A look into road rage

[seamusTX]

San Antonio, Friday, a man driving a truck rammed into a car at 100 MPH. He was arrested and told police that God said she wasn’t driving right, and she needed to be taken off the road.

Neither driver suffered major injuries, and there was no immediate evidence of drug or alcohol use.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 37502.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[thankGod]

Thank God that lady was okay. As far as the man goes, perhaps God will let him know why he is in jail.

[retrieverman]

I have been mad at other drivers, but I don't really understand "road rage".

[seamusTX]

My take on road rage is that a lot of drivers are suffering from what shrinks might call frustration, stress, aggression, and poor impulse control. They use the excuse of disliking someone's driving as a rationalization for intimidation and bullying.

Two features of road-rage incidents tell me that most of these jerks are not actually out of control: They rarely go as far as crashing into or otherwise assaulting their target, and they break off when confronted by someone who is confident.

Drivers who are as out-of-control as the one in the incident described above are either intoxicated or insane.

- Jim

[getnit1]

San Antonio, Friday, a man driving a truck rammed into a car at 100 MPH. He was arrested and told police that God said she wasn’t driving right, and she needed to be taken off the road.

Neither driver suffered major injuries, and there was no immediate evidence of drug or alcohol use.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea ... 37502.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

That is Crazy. She was not driving bad enough to do what he did. What on earth was he thinking. They should drug test that idiot. He is high or crazy.

[airbornerangerboogie]

My rule is when you strap on a side arm leave your middle finger at home.

[bdickens]

Sage advice, that.

[seamusTX]

Here's another one: On I-45 south of Houston, Sunday, a man driving a pickup truck intentionally collided with five vehicles in five separate incidents, sending six people to the hospital. The injured included his wife, who was a passenger in his vehicle.

The episode extended from League City to the Galveston Causeway over a 20-minute period around 11:30 p.m.

Toefield Coleman Jr, 44, was arrested on six counts of aggravated assault.

His motive is unknown.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... fc9a2fcd9a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[Charles L. Cotton]

I saw a news report about the one on the Gulf Freeway and the guy is being charged with agg. assault, as it should be. I have to admit I hate the phrase "road rage." There is no such thing as road rage; it's just a term the media coined a few years ago and unfortunately law enforcement and politicians have turned it into a nebulous buzz phrase. It's either an assault (or worse if someone is killed), or it's nothing but bad driving that may or may not be illegal.

Attaching vogue terms to acts that have been crimes for centuries is silly. If someone is assaulted in a parking lot, is that "parking lot rage?" How about a Wal-Mart? I feel the same way about the term "date rape." If a woman is raped, then it's a crime and her agreeing to dinner and a movie is neither an element of the crime, nor an element of a defense -- it's rape! (In Texas it's now sexual assault, and that too was a big mistake.)

[/soapbox]

Sorry for the mild rant,
Chas.

[kirock7]

My rule is when you strap on a side arm leave your middle finger at home.

+1! A good rule to go by... and for me it applies if carrying a concealed weapon in my vehicle without a CHL as well.
(I hope to see that fact changing soon! )

[seamusTX]

There is no such thing as road rage;

I feel differently about the issue.

When we name a thing, it exists, even it is only in our imagination. Saying "road rage" is a lot easier than saying "using a motor vehicle to threaten, intimidate, harass, or assault someone."

I certainly don't think such acts are in any way excusable or less serious than criminal assaults that are carried out face to face with a weapon. They are worse for being cowardly.

- Jim

[Purplehood]

Here's another one: On I-45 south of Houston, Sunday, a man driving a pickup truck intentionally collided with five vehicles in five separate incidents, sending six people to the hospital. The injured included his wife, who was a passenger in his vehicle.

The episode extended from League City to the Galveston Causeway over a 20-minute period around 11:30 p.m.

Toefield Coleman Jr, 44, was arrested on six counts of aggravated assault.

His motive is unknown.

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewc ... fc9a2fcd9a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

This is simply another example of why automobiles should be banned, and more laws concerning their lawful use and restriction be put on the books.

[The Annoyed Man]

There is no such thing as road rage;

I feel differently about the issue.

When we name a thing, it exists, even it is only in our imagination. Saying "road rage" is a lot easier than saying "using a motor vehicle to threaten, intimidate, harass, or assault someone."

I certainly don't think such acts are in any way excusable or less serious than criminal assaults that are carried out face to face with a weapon. They are worse for being cowardly.

- Jim

I agree that naming a thing causes it to exist, even if only in our imaginations, but that is not always a good thing, IMHO.

Example: "Hate Crime." From anyone's point of view, why should an assault and battery be more egregious because the victim belongs to a racial minority, or a non-traditional sexual preference? I understand that the intent of such laws is to discourage people from victimizing minorities, but the message that they send is that my life and health, as a middle aged white male, is somehow less valuable and that the other's is somehow more valuable and more deserving of protection. I am thinking specifically of the Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. What happened to that kid shouldn't happen to anyone, regardless of whether they are gay, straight, white, black, Muslim, Christian, or Jew. The men who did that to him hated humanity, not just gays. They were fully capable of doing the same thing to anyone else who held their scorn. But the same could be said for anyone who would commit acts of brutality. Tell the families of the 168 killed in the Oklahoma City Bombing, or the 800+ who were injured, that Timothy McVeigh didn't hate humanity. He hated humanity enough that he was willing to kill and maim all those people, simply because they worked in, or had reason to visit, the building owned by the government on which he was waging his private war.

Matthew Shepard's killers aren't any different from James Byrd Jr.'s killers, nor were they any different from Reginald and Jonathan Carr. However, there is one difference between these three murder trials. The first two were reported as hate crimes and tried that way, particularly in the media. In the case of the third trial, the judge went out of his way to suppress any notion that this was a hate crime, and reporters refused to report on that aspect of it, although the facts of the case manifestly indicate that it was, in fact, a hate crime. Why were the Carr brothers not charged thusly? Because they are black, and all five of their victims that night were white, who were chosen as victims because they were white. Let me make clear that I am equally outraged by all three cases - regardless of the race or sexual preferences of the perpetrators and their victims. ALL of it is evil.

But, while ALL of it is evil, authorities and their enablers in the media pick and choose what they will call a hate crime and what they won't - when they are almost always a crime of hate - because political sensibilities and the fear of offending one group or another interferes with the administration of justice. Thus, the legal concept of "Hate Crime" is a bad idea because it is selectively applied, denying justice to some deserving victims, and granting special exemption from hate crime prosecution of select perpetrators based on their race. So in this case, while naming a thing succeeds in putting a face on it, the real world consequence of naming that thing is to deny justice to deserving victims, and to withhold retribution to equally deserving scum-bags.

The Annoyed Man rests.

[seamusTX]

You're laboring under a misconception. Hate crime legislation, where it exists, enhances the penalties for assaultive offenses when the motivation is the criminal's hatred of the victim because of race, sex, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.

It is possible under those laws for a "minority" to commit a hate crime against a straight white man.

I also don't care for the whole concept. What other kind of crime is there? Love crime?

I will point out that in Texas we already have enhanced penalties based on the victim's age, disability, or being a public servant. Aside from mentioning that, I don't have a dog in that hunt.

- Jim

[bridge]

So basically, it can only be a hate crime if you perpetrate your road rage against a Hyundai, Suzuki, BMW, etc. If its a Ford or Chevy you don't have to worry about the extra hate crime penalty

Honestly though, stories like this worry me. Living and driving around Houston we've all "accidentally" cut someone off or tailgated or gesticulated the ire of our fellow drivers at one time or another. I remember reading a story a few years back (as I recall it was used as an argument against carrying firearms) where a man angry at another driver on I-45 started shooting through his passenger window at the offending driver. Unfortunately, his wife was sitting in the passenger seat and he was emptying his gun right in front of her face. Fortunately, I don't think anyone was hurt; other than the wife who had a ruptured eardrum.