Is this road rage or a hate crime?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
I agree, though I think ending up dead as a result is overkill by an order of magnitude to the offence, pun not intended. While I don't advocate solving disputes with violence either, IMO in a sane world this guy would not get away with a self-defence excuse, because to me self-defence implies that he had just cause to be afraid for his safety even though he had a firearm, which IMO only makes sense if the other guy had a similarly deadly weapon.
It's so hard to tell when people are going to quit though and call the fight done. In my last neighborhood there was a fight at a bar about 7 blocks away one night that got broken up, after closing time one of them was walking home through a park nearby, the other guy got in his car drove into the park drove over him with his car then backed over him to make sure he finished the job.

It's just part of that not so sane world, I don't even know who was originally at fault but one guy went to prison and the other went to the morgue. I can't imagine many arguments being worth all that.

That being said I agree I think it is unfortunate when something that was probably just gonna be a few bruises ends up in someone dying.
 
Last edited:

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
My point wasn't about how statistically common it is, but about how such a thing could possibly be considered to be normal, hence the "as change in your pocket" comment. I realised afterwards that it was possibly going to be interpreted as a comment on particular types of gun licences, which it wasn't intended to be either.

Of course, however only the most disingenuous of people would argue that the likelihood of death doesn't go up considerably if one or more participants of a fight owns or uses a firearm.

That line of logic easily justifies using a firearm as the first resort rather than the last, which again I find a tad disturbing and an extremely poor justification for such actions (basically "you thought they might hit you").

I would also consider it to be extremely poor justification if someone shot another person for saying "go back to Islam", but using your line of logic as justification, it's not inconceivable or unreasonable; in a place where anyone could be carrying a firearm, you've got a dickhead who is angrily shouting racist shit at you, there's definitely a risk there, it doesn't take much effort or time for the guy doing the shouting to pull out a pistol.


The point I was making is that had the guy not over reacted to speech, there would not be a valid self defense claim. The issue is not about one guy using fists and the other using a gun. Physical assault over speech carries the burden of fault. If someone is going to attack me physically, they are putting my life in their hands and its not a choice I made. I should have every right to defend my life even if "you" think that the risk is small. Nobody has the right to put my life in danger unless I have put theirs in danger first. Speech is not going to put your life in danger, but your fists could.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Have not read the whole thread, is there any evidence/witness the guy hit/punched the shooter?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
No crime in being an asshole or most of this board would be locked up. Shooting was done in self defense in a clear cut case. No reason to even discuss this further.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
If what one considers to be hate speech justified violence these guys would have been beaten to a pulp a long time ago.

http://www.alan.com/2014/07/21/west...nk-god-for-malaysian-plane-crash/#email-modal


westboro-baptist.jpg