I'm not sure if it is a requirement, but my understanding was that most if not all of the violence interrupters are convicted felons who have served time for violent felonies -- a mark of distinction that purportedly gives them the "street cred" to interact with people who are thinking about committing criminal violence.

If the violence interrupter involved in this shooting was a convicted felon, he/she was disqualified from owning/possessing firearms. Surely he/she was not eligible to obtain a DC concealed carry permit.

OP says in the original, unedited post that his employer is in NY but not NYC. So a discussion of NYC's tax program is not helpful.

Same. My neighbor's lawn care company uses gas-powered blowers and even though it is a relatively small property the blowers literally seem to be going steady for well over an hour during leaf season. It is extremely annoying, but I have not dropped a dime on them.

This is correct. And those traffic cameras make tens of millions of dollars. The well-placed cameras (well-placed in the sense that people are expecting the speed limit to be about 35 based on the structure of the road) can individually generate several million dollars each year.

I'm 43. When do "all the negative consequences" materialize for "hard mode" people that make a sarcastic or humorous comment?

Seems like you approach things a wee bit too literally. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

Exactly. And, even if you are, why don't you go ahead and KMA and call it a love story.

So says you. You haven't been to my dad's house. Or his dad's house.

You should have swapped seats with the first guy, and suggested that there were a number of people into guessing games that evening and it probably made sense for them to play with themselves.

Okay, alright, pun intended.

Sure. When I was learning how to drive, my mother urged me to practice "defensive driving," which is the idea that there will be many dangerous drivers on the road and the safest thing to do is to be extra careful in an effort to compensate for other drivers' lack of reasonable care.

My advice for pedestrians is to practice defensive walking, and my advice for cyclists (I am one myself), is to practice defensive cycling. So, with respect to pedestrians, don't assume that motorists will respect the crosswalks, don't assume that they will stop at red lights, etc. A pedestrian should not have to think this way, but it could make the difference between a close encounter and actually being hit by a car.

Edit: grammar

Your wife had every reason to be angry at the driver - who among us would not have felt the same way?

>But I also can’t believe other cars just drove by and watched this man physically threatening a young woman.

The moral of the story is that if you choose to engage with a reckless driver and potentially escalate the situation, assume that no one will be coming to your assistance if it turns violent. You can chalk it up to bystander apathy, cowardice, minding one's own business, or whatever you want. Based on news reports that I've read, I think it is a healthy self-preservation interest at work. Sometimes people try to get in the middle of a conflict between a couple, with an eye toward protecting the woman in the couple. The male partner becomes enraged at the interloper and a fight breaks out. And then, later, instead of being appreciative toward the good Samaritan, the woman tells the police that he is the bad guy and that the couple was just having a spirited disagreement. I'm not saying that happens all the time, but it happens enough that you can foresee it as a possible outcome that would make you wish you had not gotten involved.