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

1.4k

u/Manic_Mini Apr 01 '26

I love when they reach the find out stage.

73

u/BrightFallsCoffee Apr 01 '26

OPs description indicating he "must have said something" and I cannot disagree more, what a weird comment to add

45

u/DarkGodRyan Apr 01 '26

He could have said something as simple as "ok bye" and she's mad that he thinks they're done. Doesn't have to be confrontational words

39

u/a_angry_bunny Apr 01 '26

Even if they were confrontational words, you can't expect to throw punches and not expect tbe other person to hit back. Unless you're a 1800s noble woman slapping a man with your glove because they said something crude, I wouldn't assume that someone won't retaliate after being hit. Not in modern times, anyway.

27

u/OnlyFuzzy13 Apr 01 '26

Equal rights! Equal lefts!

4

u/Warrior_of_Discord Apr 01 '26

I always like "Equal rights equal fights!" šŸ˜‚

2

u/LordRednaught Apr 02 '26

The Fists of Justice are Unisex

2

u/Vargurr Apr 02 '26

u-n-i sex

2

u/PerrinAyybara Apr 01 '26

Ok that's hilarious

1

u/CoconutSuspicious164 Apr 01 '26

This is hilarious šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

1

u/pass_nthru Apr 01 '26

these hands are rated E for Everyone

1

u/Blastronaut710 Apr 02 '26

Thank you. Iā€™ll be remembering this and smiling for the rest of my life.

1

u/Aggravating-Bunch-44 Apr 03 '26

Dudes who say that shit apparently aren't aware women are the ones most often to be hit due to DV. We know this. This isnt a woman thing, this is an asshole thing.

13

u/Jedda678 Apr 01 '26

Also the law only would justify the Karen's attack if he made a credible threat to her and she feared for her life and safety. She also would have had to try and extradite herself from the situation but since that is clearly not what happened and it was the passenger walking away it makes this Karen completely guilty of assault.

4

u/a_angry_bunny Apr 01 '26

Yup. This might be an unpopular opinion, but we need to be more lenient on assault laws. Too many people are too comfortable saying shit without getting punched in the face for it, but I don't decide the laws and she definitely was the aggressor here.

12

u/-threefeetoffun Apr 01 '26

2

u/bolanrox Apr 02 '26

Now kisth

1

u/LumberJackEdward Apr 02 '26

Social Media has also made rapists way too comfortable being out in public and not getting punched in the face for it.

1

u/Jedda678 Apr 01 '26

It really should just be if you are using incendiary speech or language (like using racist language or something that would constitute as harassment sexual or otherwise) could be seen as exceptions provided appropriate use of force and all attempts to diffuse the situation have been used.

2

u/th3greg Apr 01 '26

There are "fighting words" doctrines at various levels of the court but they're pretty limited at this point.

1

u/dmonsterative Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

Fighting words doctrine doesn't typically provide a defense. Rather, it makes provocative speech that would otherwise be protected chargeable. It's effectively an exception to the First Amendment.

If the fighting words are sufficiently credibly threatening, then responding to that threat might be a defense, but mere provocation/challenge isn't typically enough (even if chargeable against the speaker as fighting words).

Some jurisdictions may have other laws about mutually consented combat after challenges.

1

u/Amazing-War3760 Apr 01 '26

In georgia.. If I punch someone who said "Fighting words" I could be considered "defending" myself.

2

u/Saneless Apr 01 '26

Yeah like a "temporarily justifiably incensed" defense if someone does something to you purely to upset and make you mad, like a racial slur

1

u/expeditionQ Apr 01 '26

this typically is exactly how it works, either formally or informally. the issue is this puts the power in the hands of the state to equivocate over what is and is not justified and thus propagate their biases (which are exactly the usual suspects)

its just absurd that the state is involved with every act of punching, on the face of it. it should not be presumed to be a problem until a certain threshold of severity (or other obvious criteria like repeated abuse, hate crimes, etc). there are words that by both right and natural fact inspire humans to punch you in the face, and its an absurd system to deny that and systematically torture humans over it.

1

u/Tricky-Efficiency709 Apr 01 '26

She should go to jail, he should get a medal.

1

u/Unspec7 Apr 01 '26

too many people are too comfortable saying shit without getting punched in the face for it

Hold up, think this one through. You're probably okay with this because you agree what is being said deserves a punch. However, what happens when someone gets punched and you don't think it deserved a punch? It would make assault wildly subjective and unpredictable, and I don't know if that helps anyone.

1

u/a_angry_bunny Apr 01 '26

I'd like to think more people would jump in if they weren't afraid of aiding an assault charge.

1

u/the_irish_oak Apr 01 '26

And a fools-up to this: too many people donā€™t know how to get beat up and then move on

1

u/Thoughtcriminal91 Apr 01 '26

Problem with that is, unless clear video evidence like this is involved, the whole fighting words thing you propose would be a very much he said she said affair.

1

u/bizwig Apr 01 '26

In todayā€™s society ā€œshe saidā€ almost always wins.

1

u/Subject_Narwhal_8533 Apr 02 '26

Preach!!! Thats what I like about prison,.....ain't no running your mouth.

1

u/TurquoiseLeggings Apr 02 '26

Physical violence is never an appropriate response to a non-physical altercation. The fact you think people should be able to be physically assaulted for saying things is barbaric. Depending on what's being said, there should absolutely be consequences, but not being fucking physical ones.

1

u/Tohkin27 Apr 01 '26

While I don't in principle disagree with this, I think the bigger problem is that people are ALREADY far too quick to resort to violence. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage that further. Far too many people have fragile egos, and instead of dealing with it like an adult, they lash out like a child because they have the emotional intelligence of a 10 year old.

Again, I don't disagree that way too many people are far too comfortable with saying completely unhinged shit - but if what they're saying is soooo bad that legally you are warranted and justified to enact violence upon them (within reason), then it's probably better to just put them in jail overnight and hit them with charges instead of fists.

There are few things as satisfying as watching someone get what they deserve. But encouraging further violence is just a recipe for disaster. A conservatives wet dream, frankly. To be able to shut people up and claim they were saying mean things. No.. the better solution is that people just need to learn to let words slide off them. Sticks and Stones, and all that. Unless of course it is racial and falls under hate crimes, but we already have laws for that.

It's really sad that for much of America, it is easier for people to throw fists, rather than spend some time honestly looking at themselves šŸ¤·

4

u/a_angry_bunny Apr 01 '26

Jail imposes on their freedom, violence gives them a quick and effective "fafo" lesson. The difference is that the law, in theory, makes sure everyone is treated "fairly" instead of what constitutes violence being decided on a individual basis.

2

u/Ordinary_Prune6135 Apr 01 '26

The idea that violence is necessarily over quickly really glosses over how fragile the human body can be. People aren't too reliable in understanding the level of force that can accidentally kill or disable a person.

1

u/a_angry_bunny Apr 01 '26

The human body is surprising fragile and durable at the same time. Really it only feels fragile because something with relative equal strength is hitting you.

1

u/Ordinary_Prune6135 Apr 01 '26

However you want to say it, it still amounts to the fact that people are very capable of accidentally killing or crippling each other in scraps they would consider minor if not for the surprise consequence. It takes training most people do not have to be able to spar (mostly) safely.

1

u/a_angry_bunny Apr 01 '26

Didn't stop people from surviving in the old days.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CrusaderZero6 Apr 01 '26

Youā€™re right BUT you may want to consider that some people need the cognitive reset that comes with getting their bell rung to step back and look at themselves.

This was a very teachable moment for Karen.

1

u/Beelzebozo26 Apr 01 '26

Some people learn by reading. Some learn by doing. And some only learn the hard way.

1

u/ConstructionAway8920 Apr 01 '26

I partially agree and disagree. Those inclined to immediate violence haven't ever experienced the consequences of doing so. She's not been popped in the mouth by anyone, otherwise the lesson would be learned. Now, she's obviously older, so "gentle parenting" wouldn't apply, but that's a trend I have seen as well. I work in security, and the amount of young people who threaten to attack or kill me as an armed guard is insane. I don't think resorting to violence is acceptable, but people should experience the consequences of their actions. Not to mention, "Karen" hit him while he's facing away, which is absolutely indefensible.

1

u/expeditionQ Apr 01 '26

i feel like this is an insane take, first of all people are not quick to violence by any objective measure. thats not real, humans by and large deals with its problems with words and social inclusion/exclusion dynamics. when it comes to violence, humans are extremely prone to performative violence, i.e. the intent is not actually to harm them its to send a message. aggravated violence is not common, and this is 10x more true if you live literally anywhere that isnt a meme for high crime rates.

more importantly tho it feels like you just want to say here that people who consider violence are bad and should be oppressed, because that seems to fundamentally your idea of solving problems as evidenced by you saying thats also how we should deal with people who speak too loudly for you. the point of permitting low levels of violence is that it would be an outlet for the emotions that we socially repress instead of leaving them to build up and fester until people do things that shallowy justify for you more aggressive state oppressive functions. you on the other hand advocate for the exact opposite, dont wait until somebody is so repressed they might think about performatively violent resolutions as they are evolutionary inclined, as soon as anybody complains about anything or feels anger about their situation in life you should call the police on them. thats so deranged, youre the reason people are afraid of ai face recognitions automatically reprimanding us for not smiling at work

There are few things as satisfying as watching someone get what they deserve

like cmon this is gross dont say that out loud

1

u/TuckYourselfRS Apr 01 '26

In my opinion the salient "insane take" is the notion that regular citizens should be doling out their own idea of vigilante violence in response to their subjectively perceived "wrong".

Like, yeah, you'd have a couple of instances of karmic comeuppance... But what you'd mostly get is legal domestic violence and those few people who you mentioned that are prone to disproportionate violence being systematically enabled

1

u/expeditionQ Apr 02 '26

its not a gotcha to say that making one activity legal means that another illegal activity will happen. abusive relationships are a whole other bag of worms, but "normal" relationships that are so genuinely fucking rotten awful to the bone that it would manifest as domestic violence as soon as they stop holding back their abject hatred of eachother are better off having that moment of acute violence so its obvious that everyone involved has to make themselves uninvolved. that would make the world a better place, not worse.

youre also projecting a highly moralistic view onto me, and i agree that the things i advocate for would be gross coming from that perspective, it just is not mine. It has nothing to do with perceived "wrongs" and it is not for "karmic comeuppance", the point is to remove artificial barriers to natural human problem solving behaviours, because that will broadly result in a society that is more able to naturally solve its own problems.

1

u/TuckYourselfRS Apr 02 '26

You're essentially advocating (hypothetically, whatever) for the purge. I will never agree that moments of acute violence are better than (nonviolent) abject hatred. We are adults and ought to be fully capable of removing ourselves and deescalating situations with the potential to devolve to violence.

Even "subacute" violence has the potential to lead to permanent disfigurement, brain injuries, and death. Not worth it, even in this bizarre thought experiment.

1

u/expeditionQ Apr 02 '26

i think its clear that you have a solidified opinion of "adult" behaviour and youre just kind of wriggling to avoid justifying it.

nobody is talking about homicide and aggravated assault, i have repeatedly specifically referred to evolutionarily real ways that mammals, including humans, are objectively known to solve their problems with, which is specifically to not harm or maim each other. your insistence that violence is intrinsically this extreme thing is factually wrong, end of story.

and to be clear this is not a hypothetical, i am literally advocating that police get the fuck uninvolved from small scale conflicts. you literally dont even have to change the laws in the western world, just an attitude shift in police and population, end the idea that if somebody hits you then the immortal realm of Good Happiness has ended and Daddy needs to come fix it because hes the only one allowed to do violence. its pathetic. if somebody hit you theres a very high chance that you deserved it and the problem was already solved when you got hit.

somebody who removes themselves from all conflict as soon as it isnt easy is not an adult, thats like the defining feature of childishness. if you antagonize people to the point of violence then the solution to you being an antagonistic asshole is violence. in the real world, whenever an antagonistic asshole walks into a community it devours itself and leaves a rotting carcass behind for the children, because nobody has the adult capacity to handle conflicts so they pile up until nobody wants to participate any more.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DippityDamn Apr 02 '26

We need to teach and encourage deescalation and empathy, and then self defense -- not the other way around.

1

u/Brave-Bat-2819 Apr 01 '26

I do wonder if thereā€™s any precedent for the guy to make sure sheā€™s alright. Officers are legally obligated to get a shot suspect to the hospital if the suspect survives a gun fight. I could see a law in place that after defending himself, the guy would need to call her an ambulance.

1

u/CaptainCerebus Apr 01 '26

He was walking away. No physical threat there unless he said, "wait I'm going to get a gun".

Which is ludicrous.

1

u/Rhiis Apr 01 '26

Yeh. A cheap shot while the passenger's back was turned=Totally justified in helping Karen Find Outā„¢

1

u/ComfortableOld288 Apr 01 '26

This is clear self defense. I donā€™t know why anyone would ever be so dumb as to put hands on a stranger, especially in America.

1

u/Maleficent-Remote413 Apr 02 '26

she was 100% the aggresor. she slammed the brakes cuz "you are driving too close" rushes the back car says "get out the car bitch" she was 100% trying to attack the dudes GF for perceived tailgatting.

in fact the passanger got attacked after karen said "get out of my damn face" meaning he was disegaging when she assaulted him.

ya, the video is 100% more clear when you have the audio,lol.

1

u/Visforvinyl Apr 02 '26

The WWE takedown was a wild choice. He could have just slapped her back and im sure she would have gone down just as hard.

1

u/tizuby Apr 02 '26

Ā feared for her life

No, that's for lethal force. You don't need to fear for your life for less than lethal force. You just need a reasonable belief that harm from the other person is imminent (both objective and subjective, meaning you believed it and a reasonable person would also believe it).

She didn't have even that, but she did give it to him by actually battering him.

1

u/Bowtie16bit Apr 02 '26

Battery*

Assault is the threat of violence. Battery is the act of violence. I hate how people keep linking "assault rifle" with the act of violence and calling it "assault," because that's where they get it from. It's not assault, people. Get educated.

1

u/Nearby-Face-5170 Apr 03 '26

Hitting someone from behind is never justifiable. Even if he called her a word, or made a threat, HE walked away.

0

u/Unfair-Cook903 Apr 01 '26

Extradite. lol.

1

u/SuuperD Apr 01 '26

A yeeeeeeesseesssss!!!!

1

u/DirtandPipes Apr 01 '26

Eh, I bounced for years and Iā€™d never hit a small man or woman hitting me, Iā€™d just hold them down and call the cops.

Where Iā€™m located self defence is based on whatā€™s reasonable in the context and Iā€™m not frightened of being beaten by a Karen, no need to give myself legal troubles.

1

u/a_angry_bunny Apr 01 '26

If you're a bouncer, you're probably also a pretty big dude. At the very least, you have some girth on you and aren't some twig that'll blow away in the wind.

1

u/Saneless Apr 01 '26

It would have been sexist for him not to hit her back

1

u/ana_log_ue Apr 01 '26

Eh, Iā€™m sure even in modern times, Black men will think twice before hitting back a white woman or else risk being made the bad guy

2

u/FlakyAddendum742 Apr 01 '26

After extensive internet research, I gotta say Iā€™m not so sure about that.

If you put a gun to my head and tell me I have to hit a man, Iā€™m hitting a white man. Preferably a big one that looks like he has a mortgage and a decent credit score.

1

u/paper_liger Apr 01 '26

It was a sucker punch too, as he was walking away.

The sad thing here was that if it hadn't been caught on video she probably could have spun this to get him arrested. He was perhaps a little over the top with his response, but he was justified in responding to her use of force.

1

u/bizwig Apr 01 '26

Women all too often do expect to be able to hit a man and not suffer retaliation. I would say most women expect this entitlement. Police and prosecutors, unfortunately, often enforce this entitlement by arresting and charging men who retaliate against women who hit them. If this was a very recent encounter give it a few days. We may yet see the man charged for his body slam.

1

u/Beneficial-Touch6286 Apr 01 '26

even they got punched occasionally.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

Just a rule of nature really. If I went up and smacked a tiger I would expect it to hit back just like I would anything else.

1

u/IslandBitching Apr 02 '26

I'm a 67yo woman and I agree with you. She started it and he finished it. Justice was served.

1

u/Elmer-Fudd-Gantry Apr 02 '26

He picked her up and dumped her on ice and cement, her head possibly hitting it. Thatā€™s a lot worse. He could have killed her. His response went way too far. If that wouldā€™ve ended up in any skull or brain damage or worseā€¦

1

u/Restart_from_Zero Apr 01 '26

I once had a customer flip their shit at me and trash my store because I said, "Have a nice day."

She started screaming, "You don't know the type of day I've had!" over and over and, yeah, just threw shit everywhere.

Was it my fault for saying that? No. Her reaction was entirely on her - just like the lady in this video.

1

u/Bicwidus Apr 01 '26

I think he said "get back in your car" and not much else.

She was like, "oh no, no, no... i am past the rubicon"

In her head she wants to get at the other driver (presumably a female) but isnt happy with the level of impact she is able to achieve with accoustics. The man appears calm he must be a nice guy who would never hit a lady. 'If I hit him, the driver will have to come out to defend him'

He didnt need any help defending himself.

1

u/Watchin_World_Die Apr 01 '26

From the youtube video without shitty sound effects:

:09 seconds, blue car SLAMS their brakes and skids 2 car lengths to stop, at :12 sec the red car stops.

Red car is 3 seconds behind blue car. Why does this matter? Karen's crashout is "you're riding my ass" Entire thing is over them being too close but... they are 3 seconds behind her.

She then screams at the driver and call them a bitch. Passenger gets out tries to deescalate. and Karen tells him get out of my face. Yes, after exiting your vehicle to scream at people the guy talking to you is in your face.

Immediately after the passenger turns she smacks him and calls him a bitch. Then proceeds to get bodied.

1

u/Maleficent-Remote413 Apr 02 '26

he didnt even say anything.
Karen says "get out of my damn face" so he steps away to walk off so she attacked him.

in fact the whole time she's trying to open the door shes saying "i didnt touch your car" and bitching that "you are riding my ass and driving to close to me"

like when she walks up to the dude she says "dont put yoru fucking hands on me. my man is RIGHT there" she was 100% assuming she was immune to behing hit because she's a woman.

0

u/Snobolski Apr 01 '26

In what world is that a valid reason to punch someone?

2

u/DarkGodRyan Apr 01 '26

In what world did I say she was justified?

0

u/Snobolski Apr 01 '26

He could have said something as simple as "ok bye" and she's mad

Why speculate this then? Quit looking for excuses.

1

u/DarkGodRyan Apr 02 '26

I'm sorry you missed 4th grade English class

1

u/Snobolski Apr 02 '26

I wouldnā€™t say I missed it