Originally Posted by
wildergeek
I asked a cop in Kettering, Ohio about admissibility of video, if nothing else, to have a patrol officer go out to the offender's home and give them a warning. He said that "video can be edited" implication being that it's not admissible evidence. I think this is a complete BS answer and probably wrong. I think they just don't want to be bothered. After this, I kind of lost interest in the video camera thing. Why bother if it can't be used as evidence?
This is police-speak for "I don't give a flying ****." Video submitted while at the scene should be legitimate evidence. Yes, if you go home and send it in later, this would create reasonable doubt in criminal matters, but - and I'm not an expert - I would expect would still be useful for prosecuting a fine or for suing his ass.
To the OP. If the police will do nothing, you do still have the option of lawyering up and suing for the assault. The standard of evidence in a civil case is much lower than a criminal one (balance of probabilities vs reasonable doubt). You'd have to prove damages though to get anything, but there may be punitive damages as well (I have no idea). It might be worth inquiring.
I always find it odd the number of angry drivers posters here encounter. I've had the odd moron slow down to shout something at me, and the very occasional honking, but nothing physical, and nothing that approaches the anger that some of you get, and it's pretty uncommon.