Originally Posted by
K7lvo
This is only one example. Legally an person cannot use deadly force, i.e., a gun, if someone is assaulting them with their fists. Why should someone have to suffer a beating just because they don't have the ability/strength/knowledge to defend themself with their fists? Where is justice when the aggressor gets to make the rules?
First of all, the assumption must be made that these people have insurance - or, even drivers' licenses. Even if they do, the concept of insurance is that a group of people share the costs of damages. Where is the justice in a group of people sharing the costs for this type of behavior??? Insurance companies are not a faceless piggyback, the are made up of people, you and me, sharing the financial impact of ACCIDENTS.
He should "take one for the team," eh? Again, as long as we allow criminals to commit their acts without fear of resistance/justice (in this example, the state patrol implied that the victim was at least partially at fault for an innocent gesture, and one of the road rage trio was RELEASED) they will continue their violent behavior.
I have no intent to flame you or demean your opinion. I'm not urging or even suggesting that people break the law. What is practical in one situation could be totally impractical in another. However, I do not consider it practical to stand by and do nothing in a case like this one. I will make every effort to ignore stupidity and aggressiveness on the road, but I will also make every effort to, first, avoid and, second, if necessary, defend myself against an aggressive driver if it they make it physical.