I'm fascinated by the dichotomy of thought in this country and how it has resulted in two very different worldviews. The crux of these two different worldviews seems to be what's "best for me" vs what's best for the "collective good". On many of the more "controversial" social/political topics which I will not specify here to avoid being in breach of the rules, I tend to think about it in general terms, I think about it from the POV of others, and not myself specifically. I factor myself into the situation as being part of the "general terms". So, in the above example, I don't think about ME having to go to court because I ran someone over. I think about someone innocently crossing the street, illegally, and someone else perhaps not intentionally running them down, but someone who was peed off about the jaywalker intentionally using less caution than they could've and hitting the pedestrian. Regardless of the fact the pedestrian crossed the street illegally, it seems entirely reasonable to me that if possible they should not pay for this minor transgression with their life or health and that if the driver can avoid running them down they should, in fact, attempt to avoid hitting the pedestrian. Sure, there will be gray situations where the pedestrian says the driver could've avoided them and the driver says they tried and it was not possible to avoid them, but, life is messy sometimes. I err on the side of what is best for society, namely trying to avoid running people over, and not what is best for me if I in fact accidentally run a jaywalker over and they claim it was not an accident.
The "best for me" view is someone did something illegal and therefore I hold no blame whatsoever for the outcome. The "collective good" view is let's try and not run people over even if they're doing something illegal - it may not always be possible but it's a worthy goal. I'm not saying one is right or wrong but I think this major difference in how Americans think exists and it extends well beyond the above example.
