Is this roadrage revenge justified?

[911fever]

fLuKI-7lAnc

:rofl:
someone got pwned

[403Gemini]

I would need to see the full clip, what led up to the initial road rage? Did the guy who got beat up get pulled out of his vehicle?

I don't think it's right that he ran the dude over and jetted, but if he was honest to god the innocent victim in this incident from the beginning, he could easily plead he felt that his life was in immediate danger and was his only way of self defense.

[beyond_ban]

lol, good video.

[Chester]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[shakalaka]

lol brilliant.

[kevie88]

Awesome!! hahahaa

[chkolny541]

hahaha that fucking whale of a person got got. YOU GOT GOT

[TomcoPDR]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
but if he was honest to god the innocent victim in this incident from the beginning, he could easily plead he felt that his life was in immediate danger and was his only way of self defense.

:werd: exactly, espeically when the whale kept on going trying to bust the windshield.

But again, need to know the entire incident... but by the looks of size, I'd say the whale (red skirt) started it... big guy = thinks he's tough.

[project240]

Can't tell much without the whole video, but that's pretty crazy

[StreetRacerX]

That's what happens when you act like a douche, I'd say the big guy had it coming based on what information was given.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


I don't think it's right that he ran the dude over and jetted, but if he was honest to god the innocent victim in this incident from the beginning, he could easily plead he felt that his life was in immediate danger and was his only way of self defense.

I would have almost agreed with you until he diverted the car towards the guy at the very end. Once he was in the car and out of immediate danger, he can no longer then come back and assault someone, citing self-defense.

That said, I loved the vid. That douchebag will think twice before trying to attack someone much smaller than him in the future.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Weapon_R

Once he was in the car and out of immediate danger, he can no longer then come back and assault someone, citing self-defense.


Sure he can, if you notice, the passenger door is open, but no one there, looking like the red shirt guy had opened it to hurt the driver, meaning he could do it again. Locked doors, and rolled up windows wouldn't be effective against someone raging enough to body slam a windshield IMO

[Modelexis]

When you come back for seconds like that, yes, you deserve to get rundid over.

:rofl:

[psycoticclown]

Originally posted by Weapon_R


I would have almost agreed with you until he diverted the car towards the guy at the very end. Once he was in the car and out of immediate danger, he can no longer then come back and assault someone, citing self-defense.

That said, I loved the vid. That douchebag will think twice before trying to attack someone much smaller than him in the future.

I think he can. If you were just beaten badly by a guy who was road raging, you're not thinking rationally. The only thing on your mind is trying to get out of there. A bodyslam on your windshield would just activate your fight or flight mechanism. He could easily argue he was just trying to get out of harms way and the only way he could do that was driving out of there. When you're in that situation, I don't think you're going to think about how effective your door locks are and how your safe now.

[top_speed]

it would have been awesome if he just reversed and ran his over again.

[sr20s14zenki]

Haha, the guy is a piece of shit bully, im glad he got run over, maybe all bullies could be treated to this kind of punishment?. Maybe he should have used his head and not jumped on the guys hood while he was started and ready to drive (duhhh). I can say if I was in that position, i would do the same. I have a blunt object in my car at all times, just for that kind of situation. If a guy goes to the lengths to drag me out of my car, im not coming out without swinging something at his head. My safety/my family's safety is #1 priority.

[bwling]

:rofl: :rofl: The guy is an idiot and deserved it. Who the fuck elbow drops a car?

[top_speed]

Originally posted by bwling
:rofl: :rofl: The guy is an idiot and deserved it. Who the fuck elbow drops a car?
the rock would.

[..*JDM Hatch*..]

priceless!

[Integra10]

Originally posted by top_speed
it would have been awesome if he just reversed and ran his over again.

That's what I was hoping for haha. That guy totally deserved it. If someone just beat my ass and than came and jumped on my car I would run him over too. It looks so funny when the guy slams on the gas because you can tell the guy on the hood is thinking "Oh shit I fucked up!"

[shakalaka]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


Sure he can, if you notice, the passenger door is open, but no one there, looking like the red shirt guy had opened it to hurt the driver, meaning he could do it again. Locked doors, and rolled up windows wouldn't be effective against someone raging enough to body slam a windshield IMO



Originally posted by psycoticclown


I think he can. If you were just beaten badly by a guy who was road raging, you're not thinking rationally. The only thing on your mind is trying to get out of there. A bodyslam on your windshield would just activate your fight or flight mechanism. He could easily argue he was just trying to get out of harms way and the only way he could do that was driving out of there. When you're in that situation, I don't think you're going to think about how effective your door locks are and how your safe now.


You guys are missing the point. If you notice near the end after the guy body slams the windshield, the driver just floors it. And if he would have gotten run over in the process of the driver just flooring it straight out of a situation where a reasonable person believes that there can be actual danger to their life, it would have been fine. However, if you notice as the assailant is about to fall off the hood to a side, the driver actually diverts his car towards him, eventually running him over. That would not sit well in his favour for claiming self defence at all. Because it will be argued that he could have just kept going straight to save himself from the assailant and it would have been sufficient in the given circumstances, however diverting the car towards the assailant to actually run over the guy wasn't necessitated by the circumstances. The courts have placed the onus of proof on the defendant claiming self-defence, and it is indeed VERY difficult to satisfy it in most cases.

So if the assailant had died after this incident, I doubt the defendant would have been able to rely on self-defence. The driver would most likely be able to satisfy the requirements for provocation and get away with a less harsher sentence.

[ITR_typeR]

Originally posted by shakalaka






You guys are missing the point. If you notice near the end after the guy body slams the windshield, the driver just floors it. And if he would have gotten run over in the process of the driver just flooring it straight out of a situation where a reasonable person believes that there can be actual danger to their life, it would have been fine. However, if you notice as the assailant is about to fall off the hood to a side, the driver actually diverts his car towards him, eventually running him over. That would not sit well in his favour for claiming self defence at all. Because it will be argued that he could have just kept going straight to save himself from the assailant and it would have been sufficient in the given circumstances, however diverting the car towards the assailant to actually run over the guy wasn't necessitated in the circumstances. The courts have placed the onus of proof on the defendant claiming self-defence, and it is indeed VERY difficult to satisfy it in most cases.

So if the assailant had died after this incident, I doubt the defendant would have been able to rely on self-defence. The driver would most likely be able to satisfy the requirements for provocation and get away with a less harsher sentence. maybe oversteer?

[shakalaka]

lol I suppose that's up to the jury to decide. Although from the video it's kinda obvious that it wasn't the case.

[psycoticclown]

He can easily argue he was so scared he was just steering the car wildly to get the assailant off.

[Disoblige]

I would have run him over accidentally while trying to floor it to get him off..

Then when I squished him under, I slam on the brakes to stop because I don't want to run over him. That'd probably satisfy as self-defense :D

[shakalaka]

Then again, he wasn't steering the car wildly. He started driving straight and the guy started slipping off to one side and he steered towards that side. Steering wildly would be going in a zig zag or something, I would think.

But like I said it is very, very hard to prove self-defence in most of the cases as the courts have set the bar pretty high up and the onus on the defendant is quite a hard one to prove. Only in circumstances where the judges are 100% satisfied that the defendant had literally no other way out and doing what they did was the only option, will they allow self-defence.

[NightFX2]

Since he only broke the guys ribs I think it's justifiable, if he ran over the dudes head and killed him however... :D

[Maxx Mazda]

That was awesome! Hahahaha he deserved it as soon as he came back for more.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by shakalaka


You guys are missing the point. If you notice near the end after the guy body slams the windshield, the driver just floors it. And if he would have gotten run over in the process of the driver just flooring it straight out of a situation where a reasonable person believes that there can be actual danger to their life, it would have been fine. However, if you notice as the assailant is about to fall off the hood to a side, the driver actually diverts his car towards him, eventually running him over. That would not sit well in his favour for claiming self defence at all. Because it will be argued that he could have just kept going straight to save himself from the assailant and it would have been sufficient in the given circumstances, however diverting the car towards the assailant to actually run over the guy wasn't necessitated by the circumstances. The courts have placed the onus of proof on the defendant claiming self-defence, and it is indeed VERY difficult to satisfy it in most cases.

So if the assailant had died after this incident, I doubt the defendant would have been able to rely on self-defence. The driver would most likely be able to satisfy the requirements for provocation and get away with a less harsher sentence.

This. You saved me all the typing work haha. Self defence involves using as much force as deemed necessary to repel your assailant, and its obvious that he deliberately steers towards red-shirt. This is definitely more force than necessary.


Originally posted by psycoticclown
He can easily argue he was so scared he was just steering the car wildly to get the assailant off.

This would absolutely not be an easy argument to make. Not impossible, but definitely not easy.

[vps]

That guy definitely deserved it, he already won the fight, and decided to come back instead of walking away.

[Kloubek]

The way I see it, red-shirt-guy had something coming to him. Being that the driver doesn't stand a chance in a fight, he deserved to get some sort of licks in. Running over someone might not be the answer, but with that said I feel no sympathy for the other guy. Act like an asshole, and you run the risk of it coming back to you.

[dsr7723]

Was a bit excessive to be called self defense but windshield body checker guy def had it coming. Looked like the vic wanted to leave but buddy had to put fuel on the fire.

[Tilly]

as they said at the end, both drivers were charged are criminals. in my books, both of them have animalistic tendencies that need to be resolved. thus, both individuals need strict punishment and rehabilitation. NEITHER of them were in the right.

[CUG]

Yup, there's a threat. Too bad he didn't kill him.

[bignerd]

Its not like he put it in reverse and backed over the guy after he fell off.... I think you could probably get away with "panicked, hit the gas, man on windshield/could not see" defense.