A literal eye for eye justice system would be barbaric and too harsh most of the time yet far too mild sometimes. In this case, for instance. The OP was not injured yet the behavior is unacceptable. An eye for eye justice system would let the perpetrator go free and then secretly hire someone to follow him/her around and shoot a blowgun dart in front of their face at a random moment as they went about their normal life. That would have no effect at all on their behavior. What is needed is a punishment that is disproportionate to the actual deed but proportionate to the potential for harm that results from the deed. This "perp" was probably just a young person doing the sort of idiotic things we all did at that age though most of us weren't that bad. Put the kid in a blaze orange suit and make him pick up trash along a highway for three weeks and then spend evenings serving soup at a homeless shelter. That might get through, a near miss with a blow gun dart certainly won't. When it was first implemented in around 3000 BC the eye for eye system was an advance, a reigning in of the kind of "justice" typified by the urban gangbanger culture we have today and the warrior code of barbarian Europe and the notion that a cyclist should be free to return fire with a firearm when attacked by a blowgun. In reality our modern political and justice systems are surprisingly little advanced over the ancient Sumerian system, yet even we can do better than eye for eye.

In theory I have no quarrel with the death penalty. Maybe that seems inconsistent since I don't support eye for eye justice that would inflict lesser injuries on guilty parties. In my opinion that would be a foolish consistency however and some individuals simply deserve to die for their deeds. Unfortunately I must reject the death penalty because human beings cannot administer it fairly. When DNA testing became available the attorneys for one Illinois death row inmate demanded and got a test of his DNA against DNA evidence collected at the crime scene. It proved the inmate was innocent. In short order every death row inmate that could be tested was tested and a surprising number were innocent, I don't recall the percentage. I would imagine that other states had similar results when DNA testing came in. The state of Texas once argued before the US Supreme court that one of their death row inmates had no right to a review of new evidence that might exonerate him because he had been fairly convicted before the evidence came to light and the state had the right to execute him whether he was guilty or not! This was reported on NPR in the 1990's. It is perfectly clear that states have and will murder innocent people in the name of "justice" because they are incompetent, or worse. That is the most horrific thing I can imagine in a democracy so I can no longer support the death penalty.

I honestly think that cameras and recorders have a great potential to gather the documentation needed to make it possible to identify and convict the offenders in all kinds of crimes like this, and far worse. I hope that in time systems like this will be implemented -- in public areas where the right to privacy is not compromised. It is far better than vigilante justice or the present impotence of our justice system in most cases like this, the OP's included. I understand the desire to take matters into your own hands though. When I was commuting by car every day there was hardly a day went by that I didn't fantasize about mounting a paint ball machine gun that would fire paint remover filled paint balls out of the grill of my car so that I could say thank you to the most deserving of my fellow commuters by redecorating the rear of their vehicles! That would be satisfying but a video uplink to the DMV would be far less corrosive of my character and society. If widely implemented I think it would put an end to most automotive misbehavior and it would help cyclists too.

Ken