Teen jailed in road rage incident.

[KrazyHorse]

The teenager cut somebody off. The driver followed him home and hit him with his car deliberately.

People who commit attempted murder because of an incident on the freeway should be locked up. If he'd survived then he should have been sent to jail for 10-15 years or so. He didn't. Too bad for him.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The teenager was a jackass, and needs to be locked up.
This is of course based on the assumption the 53 year old was observing the rules of the road,

Man follows teen home. teen get out of car, tries to cross the street to his house, man hits teen with car.

What rule book do you use when driving?

[OzzyKP]

Ah Dino, you are missing the real crime here. When the teen got out of the car and tried to cross the street, he was jaywalking. That scofflaw was just begging to be run over.

[Wernazuma III]

To those completely supporting the teen: We should reinstate lynching justice - THE way to go in the 21st century.

[KrazyHorse]

The man was trying to murder him. I don't see the problem with punching him.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
To those completely supporting the teen: We should reinstate lynching justice - THE way to go in the 21st century.

Horse****. He just hit you with his car intentionally. Fighting back is a reasonable response. Going inside is also a reasonable response. Once you put somebody in a situation where they are in reasonable fear of their life, it's up to them to decide which of these two reasonable responses they'll employ. The guy was still in his car. He remained a threat. Walking away might not have appeared the safest thing to do, as he was obviously a homicidal maniac.

[KrazyHorse]

It's not ****ing justice; it's self-defense.

There's a difference.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Horse****. He just hit you with his car intentionally. Fighting back is a reasonable response. Going inside is also a reasonable response. Once you put somebody in a situation where they are in reasonable fear of their life, it's up to them to decide which of these two reasonable responses they'll employ. The guy was still in his car. He remained a threat. Walking away might not have appeared the safest thing to do, as he was obviously a homicidal maniac.

Hitting someone after being hit by a car is not a reasonable response. It is however a natural one.

Send him to jail.

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

My only question is whether or not the man actually hit the kid with his car.

The teen might be lying and getting his father to support him. The man might have followed the kid home and screamed abuse at him, pissing off the kid enough to hit him. In that case, the kid is probably guilty of some degree of involuntary manslaughter.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Hitting someone after being hit by a car is not a reasonable response. It is however a natural one

Huh?

The car is a deadly fucing weapon. Assuming this is the truth, the man rammed him deliberately with the car, committing attempted murder in the process. The man was still in possession of this deadly weapon. The teen went over to disarm him by knocking his teeth out. The man died. Too bad for him.

[KrazyHorse]

He was attacked with a deadly weapon on a public street.

If you hit me with your car deliberately you had better mean it. Just like if you shoot at me you had better not miss.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Huh?

The car is a deadly fucing weapon. Assuming this is the truth, the man rammed him deliberately with the car, committing attempted murder in the process. The man was still in possession of this deadly weapon. The teen went over to disarm him by knocking his teeth out. The man died. Too bad for him.

If the guy was stopped, it's far more likely he was slamming on his brakes when he hit the kid. The kid landed on his feet so the car couldn't have been going that fast.

Once the kid was on the side of the car near the driver the man was disarmed, I know of no car that can move sideways.

ACK!

[KrazyHorse]

Oh no? Slam the car into reverse, turn the steering wheel full right (assuming the kid is on the driver's side beside the door)

That's like saying that once I've got a grip on a gunman's wrist the fight is over.

The fight's not over until you're sitting on his back on the pavement.

[KrazyHorse]

A car is a deadly weapon. There's no such thing as a trivial assault with a vehicle. Once you've demonstrated the intent to commit assault and the willingness to use 1500 pounds of steel to back you up you've bought yourself trouble.

[Wernazuma III]

Quoting Frankychan: "The man got what he deserved." You're basing your opinion on the events and whether that constituted self-defence on basically a thin story that may as well been made partially up by the teen and his family to protect him.


I think it somehow stinks a bit that the teen was hit, landed on his feet with no injuries, walks up to the car where the offender just awaits the teen coming and opens the window for him in order to get beaten to death.
Maybe the teen was a total jackass, the man decided to drive after him, disputing, the teen stopped the car, the man didn't completely break so hit him a bit. Then the teen got to the car killed the man in a fury.
Then again, maybe it was exactly as written in the story, but you're all so sure that this was pure self-defence and that basically the man got what he deserved. You seemingly don't care about the adequacy of means. Should it be taken into account that he was hit by the car before, or tried to be run over? Well, of course, but that doesn't entitle you to do with the offender what you want.


I have noticed that on Internet boards, people jump so easily to judgements based on single stories. There are so many versions of this story I could think of, but it all happened exactly as in that version. It must be true, it's in the newspaper...