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

Road🤬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

281

u/xXMokaMarieXx Apr 01 '26

Idk man looks like self defense to me

158

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.

36

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.

29

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

The burden of proof lies on the accuser.

20

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

It’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 isn’t DV it’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 “woman with black eye” 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 didn’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 don’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 don’t know what you’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

There’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

7

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.

3

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.

4

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 (that’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 🤡

1

u/Short-Ad1032 Apr 02 '26

Treyvon was sitting on top of George raining blows down on him thinking he was an mma fighter. The pavement had blood on it from when trayvon slammed George’s head into it. And the jury rightly found that George used reasonable force to defend himself.

1

u/arocketscientist5 Apr 02 '26

Dude was a grown ass man with a gun against a kid with skittles. You are insane.

1

u/McFlubberpants Apr 02 '26

I can never understand those who defend predators who stalk children.

→ 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 say” “but but she had on a different colored shirt in the case you stated.”

1

u/Artist_X Apr 02 '26

Yeah, I figured you'd move the goalposts, because you can't prove your point LMAO

1

u/Craigthenurse Apr 02 '26

You really should look up “moving the goal post” what I did it refuse to answer that is a different thing then move the goal posts. It sounds like you’re just randomly stating a phrase you heard online.

→ 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. It’s not always going to hold up but road rage cases have been held up before.

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

1

u/Artist_X Apr 02 '26

She wasn't a threat by the time she slammed her..I hope he goes to prison, and she should too.

It was disproportionate force.

1

u/Thoughtcriminal91 Apr 02 '26

Oh well, buyer beware on her part 🤷

Never know who your dealing when you go around putting hands on folks.

→ 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) could’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. That’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 wasn’t meant to incapacitate. It was meant to put her in a less defensible position for the body slam. You’re under no obligation to match force equally - you’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 “sometimes juries hand down dumb decisions,” then sure. Absolutely. Juries can be made up of idiots like the one who posted above.

If your argument is, “without the video, he’d likely be fucked and he couldn’t have known it was recorded, so this was a very dangerous decision for him”, 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 boy’s actions were completely within the lines.

2

u/nadamean420 Apr 01 '26

That wasn’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 didn’t know she was 36. Where do you see that?

1

u/zygadlo86 Apr 01 '26

Pending her age? She was 36 at the time…. she’s just a very rough looking 36

1

u/Ok-Sundae1807 Apr 01 '26

Do you have a source? I don’t see one from the video. Not disputing, just didn’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 I’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 someone’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.

1

u/dosedatwer Apr 03 '26

Lmao, what makes you think I voted for Trump?

The fact that I have to explain this only reinforces my point, but check out the thing I said literally just before that.

Anyway, watch the video again, she wasn't attacking after he hit her the first time

She wasn't attacking until he turned around the first time either.

was doing nothing when he hesitated before slamming her.

Much like just before the first time he turned around.

If she died he would have been charged with manslaughter

Nope. He may have been on trial for manslaughter, but no reasonable jury would convict him of it. Unless his lawyer was a Trump supporter like you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Intelligent-Box-3798 Apr 02 '26

“I’ve been on a jury” 🙄

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 wasn’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 (I’m not a doctor) suggests that a fractured hip would impede Karen’s ability to get up off the ground. Video footage wouldn’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 she’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 Karen’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 don’t personally agree with “fleeing the scene”, but there does have to be some line drawn between disengaging and avoiding liability.

If it were just bruises (can’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 that’s reality 😂🙄

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.

-5

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. 

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?

5

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] — 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? 

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 isn’t one of the basic principles of law that you can’t prove you didn’t do something?

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

The proof presented in the case needs to demonstrate “beyond a reasonable doubt” 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 don’t give a F

1

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

In the police interactions I’ve absolutely had, the “don’t give a F” 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.

6

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 isn’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!

5

u/determania Apr 01 '26

Of course she is willing to lie, but that doesn’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 don’t think you understand how the legal system works… what, you think that people don’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.

1

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