Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question re traffic incident

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question re traffic incident

    Tried to PM someone to see if I can post but that didn't work so here's the scenario-asking for a friend:

    Driver is in front seat. Adult and child in back. Adult in back is yelling/provoking/arguing with driver over personal issues. Driver can't concentrate so quickly stops the car (hits brakes) and puts on the flashers in a 30mph 3 lane road to figure out what to do/defuse the situation. While the car is stopped/in park, Adult in back instantly punches driver in the head, saying it was done 'in self defense'.

    Questions:
    1) Is that more than assault/battery since this was a driver, and is it doubled since there was a driver/child in potential danger (car could go out of control if driver is incapacitated eg foot hits the gas)
    2) Is the driver at all at fault-reckless driving/issue with child?

    There were no other results other than a mild concussion.

    Thank you

    New here so tried moving to traffic section...
    Last edited by hp library; 12-12-2018, 02:47 PM.

  • #2
    Can you better articulate why the adult in the back seat felt it was self defense? What immediate threat of injury or death were they defending against?
    Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

    Comment


    • hp library
      hp library commented
      Editing a comment
      Apparently they thought the driver was going to do something/drive crazy? The adult in back was recently rear-ended so perhaps has PTSD. However he has a prior assault against an animal.

    • L-1
      L-1 commented
      Editing a comment
      Apparently? Perhaps? Is this the justification the person in the back seat gave, or is this supposition on your part?

      Let's try it this way - there has to be a very real and imminent threat or injury or death (and not one that is supposed or assumed) before the guy in the back street can just punch the driver.

      If, out of the blue, he just struck the driver for no apparent or articulable reason, we are looking at criminal conduct.

  • #3
    Apparently they thought the driver was going to do something/drive crazy? The adult in back was recently rear-ended so perhaps has PTSD. However he has a prior assault against an animal.

    Comment


    • #4
      Run around with better people
      Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

      My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

      Comment


      • #5
        Choose better backseat drivers.
        Now go home and get your shine box!

        Comment


        • #6


          PTSD because he was rear ended!? Poor little snow flake.

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by hp library View Post
            Apparently they thought the driver was going to do something/drive crazy? The adult in back was recently rear-ended so perhaps has PTSD. However he has a prior assault against an animal.
            So he’s a dirtbag.
            Now go home and get your shine box!

            Comment


            • #8
              We would follow our procedure of arrest that we started about 10 years ago. We detain the offender and present the case to an assistant district attorney by phone while at the scene. If they tell us to arrest, we take them to the station, finish the case paperwork and then have the assistant district attorney review the case. If everything is good, we get a number similar to a warrant number which allows us to book the offender.

              But before all of that, if the driver wanted to file charges against the passenger, we'd arrest the offender and take him/her to the station to complete arrest paperwork. We then transported the offender to a judge who would read the offender his rights, sign the warrant(or not), set his bond and give us a warrant number. We then transported the offender to the jail to be booked.

              Causing bodily injury, which includes pain, to another is a class A misdemeanor here in Texas. That's an offense that either has a find, jail time up to a year or both fine and jail time. Due to the apparent low level of this offense, I'm betting the assistant district attorneys on duty making the decisions to arrest or not probably wouldn't take this case, but would probably want it presented as a non-arrest.

              Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code has defenses to the use of force against others, and just to let you know, no one has a "right" to use force against anyone. Here in Texas, to use force against anyone, you need a justification afforded by law. PTSD in itself isn't justification to cause bodily injury.
              Last edited by angeredmgmt; 12-13-2018, 02:14 AM. Reason: Spelling

              Comment


              • #9
                Thanks angeredmgmt for the well thought out post. This threat of being attacked confuses me somewhat. I'm thinking of the incident I was in that I posted a while ago. A man banging on the roof of my car and yelling at me. The officer that came to my rescue told me afterwards he could have made a case against that man for assault. Force fear? Though I wasn't hit my roof got dented. Does this figure in with hp library post? You can assault somebody without touching them? How do you officers keep this sorted out?

                Comment


                • #10
                  Not sure why you would call this a traffic incident, when it was an argument that resulted in an assault that just happened to occur in a vehicle as it was moving down the road.
                  As far as sorting it all out, up here the Police would make the decision, either the responding member, or their Supervisor, whether or not to proceed with one, or more, charge(s) against either, or both, clients involved, dependent on the evidence (physical, admissions / statements) gathered.
                  I can not see how the driver could be at fault in any way, unless they stopped in the lane of travel, then that would be a traffic offence.
                  Sounds like a long-standing family mess.
                  #32936 - Royal Canadian Mounted Police - 1975-10-27 / 2010-12-29
                  Proud Dad of #54266 - RCMP - 2007-02-12 to date
                  RCMP Veterans Association - Regina Division member
                  Mounted Police Professional Association of Canada - Associate (Retired) member
                  "Smile" - no!

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    In my state, “Assault” means putting someone in imminent apprehension of receiving a Battery. So if you were to lunge at someone with a closed fist trying to punch them, but they move out of the way and are never hit, that’s assault. Actually causing harm, or making contact of an insulting or provoking nature is a “Battery.”

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      I'm starting to get a clearer picture. Officers have numerous past incidents to compare to. A knowledge base the average citizens knows next to nothing is about. And then the officers have supervisors they can call in if need be. It is very interesting to me to see how little the average person knows about law enforcement. The comments posted here mention things we wouldn't take into account. CCCSD if I may say slightly flippant comment to choose better back seat drivers is in reality quite appropriate but unfortunately the cars today don't have maniac in the back seat detectors and most of us don't have the years working as law enforcement officers to be better judges of character.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Originally posted by Meridia View Post
                        I'm starting to get a clearer picture. Officers have numerous past incidents to compare to. A knowledge base the average citizens knows next to nothing is about. And then the officers have supervisors they can call in if need be. It is very interesting to me to see how little the average person knows about law enforcement. The comments posted here mention things we wouldn't take into account. CCCSD if I may say slightly flippant comment to choose better back seat drivers is in reality quite appropriate but unfortunately the cars today don't have maniac in the back seat detectors and most of us don't have the years working as law enforcement officers to be better judges of character.
                        Why not start your own thread? This is completely unrelated to the original post/topic. Not to mention you're not a LEO and shouldn't be commenting in this section.

                        Comment

                        MR300x250 Tablet

                        Collapse

                        What's Going On

                        Collapse

                        There are currently 9168 users online. 372 members and 8796 guests.

                        Most users ever online was 19,482 at 11:44 AM on 09-29-2011.

                        Welcome Ad

                        Collapse
                        Working...
                        X