Oh! There’s another post I’m having difficulty comprehending.
In California, the Police have to witness a misdemeanor.
wait-
That is ADW? No, it is not.
Now if the car nudges you- yes- ADW. But just making you uncomfortable and violating several traffic laws? That is not assault with a deadly weapon.
Again, assault does not mean contact is made; it is the threat of violence.
The driver nudging into a pedestrian is a clear threat of hitting the person with the car as a means of getting the pedestrian to get out of their way and people hit by cars have a reasonable chance of death in that contest.
When a driver intentionally brushes past or swerves in front of a cyclist because the cyclist was inconveniencing them, or out of principle that roads are for cars and trucks, that is assault with a deadly weapon even if no contact is made and bike control is maintained.
True, nudging the pedestrian certainly is. But the driver nudging into the crosswalk is not.
You are confusing assault with battery.
Do you have a cite for this? Is nudging into the crosswalk without even touching or being very close to touching an actual felony of ADW?
That there is a difference between assault and battery?
Assault is defined differently statewide, as a crime and as tort. In many states there has to be an intent to commit a further crime. Battery is good enough to qualify, but proving that a driver intended to hit you with his car is difficult prove when they didn’t. If someone swung a cane at you and missed that would be an indication that they intended a battery.
In ye olde days simply stepping in front of somebody walking down the street could be considered and assault, it was something like a threat based on physical action. That interpretation was the opening for a lot of injustice.
I still think you were perfectly justified in using your cane to warn the driver. I can’t see any judge or jury concluding otherwise. For whatever reason the driver was inching forward your perception of a possible danger that could be stopped with a warning is reasonable.
I sympathise with the OP’s situation although I have never experienced a car inching towards me to encourage me to cross more quickly - by a back of the envelope calculation I would have crossed streets on crosswalks (signalled or not) as a pedestrian ~100-200k times in my life. Does the OP get a particularly lawless sort of drivers in their locale (Portland, Oregon, US)? I have always imagined that part of the US as civilised. People who do that should not be let behind a steering wheel.
The following I hope the OP will not take as a personal attack; it is not indended in that way: The question reads to me like it is about punishment not self-defence. I’d say in general: If you have to ask yourself (or others) if something is self-defence, then it is not.
I have never taken to “if you have to ask, then it isn’t” thinking. For instance, does “If you have to ask yourself if something is offensive, then it is not” make sense to you?
Well, a lot of people up here are from California. (Myself included.)
Hmm, come to think of it, nor have I. .And
And I live in CA, and have crossed streets in downtown LA. Sure, you do get cars making right turns into the crosswalk ahead of you (which is illegal) but only when they are at least half the street away.
I mean, it happens constantly here in my town of Hoboken, NJ (which for all intents and purposes is simply an extension of New York city. The town itself is one square mile of narrow streets laid out in city blocks. You can barely see around most corners and the streets are constantly full of people and cars all in a hurry.
Honestly, most of the time I have to ignore it, otherwise I would be in a constant state of fist fights and/or talking to cops and insurance people about why I threw my child’s metal water bottle through the windshield of an Acura.
That’s the point of my joke.
In Chicago a few years ago, someone was trying to start group to campaign for Zero Pedestrian Deaths. What I posted was actually used as a scare point on the group’s info sheet.
I think that’s a perfectly reasonable point to make. A crosswalk is supposed to be a safe space for pedestrians. But they’re not. A lot of people may think it’s mostly the jaywalkers and pedestrians otherwise in the middle of the road getting mowed over.
There is no such place as a totally “safe space”. You don’t have to be a genius to know that. As children, we are all taught to look both ways before crossing a street.
My point is if we knew the total number of people who tried to cross in the middle of the block, the percent killed would be MUCH higher than that in the crosswalks. People don’t cross in the middle of the block because they already know that.
It’s a good thing I didn’t say that it was actually a safe space. Just that it is “supposed” to be. The point is that many people may think it’s mostly jaywalkers getting hit, so it’s not unreasonable to have in your literature. With where people cross the street here in Chicago, I wouldn’t have been able to tell you for certain if it’s mostly pedestrians in crosswalks or not (though I likely would have guessed. I would t have put money on it.)
Safer than the middle of a street.
I don’t think you’ll get argument from me? What are we even arguing here?
Not sure. Seems to be something about enough space to leave a safe in the crosswalk.