This week in legal elements, we're doing a crash course in common law, statutes and judicial interpretation. I was all set to post about Scalia's strange dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, but I will have to post my critique at some other time.
Reality has instead intruded into my legal education in a rather unexpected way. Last night I was en route to an immediate care facility with my best friend, and on the way we had a very minor fender bender accident. We stopped to exchange information with the other driver, who apparently did not speak English. He was provided all of our vital information for insurance, license, etc - but refused to produce his license or share his own information.
Since there was little else we could do, we decided to go on our way and let the insurance company deal with the situation.
The other driver had a different idea. Rather than let us go on our way, he elected to try to physically detain us. As we tried to drive away, he grabbed the car door, and then crawled into the moving vehicle, assaulting my friend who was screaming at him to get off her while attempting to drive. He sat on her, grabbed at her keys (breaking the key to the car), and in the process threw a burning cigarette into the car, while also causing a laceration to my friend's hand. She stopped the car, but the man refused to get out of the car even then, so we were forced to call 911 for police assistance.
From our perspective, this was basically an attempt at a carjacking - but according to the responding officers, his conduct was not heinous enough to justify taking him into custody. We were told that his conduct did not rise to the level of assault - that he could be charged with "harassment", but that this would also be unlikely to stick in court.
I still feel there is a pretty sound cause of action, and that it would be in the interests of justice to pursue remedies against the other driver. Hopefully the insurance company can assist, but it certainly is a reality check that even vicious, violent and objectively heinous acts may be excused or condoned by the State simply failing to prosecute.
Even if the criminal nature of his actions can't be adjudicated, I'm hopeful that a civil remedy will present itself through the insurance process. It strikes me as wrong that someone could act so violently with no actual repercussions.
It was difficult and required a great deal of restraint on my part to refrain from harming this violent individual. I feel that I would have been well within the realm of self defense even if I had punched him out cold - but as I am trying to pursue a career in the law, I felt that it would be best to let the authorities handle the situation. Still, if faced with a similar situation in the future, I might not act with such restraint. There really is a time and place for self defense, and I may be more willing to act with force to protect myself and the safety of my friends in the future.
I'm also tempted to use this as a test case for my torts class, to see what remedies might be available. Hoping to at least salvage some educational value from the experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment