CutterWolf

Here is another thing along this same line. If someone runs a red light and "you" hit that person as you entered the intersection with a green light your going to be cited for "entering an unsafe intersection" and be at fault. The other guy will be cited for running a red light. Again...I know it sounds totaly unfair but that is how the traffic laws are.

JIM5.0

Is that a Federal law? Or is that an Ab law?
I just know that if you can present proof that you executed the lane change and it was clear as you are making the change and the guy hits you, he is at fault.
Now, if you lane change and you hit the guy in the lane because he was in your blind spot, then yes, you are at fault because if you would have looked, you would not have hit him.

In the first case I am describing, the lane changer might be cited, but if taken to traffic court and proved you made the lane change safely and it was clear, the judge would dismiss The citation altogether.

The assumption here is the threats are just that, only words. You are correct if he is waving his hands in the air yelling and screaming and ranting, but not making any overt moves to actually initiate an assault. If he starts charging at you, that becomes an assault, and if he hits you, then battery as well.

Now also note that I further qualified my statement with the threatened person is not being allowed to reasonably leave the vicinity.
Also, what about the gestures of the one throwing the verbal assault? He could have his hand in his coat as if he were trying to point a concealed handgun. There might not even be a weapon, it might just be his finger, but there have been cases where the guy verbally said he has a weapon, but the threatened reacted with force and was never charged even though there was no weapon.

swat 79

You guys would be right, except for, once he rushes towards you and gets in your face, that is no longer just verbal assault. Do you understand the difference? ( I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically) It's not a matter of them just raising your voice and them kicking your ***, it's the aggressive and violent behavior in which they act.

THEBLACKSTANG

Sucks to hear about your wreck man... post up some pics once you get the new stripes put on.

theACE

Will do, and yeah I decided I am just going to have the shop replace the stripes with the same exact style, to save some $$$.

I think the only mod I am going to make is the GT premium rear diffuser, possibly GT500 splash flaps, and maybe a GT500 SVT wing.

MustangFirstCar

Man, that sucks. For me it would be a non-issue though. When I got done with the person stupid enough to do that to my car, I would not be driving for a long time anyways

I would definatly keep the stripes the same, maybe change the boss for a 3.7 or a V6, but thats all.

bluovalguy

The internet lawyering is getting out of hand. Cutter is right, period. Both on the traffic and the assault (however the hell we get off on that tangent).

JIM5.0

Some of us could actually be bar licensed practicing attorneys
And to be honest, the kind of legal advice (the stuff that is actually correct) would actually incur a legal consulting fee!

As for how the legal tangents all came out, it all actually stemmed from what the OP was describing what happened in his original post.
The discussion about right-of-way and who must yield ROW being a key part how his car became damaged in the first place.
Then the part about verbal threatening part being from the OP describing how the other guy was acting all crazy.

From then on, its been one crazy ride of a thread!

bluovalguy

I'll give you that good sir.

But alot of the "advice" being offered would land some hot head in jail if they actually believe it to be law.

aaquib1992

Oh man, I'm glad you came out ok ACE. As for the upgrades I say the stripes you have should stay! They look pretty cool.
Anyway, I think the splitter would look pretty legit.