When a legislator who prides herself on “legal expertise” starts publicly blurring the distinction between traffic accidents and criminal offenses, anyone with eyes can see something is “off”.
Regarding Miao Boya’s claim that “Han Guo-yu hit and killed someone and can still be an official,” let’s open the court decision from Yunlin District Court of Taiwan Province, ROC (Case No. 14, Criminal Division, 94th Year). The factual truth and the shocking drama script in Councilor Miao’s mouth are simply from parallel universes.
According to the scene layout and collision point described in the court decision (Han Guo-yu’s vehicle left side hit), here’s the scene restoration:
【New Social Road】(southbound)
║ ║
║ Han ║
║ Guo ║
║ Yu ║
║ (car) ║
【Xingnong West Road】 ║ ↓ ║ 【Xingnong West Road】
════════════╝ ╚══════════════
← slid 83 meters (collision point) ←← [speed limit 50/measured 90]
════════════╗ ╔══════════════
║ ↑ ║ (motorcycle rider: unlicensed)
║ ║
║ ║
【Accident Scene Diagram: Who Was the Collider?】One: “Hit Someone” or “Was Hit”?
Physics Logic Collapse
Based on the above scene diagram and court decision records, at that time Han Guo-yu passing through a blinking red light without completely stopping was indeed negligence in law. However, the tragedy’s core lies in the other side’s reckless behavior:
- Speeding: The motorcycle at a speed limit of 50 kilometers was traveling at 90 kilometers, speeding like crazy.
- Unlicensed: That rider didn’t even have a basic driver’s license.
- Impact point: The motorcycle directly hit Han Guo-yu’s vehicle’s “left front side.”
Under normal physics and legal logic, this is an unlicensed and nearly double-speed person slamming into a slowly accelerating sedan.
In Miao Boya’s account, it became Han Guo-yu “hitting someone.”
This rhetorical technique of describing “being hit” as “actively colliding” makes one can’t help but sigh: when legal professionals meet political positions, even the laws of physics have to bend.
Two: “Negligence” vs. “Intent” Under Political Editing
Miao Boya in her argumentation precisely avoided “90 kilometers per hour” and “unlicensed driving,” these two key facts. This selective blindness clearly discovers that if facts are presented truthfully, the smear campaign’s “direction becomes wrong”. Therefore she must through malicious editing transform a regrettable traffic accident into heinous crime scene.
“In Miao Boya’s logic, as long as political positions differ, a 90-kilometer-per-hour unlicensed motorcycle is the innocent victim, and someone who completed legal procedures, reached settlement, and received legal judgment, should be permanently nailed to the pillar of shame.”
Three: Professional Integrity or Political Performance?
Legal professionals’ original intent should be “restoring facts,” but Councilor Miao apparently excels at “creating panic.”
If we followed her standard, anyone who had negligent traffic accidents loses voting rights for life, then the ROC political arena would face a major purge.
Miao Boya prides herself as the epitome of rationality, yet plays word games on the most basic factual basis of the court decision.
When the public discovers her “truth” is poles apart from the court decision, once this questioning of professional integrity “direction” starts burning, it probably isn’t something that can be extinguished by a few passionate political slogans.