From the AP news wire, we learn that "A 32-year-old man was booked and jailed for investigation of reckless endangerment and fourth-degree assault on Friday after allegedly throwing a wrench at another vehicle on a highway." Uh-huh. I see.
But here's where the "trying to explain" part comes in. "Witnesses traveling westbound on the highway told troopers the man had been passing vehicles and traveling at a high rate of speed when he threw the wrench 'for no apparent reason.' " No kidding? For "no apparent reason"? Tell me, what would be "an apparent reason" for a human being to hurl a metal wrench at another human being on the freaking highway?! (Was he shouting, "Those bolts aren't just going to unscrew themselves, you know!" as he hurled said wrench? Did anyone hear him yell, "You forgot this!" right before he hucked it? I don't think anyone did.) Are you telling me that there in fact ARE "apparent reasons" for such behavior? I don't think there are other than, as I alluded to earlier, crazy!
And this particular article tries to get around the obvious explanation, not once, but twice. "The State Patrol said investigators were unable to determine the reason for the assault." Guess what? I'm not! I AM able to determine the reason for the assault! The guy is nuts! And then he threw a wrench! Case closed! What is so difficult about that?!
Naturally, you'd expect this to happen next: "The man was arrested at his house. " Yep. Throw a wrench on the freeway, get arrested at your house. Sure, that makes sense.
"Police said the 19-year-old man became angry and hit the woman in the arm and face with a sandwich, knocking her glasses off." See, now that's not just someone who "became angry". That's someone who is mentally ill and has an anger management problem. I think that most of us, at one time or another, have "become angry" and have managed to do so without turning perfectly good food into projectile weaponry.
"The victim nearly lost control of the car because she couldn't see the road and the man then allegedly ripped off the rear-view mirror and used it to shatter the windshield." Good Lord, man! Anger management issues, perhaps? Now she can't see the road AND can't properly back up! Well, that's just great! I love the neutrality of "allegedly ripped off the rear-view mirror". Yeah, the windshield is shattered, the rear-view mirror has been ripped off, it's now embedded in a pile of broken glass, the driver has sandwich imprints on her face, and it's "alleged" that it was the guy who just happened to be the only other person in the car at the time who ripped off the mirror. Right. Because the benefit of the doubt is so important in cases where it's blatantly obvious that the guy is a maniac.
And here's the part that, while totally unnecessary, is extremely welcomed. It's also the reason why I think those guys over there at Seattlepi.com are doing just a bang up job.
"Police haven't said what type of sandwich was involved."