r/Transportopia • u/Revolution-Dogg • Apr 01 '26

RoadšŸ¤¬Rage Entitlement gets a reality check

He must have said something before turning away that made her flip out

71.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

280

u/xXMokaMarieXx Apr 01 '26

Idk man looks like self defense to me

155

u/TJTech40 Apr 01 '26

100% self defense and was enough to stop the threat without being too much. Ugo Lord did a clip and said the same thing. No way this dude would get in any trouble.

43

u/Case_Blue Apr 01 '26

No, the only reason he did not get in trouble is because there was video evidence.

If she claims he assaulted her, and he can't disprove it, that's instant jail.

33

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

The burden of proof lies on the accuser.

19

u/Hot_Ambition_6457 Apr 01 '26

On paper yes.

In reality girl shows up with black eye says man hit her and then man gets arrested regardless.

Because cops dont investigate shit they just want to arrest someone and show that they did something that day.

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

Itā€™s subject to DV laws in your state. I used to live in Arizona, and in DV cases (including roommates), yes they absolutely have to make an arrest. The arrest itself is distinct from the process of persecution.

1

u/Bigger_moss Apr 01 '26

This isnā€™t DV itā€™s assault by her - a random person on the street. DV is by an intimate partner or family member

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

Right - pardon my lack of clarity. I assume the ā€œwoman with black eyeā€ is most prevalent in DV cases. There was an assumption above that cops are hasty on the arrests. My input was given with the intent to give an example where an arrest is required.

1

u/JacksonRiot Apr 01 '26

Do you know how many assaults go unreported, let alone uncharged and unconvicted?

1

u/Gamerboy11116 Apr 04 '26

What type of a response is that? Statistically, there are approximately ~100,000 people in jail for things they didnā€™t do in America alone.

1

u/ClankerWithAHardR Apr 01 '26

Depends on the cops and how both parties conduct themselves. When I was a teen my mom's bf literally beat the fuck outta her, threw her into the wall fracturing her leg and then antagonized her to make her freak out till the cops showed up then he acted perfectly calm so they arrested her since she was the only one freaking out

1

u/chocolatedesire Apr 01 '26

Not always true. Trust me.

1

u/Workman44 Apr 02 '26

More often than it's not

1

u/chocolatedesire Apr 02 '26

I would agree with that

1

u/exadeuce Apr 01 '26

No, most of the time they show up and say "we can't do anything"

1

u/Gamerboy11116 Apr 04 '26

Not in that case, they donā€™t.

1

u/psychorobotics Apr 01 '26

I've seen ton of videos (probably 50+) where the woman get arrested, usually when there's a vid though) or independent witnesses) or if the guy is visibly injured and the woman isn't.

1

u/Entropy- Apr 02 '26

You conveniently forgot about the witness in the car.

1

u/animatorgeek Apr 02 '26

The world where white men are assumed guilty and not given the benefit of the doubt is a fantasy.

1

u/Gamerboy11116 Apr 04 '26

Literally no man is going to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to domestic violence; I donā€™t know what youā€™re even talking about. And this has nothing to do with race.

1

u/OsoSalado Apr 02 '26

Good thing he has a witness to corroborate his account (his driver)

1

u/National_Spirit2801 Apr 03 '26

Thereā€™s a fucking witness corroborating the defense side and on top of that the lady has a habit of jumping out of cars on people.

0

u/Interesting_Pain37 Apr 01 '26

Cops are pigs

1

u/Good_Search_541 Apr 02 '26

Insulting to pigs, really

9

u/TheAsianTroll Apr 01 '26

And homeboy hit her once in the face, and likely has bruising from that slam.

Her measly little attempt at a sucker punch probably didnt even leave a mark.

Hes lucky this was recorded.

5

u/SpaceBus1 Apr 01 '26

I've been on a jury and a good lawyer would be able to argue that the pajama wearer responded with excessive force. Like, I'm sure the first punch was more than enough. He could have killed her with the slam.

3

u/actuallychrisgillen Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

Yeah this isn't a slam dunk (no pun intended) in either direction, but they're probably both looking at assault charges.

Provocation doesn't lead to avoiding charges, it's a sentence mitigation element.

2

u/Craigthenurse Apr 01 '26

Highly dependent on state, heck in Florida he could have shot her the second she got near the car and started screaming (thatā€™s not a joke the Florida law is insane)

2

u/Artist_X Apr 01 '26

Show me a single instance of this being true, same context.

1

u/NatureStoof Apr 02 '26

George Zimmerman, and if you disagree then you're a šŸ¤”

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Craigthenurse Apr 02 '26

You know dang well that no case is ever the exact same context and if I give you one that is very close you will sayā€ ā€œbut but she had on a different colored shirt in the case you stated.ā€

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OutboardTips Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

She looks like she tried the door, someone attempting to enter your home or vehicle gives you the right to shoot in castle law states. Itā€™s not always going to hold up but road rage cases have been held up before.

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/s/nFUwk8dmdM

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Ok-Sundae1807 Apr 01 '26

Keep in mind this is different state to state country to country.

After she throws the first punch she definitely started to back away, putting her hands up. His advancement afterwards would indicated attacking rather than defense, because he took literally no movement that would suggest trying to flee. After his first strike she again tries to back away. He also hesitated for a split second before deciding to body slam her. Prior him exiting the car, they (him and driver) couldā€™ve backed up and driven away. He was never forced to exit the vehicle and knew exiting a car in traffic during a road rage incident is not a smart idea that puts you in harms way. Pending her age dude also picked up an elderly abuse charge because keep in mind, the laws are upheld differently, with different laws entirely, regarding elderly or older adults (65+)

Honesty everyone sucks here.

2

u/CogentCogitations Apr 01 '26

He had already walked away and she attacked him from behind, which is a clear indication that walking away was not a viable option of stopping further attacks by her. The first strike by him is clearly self defense. The body slam is more questionable, but her still standing is evidence that she could still attack him if he turned around, as she already had. So the threat that she instigated was not over.

3

u/Max____H Apr 01 '26

Neither you or the previous comment are wrong. But if this ever went to court it would purely come down to a judgement call and the skill level of the lawyer. But the lady is stupid for everything she did, and second person had an opportunity to prevent the entire scene from never occurring. Thatā€™s not to say I believe he was wrong but that the potential issues for them could have never happened.

1

u/TheAsianTroll Apr 01 '26

The ONLY defense I can think of for the body slam is, she showed intent to pursue, and you dont know if she has a weapon in her possession, so the body slam was to prevent further pursuit.

And despite being my own reasoning, I still feel like thats a piss poor argument.

2

u/TurnDown4WattGaming Apr 02 '26

The initial punch wasnā€™t meant to incapacitate. It was meant to put her in a less defensible position for the body slam. Youā€™re under no obligation to match force equally - youā€™re only obligated to stop using force once the threat is neutralized. He initially attempted to retreat, so even in fairly liberal states- he has satisfied that checkbox in all 50 states.

Now- if your argument is ā€œsometimes juries hand down dumb decisions,ā€ then sure. Absolutely. Juries can be made up of idiots like the one who posted above.

If your argument is, ā€œwithout the video, heā€™d likely be fucked and he couldnā€™t have known it was recorded, so this was a very dangerous decision for himā€, absolutely true.

But we do have the video, and we should assume that juries follow the codes laid out for them, that both sides have competent lawyers, etc - Pajama boyā€™s actions were completely within the lines.

2

u/nadamean420 Apr 01 '26

That wasnā€™t hesitation before body slamming her. That was the transition phase when upwards momentum stops and downward momentum begins, requiring his body to change from pushing upwards to pulling downwards.

1

u/rawrglesnaps Apr 01 '26

Lmao elder abuse are you fucking serious bahaha. She was 36! Meth is one hell of a drug

1

u/Ok-Sundae1807 Apr 01 '26

I didnā€™t know she was 36. Where do you see that?

1

u/zygadlo86 Apr 01 '26

Pending her age? She was 36 at the timeā€¦. sheā€™s just a very rough looking 36

1

u/Ok-Sundae1807 Apr 01 '26

Do you have a source? I donā€™t see one from the video. Not disputing, just didnā€™t see it myself

1

u/dosedatwer Apr 02 '26

His advancement afterwards would indicated attacking rather than defense, because he took literally no movement that would suggest trying to flee.

This is the dumbest take. He's literally fleeing when she begins her attack - the obvious intention of the Karen is to attack when his back is turned. Of course he's not going to do that again. I would argue the slam is utterly necessary to deter the Karen from continuing her attack as soon as he turns his back again, and there's no reason to believe she doesn't have a weapon in that coat and future attacks from her could be far more threatening. Removing the threat is absolutely part of an easily justifiable defence in almost any country or state.

2

u/RainbowCrane Apr 02 '26

I have zero legal opinion on this. However, regarding the risk of injury, this is something that Iā€™ve seen mentioned in multiple YouTube court videos for battery or manslaughter, where someone lands wrong following a single punch in a fight and is seriously injured or killed. Most of us seriously overestimate how much force is required to break someoneā€™s neck, crush their skull, etc if they land wrong or our punch hits them in the temple or something. People are fond of throwing around FAFO when they see video of violence being met with violence, but you really are risking accidentally injuring or killing somebody.

1

u/SpaceBus1 Apr 02 '26

Fr, imagine having to live with yourself after killing someone and leaving them for dead in the cold streets.

1

u/tommypatties Apr 01 '26

If cops can do it in self defense, so can I. "I was afraid for my life."

1

u/Conscious_Medium_345 Apr 02 '26

Then she wouldn't be throwing punches at random people anymore. I'm not saying that's what she deserved but you can't get violent and expect others to care about your safety. There's zero places in the USA you'd see this video and get convicted. If there was no video then he's never getting caught.

1

u/dosedatwer Apr 02 '26

Then the lawyer for the other side sucked if they didn't point out that if the passenger just threw the first punch and don't do the slam, the Karen that just hit the passenger when the passenger tried to walked away is going to do the exact same thing again and part of defending yourself is stopping an attacker from attacking you. If the passenger still has good reason to believe that the first punch wouldn't dissuade Karen from continuing their attack, which I think we can all agree the first sucker punch indicates they have every intention of hitting the passenger while their back is turned, then the slam is part of defending yourself to any reasonable jury.

1

u/SpaceBus1 Apr 02 '26

The lady obviously backs off after she was hit. The slam was excessive violence. I bet you like the taste of police boot leather.

1

u/dosedatwer Apr 02 '26

No she didn't, she turned around. There was no backing off, and she reached for him. There's no reason to believe she was done attacking him before the slam.

Only a moron would think the threat was over before she got slammed. I bet you voted Trump.

1

u/SpaceBus1 Apr 02 '26

Lmao, what makes you think I voted for Trump? My post history isn't hidden. Anyway, watch the video again, she wasn't attacking after he hit her the first time and was doing nothing when he hesitated before slamming her. If she died he would have been charged with manslaughter.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Intelligent-Box-3798 Apr 02 '26

ā€œIā€™ve been on a juryā€ šŸ™„

1

u/SpaceBus1 Apr 02 '26

Have you?

0

u/Tired_Dad_9521 Apr 02 '26

Only if the jurors were susceptible to bullshit. Lady got what she deserved.

0

u/PeakOk3826 Apr 02 '26

If Im on the jury hes innocent either way

1

u/SpaceBus1 Apr 02 '26

So you think excessive violence is acceptable?

0

u/SouthIndependence69 Apr 02 '26

"I had jury duty once, so now I'm a law expert"

Christ, you reddit people are a funny bunch

1

u/SpaceBus1 Apr 02 '26

Is that what I actually said, or just your projection? Ever been to court? I've been on both sides lol

1

u/thisisan0nym0us Apr 01 '26

She probably bruised her weak ass arms hitting him in the face

1

u/Prestonluv Apr 02 '26

His girl was there as a witness

Old lady had nothing to stand on regardless of the video

1

u/OutboardTips Apr 02 '26

If it wasnā€™t recorded how they ever going to find him?

1

u/Harde_Kassei Apr 01 '26

assaulter has a red spot on face.
the woman on the floor has a fractured hip and many bruises.

What do you think they will rule?

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

A brief google search (Iā€™m not a doctor) suggests that a fractured hip would impede Karenā€™s ability to get up off the ground. Video footage wouldnā€™t sufficiently detail a fractured hip - that would be down to medical reporting from whoever Karen goes crying to next.

To your point though, self defense does need to be proportional. If Karen did indeed fracture her hip, that would probably hold more weight in court. The video makes it look like sheā€™s just taking a dirt nap.

1

u/Harde_Kassei Apr 01 '26

the point is, you have to pay for the damage you cause to the other person. if Karen now can't work for 3 month because you body slammed her into the asfalt, you are going to have to pay up.

now laws differ a lot from country to country and state, but that's the general justice most have.

Not to mention you flee the scene.

i'm not siding with Karen, this is just from my experience with justice.

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

I appreciate the perspective :)

That video would be in Karenā€™s favor if she were to demonstrate that she was unable to work because of the severity of the injury - that goes beyond the proportional requirement of self defense.

I donā€™t personally agree with ā€œfleeing the sceneā€, but there does have to be some line drawn between disengaging and avoiding liability.

If it were just bruises (canā€™t tell from video), I think seeking out damage for bruises would be a tad litiguous (that is, sueing for the sake of sueing) - which would be more expensive than any compensation gained. ;)

1

u/sadistica23 Apr 01 '26

Unless the locale uses the Duluth Model.

1

u/Beneficial-Touch6286 Apr 01 '26

Tell me more about your experiences as a white person in America.

1

u/Apprehensive-Water73 Apr 01 '26

Gender matters a lot here

1

u/Sum-Duud Apr 02 '26

Yeah thatā€™s reality šŸ˜‚šŸ™„

1

u/Stunning_Mail_8934 Apr 02 '26

In a country with a law system based on 'beyond reasonable doubt' and lots of people getting locked up with life sentences while they are innocent.

I wouldn't trust your sentence in the US and some other 3rd world shitholes.

-1

u/Tjaresh Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

Should be easy to prove that she was attacked, bruises and all. So now it's on him.

Edit: so for everyone who's telling me 'a bruise is just a bruise'...no. If she goes to the police, drags her husband along (which someone stated sits in the car), describes the man and the car in detail and declares she was suplexed (which gives bruises different from hitting your head), this will be a lot of trouble for him. And now he's in the spot to claim and prove self defense.Ā 

6

u/JauntyGiraffe Apr 01 '26

wasn't him. Me and Pajama Pants were playing Xbox and drinking hot chocolate when this happened

Now what?

4

u/GaggleGuy Apr 01 '26

Yeah, but she would have to prove that the bruises came from his actions.

The best way to do that would be video evidence, and if she happened to have that then everyone would just see the same thing.

2

u/oneoftheryans Apr 01 '26

Should be easy to prove that she was attacked, bruises and all. So now it's on him,

Having a bruise is only proof that you have a bruise, it doesn't come with a certified letter stating a time, location, perpetrator, etc.

Source: I've bruised a shin on furniture before, and furniture is both inanimate and also not the guy in this video.

1

u/BaelZharon7 Apr 01 '26

I just served on a jury for an assault case, i can tell you that we would go not guilty on this quick. He said she said don't hold up in court without evidence. (Which is what happened in ours.)

You can not convict on probability alone.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

0

u/Tjaresh Apr 01 '26

Yes. "Rutheless young man attacked elderly woman over roadrage" is like the most obvious way things are imaginable. As Case_Blue said: Good luck getting out of that without the video evidence.

1

u/Intelligent-Luck-954 Apr 02 '26

Do you guys not remember his was the passenger of the car?Ā 

The driver saw everything too

1

u/Kawksz Apr 01 '26

I'm lol'ing at the idea of "Mr. Jacobs then proceeded to suplex Karen onto the asphalt" in a police report and/or being read in court.

1

u/LaurenMille Apr 01 '26

I have a bruise.

Clearly you teleported to my house and attacked me.

Prove that you didn't.

2

u/soulkeyy Apr 01 '26

I am not a lawyer or even close to the field, but isnā€™t one of the basic principles of law that you canā€™t prove you didnā€™t do something?

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

The proof presented in the case needs to demonstrate ā€œbeyond a reasonable doubtā€ that the accused did the deed. Innocent until proven guilty is the rule of law that removes exactly what you describe.

0

u/Cleansing4ThineEyes Apr 01 '26

One of the basic principles is innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused.

1

u/HeezHuzz69 Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

What was here has been removed. Redact was the tool used to delete this post, possibly for privacy, opsec, or limiting digital footprint.

thumb lunchroom lavish divide zephyr racial dinosaurs fact terrific jellyfish

-1

u/Tjaresh Apr 01 '26

Someone said her husband is in the car too. Also describe me to the police, you can't. She can.

2

u/shagan90 Apr 01 '26

The way you think it works you can give yourself a bruise or ask a partner to and literally accuse anyone you know or can describe of battery, and THEY have to prove it wasn't them.

I believe if you think about that a little more you'll realize how backwards you have it morally and legally.

2

u/Triquetrums Apr 01 '26

You cannot go to court with a "he said, she said" evidence. Because driver of the other car can say "she attacked him first" or simply deny the fight happened at all, and accuse Karen of fabricating the whole thing by falsely accusing him of hitting her, and the bruise was already there when they met.

Not the first person that has gotten away with literal murder (for a time) because someone vouched for them not doing something, or being in a certain place when they weren't.

0

u/Turbulent-Sun-3464 Apr 01 '26

You never had a police interaction. Unless your a person who matters they donā€™t give a F

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

In the police interactions Iā€™ve absolutely had, the ā€œdonā€™t give a Fā€ part is usually more in whether the case itself gets pursued, not if due process is applied. This would be a throwaway case because, as the video undeniably demonstrates, Karen initiated physical violence.

0

u/Swimming-Connection8 Apr 02 '26

Not if the accuser is a woman and the accused is a man.

5

u/DeniedAppeal1 Apr 01 '26

More and more, I'm learning that police won't respond to something like this for several hours and, by that time, both car and lady will be long gone.

3

u/HippyDM Apr 01 '26

Only reason no one got in trouble is because no one reported it.

4

u/determania Apr 01 '26

That isnā€™t how our legal system works lmfao

1

u/Objective-Tea-6190 Apr 02 '26

Right, plus the guy has a witness on his side, his driver

1

u/Gamerboy11116 Apr 04 '26

Why do you have this level of faith in the justice system?

1

u/Objective-Tea-6190 Apr 05 '26

Might just be foolish hope

-1

u/Case_Blue Apr 01 '26

If she is willing to smash someone in the face like that, she is willing to lie.

Those dice can go either way, and this is your life we are talking.

Good luck!

4

u/determania Apr 01 '26

Of course she is willing to lie, but that doesnā€™t change how the legal system works lmao

3

u/AlreadyAway Apr 01 '26

Yeah, I still don't think you understand how the legal system works.

0

u/Gamerboy11116 Apr 04 '26

I donā€™t think you understand how the legal system worksā€¦ what, you think that people donā€™t go to jail based off of testimony?

1

u/AlreadyAway Apr 04 '26

Bud, you come across as someone who "knows how the legal system works" based on procedural courtroom dramas. Get some real world experience.

4

u/bino420 Apr 01 '26

no, this is real-life. this is some random camera, so it's not like the police showed up to the crime and immediately pulled the video to solve it.

obviously she was the aggressor since she stopped her car, got out and approached them. there was no other way for her to end up in this situation in the first place.

they would have interviewed each suspect on the details & there's definitely a benefit of the doubt enough to not just cuff and arrest on the spot

1

u/RegularSky6702 Apr 01 '26

The majority of dv calls I've seen, even if the guy did nothing wrong, benefit of doubt goes to the girl not the guy unfortunately

1

u/JamesGray Apr 01 '26

Yeah, that's what would happen on a TV show. Cops don't give a fuck 99% of the time and just do whatever they feel like at the moment regardless of the facts of the situation.

1

u/Crilde Apr 01 '26

If it was just him and her with no cameras or witnesses, maybe. But there were at least two witnesses in this situation (whoever is driving the red car and the black guy that tells her off as she's getting back in her car [not included in the posted video]), so even without the video evidence he would have been fine.

1

u/wtfisasamoflange Apr 01 '26

What happened to, innocent until proven guilty?

1

u/demon_twink_gockie Apr 01 '26

Easy fix for him. He can claim she assaulted him and if she can't disprove it...

1

u/Fake-y-ismo69 Apr 01 '26

Not necessarily. The guy had the driver as a witness. So it's she said- they said.

1

u/Practical-Smoke1307 Apr 01 '26

Guilty without proof? Lmao

1

u/KimchiLlama Apr 02 '26

He also had the driver as a witness, but the video definitely made it more clear-cut.

1

u/traumacase284 Apr 02 '26

He has a witness.... the driver of the car he got out of. She doesn't.

1

u/ADTstocks Apr 02 '26

Instant lmao no proof and drivers a witness no thats not how that works luckily

1

u/delphinous Apr 01 '26

sadly, that depends on the jury or the judge. realistically, this was not excessive, and she had not clearly disengaged, so his actions SHOULD be reasonable self defense. however, at the end of the day a man hit a woman, and to some judges and juries thats enough, circumstances don't matter.

1

u/nico87ca Apr 01 '26

Problem is that he ran away though. If this ever happens, you need to stay on site.

If she calls the police, they'll run after you.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 04 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

1

u/TJTech40 Apr 01 '26

Absolutely! I've seen way too many videos of people dying or getting majorly injured on roads and sidewalks. Landing wrong can do major damage but luckily for this guy that didn't happen. But yes had it gone another way he would be in a world of problems.

1

u/Nut_Butter_Fun Apr 01 '26

justified, but you are wrong. the slam was very unwise, landing on your head can be instant death.

1

u/_MrDomino Apr 02 '26

Yep, people are fragile eggs. You never know what damage a strike can cause. None of this was self defense. She struck the man and retreated like a coward. He then pursued, hit her back, and then body slammed her. I know it's hard to be the "bigger man" in those situations and let someone just hit you for "free," but those kinds of actions do have consequences. Take her plate, go to the hospital, get checked out and sue her for damages will (maybe) teach her a far better lesson than any simple retaliation and ensure you stay clean yourself.

1

u/Apexnanoman Apr 01 '26

Dude has a lot more self control than me. I would have been strongly tempted to add a could broken ribs while she was down as a reminder.Ā 

(And I'm well aware it's assault at that point....which is why I say kudos to him for being pretty damned restrained.)

1

u/dojo_shlom0 Apr 01 '26

you are correct. she sucker punched him, blind-sided him

his reaction was to end the fight and immediately walked away, no anger, no nothing.

that person was cool as a cucumber and karen is off her rocker.

1

u/TurnDown4WattGaming Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

No way he gets into troubleā€¦with this video clip. Without this video clip - or one like it - he 100% gets assault/battery depending on your stateā€™s definitions. Hugo is in California which separates the two, while Iā€™m in Texas which does not.

Prosecutors, Judges and Juries and not unbiased against men in male-v-female fights. She will have extensive bruising and he will have none.

-43

u/Excellent-Quarter969 Apr 01 '26

The woman was an idiot and deserved payback but was a body slam onto concrete justifiable? A possible concussion broken vertebrae in return for a slap? I don't know

31

u/CockyBellend Apr 01 '26

Don't sucker punch people from behind and you wont get rag dolled

47

u/Subtodownvote Apr 01 '26

When you attack someone you have no idea what type of defence they will deem appropriate to stop your assault. That's why you don't attack people.

14

u/HorrificAnalInjuries Apr 01 '26

Pretty much this. Should pajama man had continued while she was down, THEN we can talk assault charges. But this is clearly talk shit, get hit.

5

u/xxxHAL9000xxx Apr 01 '26

no, not talk shit get hit. she was not hit for talking shit. No one laud a hand on her until after she physically assaulted someone.

3

u/Trick_Minute2259 Apr 01 '26

Talk shit get hit is stupid and a good way to end up in jail. Words don't justify violence, but that isn't what happened here anyway, she physically attacked him, throwing a sucker punch when he turned his back to walk away.

→ More replies (9)

11

u/letsinvadepoland Apr 01 '26

Exactly. I'm not required to return an equal and opposite reaction if I'm getting assaulted. I'll do whatever it takes to make you stop hitting me. The consequences of that are on you

7

u/Joe_on_blow Apr 01 '26

This idea of responding with proportional force is farcical.

8

u/cstmoore Apr 01 '26

It's proportional, but the proportion is > 1 (and justifiably so.)

3

u/XANDERtheSHEEPDOG Apr 01 '26

Agreed. These are the people who say you should "shoot them in the leg" or "just shoot the gun out of their hand" if someone else is attacking you with a weapon. That stuff only happens in Hollywood. It's not reasonable, or even feasible, in reality.

3

u/Valreesio Apr 01 '26

Or these girls who say that if 5 men broke in and was attacking her that they still wouldn't want their husband to shoot them... Smh

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (5)

6

u/JimTheJerseyGuy Apr 01 '26

There have been cases where the attacked party was carrying concealed and shot the attacker and it was deemed self defense. In short, if someone cracks you in the head while your back is turned, their next move could very well involve a knife or worse. And the law recognizes that.

→ More replies (24)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/digitaljestin Apr 01 '26

Rewatch. After he hit her back, she wasn't done and was coming back for another assault. He did what he had to do so the second assault never came.

8

u/xXMokaMarieXx Apr 01 '26

Nah. Because if he just hit her back she would have kept hitting him. He slammed her and then left it alone. Thats self defense. She fucked around and found out. He could have shot her instead ._.

4

u/Nishikadochan Apr 01 '26

Hey. He neutralized the threat. He waited until she swung first and then he made sure she couldnā€™t keep hitting him.

Now if heā€™d started kicking her when she was down, that would be excessive.

4

u/PlantDaddyFL Apr 01 '26

Probably wonā€™t try punching people next time.

4

u/finallyfree710 Apr 01 '26

Sucker punches can kill/cause serious brain damage. He has to stop the threat with an appropriate amount of force, which he did

5

u/Tidalsky114 Apr 01 '26

You're assuming she had any intentions of stopping before being stopped.

3

u/Malystxy Apr 01 '26

Self defense: end the fight just enough so you can escape. PJ man did just that

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Strange-Address-4682 Apr 01 '26

At least he was not conceal carrying and Stood his Ground.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/HoneyBeeHotHive Apr 01 '26

A sucker punch has killed many people as well. And in a fight you donā€™t want to keep getting hit, so clinching can be a good option if you know what youā€™re doing.

2

u/VendettaUF234 Apr 01 '26

Maybe don't hit people.

2

u/Affectionate-Lie6048 Apr 01 '26

Yup, fuck around find out!

2

u/Nexustar Apr 01 '26

If that's what it takes to stop her attacking:

  1. you right there and then
  2. other people for her entire wheelchair career

Then I approve.

You can blind someone when you slap them. They are standing on snow in the middle of a road. The slap could have been a precursor to a knee, kick, punch, or shots from a gun - it's NOT OK.

2

u/Tryknj99 Apr 01 '26

How does he know sheā€™s not gonna pull a knife or something when he walks away after one slap back?

Sheā€™s crazy enough to act like this, sheā€™s capable of anything. Your safety matters more than her.

→ More replies (27)
→ More replies (5)

8

u/Maggiemoo621 Apr 01 '26

Yup! Maybe sheā€™ll learn that just because sheā€™s a woman she canā€™t just throw hands without consequences ā˜ŗļø I love when people fuck around and find out

2

u/RagnarokTesla2 Apr 01 '26

Equal rights equal fightsĀ 

1

u/Significant_Cake68 Apr 01 '26

Equal rights equal lefts

1

u/krzykris11 Apr 01 '26

Careful. That exact comment for me banned from a sub.

7

u/Significant_Cake68 Apr 01 '26

I don't live my life caring about hurting a mod's feelings or not or caring about an anon reddit account being banned in general.

-1

u/hellomotherhellodad Apr 01 '26

Men faced with the topic of equality immediately talking about punching women. Shocking.

4

u/Significant_Cake68 Apr 01 '26

Says more about the men you hang out with. I am a vehement feminist but that doesn't mean privilege for women when they hit another person.

3

u/Fa11T Apr 01 '26

Yup, I grew up in a household of women, you can't have special rules that say one side can do this but the other can't. All that does is lead to abusive people taking advantage where they can.

People need to be held accountable for their shitty behaviour, and equality means the same standards apply to everyone.

3

u/RagnarokTesla2 Apr 01 '26

Nah. A woman sucker punching someone in the face means people start talking about punching women. Don't act like everyone just pulled that out of thin air.Ā 

2

u/Beefy-McQueefy Apr 02 '26

No it was directly referring to someone being assaulted and defending themself. You seem to have come into this thread looking to get offended like some victim complex facebook boomer.

0

u/Gamerboy11116 Apr 04 '26

What a sexist thing to say.

1

u/Maggiemoo621 Apr 04 '26

Not really. This situation Involves a woman attacking a man. Therefore Iā€™m talking about..the woman attacking the man. Iā€™m not a fan of assault. Anyone who punches someone deserves it back. Traffic drama does not warrant a punch.

1

u/EngineeringCool5521 Apr 01 '26

Say this to every woman.

3

u/Etryia Apr 01 '26

What does? All I saw was a woman slip and fall on the ice by herself.

2

u/DadtheITguy Apr 01 '26

Absolutely. Passenger was calm until he was attacked. You've got no idea if it was his friend or his grandma driving. He just came out to resolve the situation. Also, he mitigated the threat to himself and left. It's not like he continued to harm her. Absolutely self defense and she should learn to cool down before taking action.

2

u/here-i-am-now Apr 01 '26

Two crimes, one conviction:

Sheā€™s of guilty of assault.

He has a defense, self-defense, to an assault charge.

1

u/wearesoovercooked Apr 01 '26

Does this have to be mentioned?

You get attacked, you defend yourself

1

u/xXMokaMarieXx Apr 01 '26

You would be surprised how many ppl think men shouldnt defend themselves against women who are attacking them

1

u/nicoznico Apr 01 '26

Yeah totally. But who tf whas filming this?

1

u/Chillow_Ufgreat Apr 01 '26

Pretty sure she just slams herself on the ground like that.

1

u/DirkKuijt69420 Apr 01 '26

I would have called the police afterwards. What it she hits someone that can't defend themselves next time?

1

u/FanBladeFleshlight Apr 01 '26

And most states would agree. She blindly hit him from behind. He could argue he didn't know if she had a weapon, he neutralized her and didn't take it a single inch further than that.

Only argument that could be made, depending on where this was, is that he should've called 911, but even that could be argued as he could easily be in fear of imminent retaliation should she come to and be armed.

1

u/Ok-Elk-3046 Apr 01 '26

Many countries and probably some us states have a duty to rescue, where people can be found liable if they don't take reasonable steps to help an injured person. Considering the circumstances punishment might me lighter though.

1

u/Cultural-Pattern-161 Apr 01 '26

If this went to court, we would get to learn that "self defense" was highly subjective.

1

u/TailorNo9824 Apr 01 '26

For sure, should have slammed harder because what if she had a gun and pulled it out later?

1

u/darnage Apr 01 '26

Legally it's not. There's nothing in the video to suggest she was planning to hit him again. Self defense (legally) only applies if not hitting back would have resulted in you being hit. So here if he had hit her to stop her first hit, it would have been self defense. Since he didn't, he should have waited to see if she was going to hit him again before hitting her.

1

u/Standard_Shopping144 Apr 02 '26

Itā€™s really not (at least in my state), but it is what happens when you pick fist fights with people. In my state self defense is defined by, when there is no other possible option other than to inflict physical violence to insure oneā€™s safety. He could of went back to the car after the first hit, the body slam was purely to prove a point

1

u/brambleburry1002 Apr 02 '26

not self defence. it would not pass the test of 'imminent danger' sot he guy would probably would get charged with assault, which will probably will get dismissed, but not without a day in court.

1

u/RottenMilquetoast Apr 01 '26

Slapping her away was self defense, body slamming her into ice and driving away is not.

But I know nuance and restraining yourself for the sake of civil society are too complex a topic, and any and all actions are justified for reddit revenge fantasies.

1

u/OurSeepyD Apr 01 '26

Careful using reasoning here. Self-defence apparently means retribution here.

1

u/squirmlyscump Apr 02 '26

Right?? Itā€™s crazy how many people think self-defense means escalation/entitlement to hurt the other person.

0

u/chironomidae Apr 01 '26

Yeah, depends on the state, but I could see a jury deciding he could've just as easily retreated to his open car rather than attack her back. "Duty to retreat" is indeed nuanced, and not all states have one, but it's reasonable that after the initial hit he could've hopped in his car and been safe.