and it's certain that I've never *knowingly* done so. Bargaining from a position of advantage is *not* victimization. That was the point of my comment.
The "some of us" part of my comment was intended to point out that there are some who are not victimizers, and that mas0n's attempt to characterize some of us as hypocrites wasn't necessarily valid in all cases. That's not to say that some posting here aren't such, of course, just that I ain't, and there are likely others who are not.
The fact that you switched seats and gave a false report means you are already playing w/ fire – they say the cover-up, instead of the initial crime, is where many get caught . Also, many get caught when they get too greedy.
As others have said, the amount of $$$ is not worth the potential consequences. And the fact you got it ($$$) so easy; probably means you’ll blow it in the wink of an eye and not have much to show for it IMO.
100+ posts again...
You get juices big balls awards
As a matter of fact, I do. :) And it does, depend on my definition of ethical, which for me is a virtual synonym for "moral", with the addition that "ethics" carries with it a connotation of agreement about morality within a certain context, e.g. medical ethics. Unethical behaviour may not be immoral in a pure sense, but becomes so based on one's agreement or promise to keep certain rules. Make sense?
Morality boils down to a pretty simple principle for me, namely that *initiation* of force against another human being is immoral. Note the "initiation" part; applying force in response to force is perfectly moral. The wrongdoer is the one who initiated it.
That leads to some conclusions that many people find objectionable, such as:
Declining to give food to a starving child is *not* immoral. It may be douchebaggery, and might be unethical if one has made promises to do something like that, but it's not immoral in and of itself.
Stealing food from a rich, fat pig to feed your own starving child *is* immoral. Forget any nonsense about where the fat pig got the food too. Unless he stole it from *you*, thereby *initiating* the use of force, you're shit out of luck from a moral perspective. The fact that he might have stolen it from someone else does not give *you* a free pass.
Fraud falls more under the "ethics" umbrella. If we've agreed to so business, then there is the implied or express promise to tell the truth with regard to those things pertaining to our business. If one party lies about something material to the transaction, then that person can be considered to have initiated the use of force against the other by breaking that promise.
I'm sure I'll get a load of shit about this, along with reams of "what if" scenarios tha tcan be resolved with a few minutes thought by someone intellectually honest enough to apply a sime principle, but that's it in a nutshell.
My main question about this is how do you know that "no initiating violence" defines exactly what is moral, i.e. how do you know you got exactly the right set of rules. There are three possibilities:
a) maybe there are some rules which you missed. e.g. by what criteria would you rule out "strong young men should generally help little old ladies who are having trouble opening the door"
b) at the other extreme, by what criteria do you know that "don't initiate violence" should be a rule at all?
c) the three possibility, which could actually be an application of a) and b) is by what criteria do you know your rule is the right and that it isn't something completely different, e.g. maybe the only moral rule should be "nobody but the Byzantine emperor gets to wear the imperial purple, but as long as you don't do that anything else goes"?
There's got to be some meta-rule to get to your rule, no?
Yep. She and I disagree (OK, well, "disagreed") about a fair few specifics, but I think she got that part right.
@Dougster: "My main question about this is how do you know that "no initiating violence" defines exactly what is moral, i.e. how do you know you got exactly the right set of rules."
Yeah, first principles are a bitch, aren't they? :)
For me, it hinges on the principle that the Founding Fathers put so well (note, they never claimed to have *created* it, they just put it into words so well) in the Declaration: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
For me, that means that my life is my own, belonging to no one else, and everyone else's life is *their* own, belonging to no one else. I and I alone have the right to determine it's course, and the same is true for everyone else. I have no right to another person's life, and they have no right to mine.
The rights I have are mine because I am a human being, not because the government gave them to me, not because I happen to live in the United States, and not because everybody is being nice and letting me have them. They were granted by no human agency (irrespective of what form "Creator" takes for any given individual, whether it be God, Yahweh, Allah, Chronos, Pan, Gaea, or the random firing of quantum events), and can't be revoked by any human agency. They can certainly be violated, but not taken away.
From there, initiating the use of force becomes immoral because it's an attempt to take over or direct the life of another person, a life to which the person initiating the force, by definition, since it's not his own, has no right.
Long winded philosophical discussions on a strip club website. Who'd'a thunk it?
The restrictions are self-imposed, based on what I believe to be the moral thing to do. *All* behavior is ultimately self-imposed, after all. Some people just do any imposition.
I want others to think like I do. The best way to do that is to show them why I think it's the right thing to do.
It pretty much all boils down to whether or not you accept that my life is my own. If you don't, then you and I are never going to be able to come to terms. I personally believe this simple fact to be true, and I can find no compelling evidence that it is not.
@Dougster: "Some also consider prostitution immoral. They might say you are a hypocrite but so what?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that someone else's opinion negates mine?