Originally Posted by Natalie_ca
I'm torn on the topic of road rage. It's a very real psychotic breakdown, and it does cause very real trauma to the victims. But does the victim have the right to run them over like in this story? I have no idea. If the guy had a gun and shot the guy instead of running him over, it would be considered self defense.
Well, the question that prosecutors and police should be asking is, "At what point was the driver justified in using his car as a weapon to defend himself?"
What point would you choose?
1. When the driver yelled or gestured from his car?
2. When the driver got out of his car and approached him?
3. When the driver started beating on his car?
4. When the driver blocked him in after he had safely left the first confrontation?
5. When the driver again approached his car?
6. When the driver again beat on his car?
7. When he realized he was blocked in and the other driver would not let him leave?
All those points were reached. Now let's get hypothetical.
8. When the driver used a stone or some other hard object to start beating on his car? (By the way, at least by this point, if not before, Texas law would justify the use of deadly force with a weapon, under our "castle law.")
9. When the driver broke his window?
10. When the driver pulled a gun?
11. When the driver fired the first shot?
Now, the right thing to do would have been to just roll forward slowly until the other driver either had to get out of your way, or commit suicide by staying in your way.
By the way, I have no sympathy for the driver who was killed terrorizing another driver. I don't care that he was about to close on a new house. He was creating an entirely unacceptable situation for another driver, and at the very least deserved to lose the privelege to ever drive again.