This is a really, really stupid thing to say. I mean genuinely stupid. As in totally really fucking idiotic. If I had killed someone in a hit and run and I hired a brief to try and get off, I'd seriously consider just ending things if this was the best they could do in my defence. The dumb thing your asserting is that he thought he hit a deer. He didn't, because when you hit a deer (or in my case, when a deer ran into me) you see a deer in front of you. It is deer shaped, not person shaped. This bears repeating: if he thought he hit a deer while driving a sedan, he would have stopped. That's because large deer shaped objects cave in the front of sedans such as what the AG was driving. Generally, when the front of your car gets smashed up, it's not safe to continue driving. In fact, if you're driving something smaller than a truck it's not unusual to write off cars when you hit a deer. Especially at speed. So, he didn't see a deer shaped object, and his car wasn't written off. Therefore, he had no reason to think that he had hit a deer. However, he knew he hit something. If he had stopped, maybe the guy he hit would have lived? There's always that chance. So, he bears absolute responsibility for the victims death. And yes, being a logic bro is absolutely a thing. It's what you've been doing this entire thread. It's when a poster makes a series of increasingly stupid or outrageous but superficially logical points to try and maintain that their original position was correct. It's really toxic and even more stupid. Plz stahp.