Oh no - that wasn't my point at all. I would never aim to put the horn-blower as the only one at fault... in fact I'd have to side with the law on my dearest being the blockhead in that one: "Yes officer, he was an ass that morning. Take him away."Sorry Mrs. R, I gotta side with BT on this one.
Once you take the incident out of context and
the Defense Attorney puts his spin on this
getting the driver convicted would be pretty
hard. Remember rev wouldn't be there to tell his
side. the driver could say he thought Rev had a
knife. Yada Yada Yada. the jury woulsn't have
any counter information. Rev got lucky on several
accounts. Alls well that ends well!
Raider out.
My beef was more with BT's comment implying that he would "have no problem" with killing someone who punched his car, and would feel it was justified, as was expressed in the initial post which got me all ruffled up. We've wandered far down the path from my original point.
Regardless of the situation, Rev would stil be the instigator by all reasonable standards, and the blame as the situation actually occurred is wholly my hubby's. In the scenario presented by BT, however, the driver would have actually pulled a gun and shot my spouse through the unbroken car window. At this point, I've got to believe that some blame certainly lies on the shoulder of the honker - almost any way I look at it... it's an unecessary use of lethal force.
Scenario: At a traffic light, Guy A is stopped in front of Guy B. The light turns green, and for some reason (doesn't matter what), Guy A doesn't go. Guy B blows his horn. Guy A gets out of his car, walks back and punches Guy B's window while yelling at him. The window does NOT break. Guy B then pulls a gun (concealed, BTW) and shoots Guy A dead through the previously unbroken (now shattered) car window. And several other witnesses (including the embarrassed, but now bereaved wife) saw the events unfold in this manner.
Guy A is certainly not blameless... but neither is Guy B in this case. Guy A is guilty of at least disorderly conduct... possibly aggravated assault (dunno for sure). Guy B is guilty of at least Manslaughter - I don't think the situation merits enough of a threat for Guy B to successfully claim self-defense necessitating the death of the aggressor.
So in a generic situation, as presented above, BOTH parties would be guilty - and the honker isn't "justified" in killing the non-moving, short-tempered a$$hole.
In my original complaint, I was further put off by the fact that the person implying that that this sort of killin' was, in fact, a cop.
HOWEVER: I think BT and I have already reached our conclusions, and I think we understand each other... As implied by WWJD... let's not take this thread too far. I really only intended a jibe at BT 'cause I figured he was just talkin' trash and wouldn't ACTUALLY have felt fully justified in killing another human in such a fashion. So I only really intended to jab him in the ribs a couple of times
<!--EDIT|Mrs. Revlis
Reason for Edit: None given...|1106240758 -->
