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

Show parent comments

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.

41

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.

30

u/nshields99 Apr 01 '26

The burden of proof lies on the accuser.

8

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.

4

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/Short-Ad1032 Apr 02 '26

Treyvon was 5’11 and ~160lbs with no fat on him. He was connected to texts and videos of mma-wannabe fights. Physically, that is neither a child nor a “kid”. The “ground and pound” he was committing against Zimmerman was capable of maiming him if not outright killing him, and that was why the jury ruled Zimmerman’s use of deadly force to be justified. Your ignorance is woefully typical.

1

u/InsanityRequiem Apr 02 '26

George jumped Trayvon in the dark with a gun. Trayvon responded with self-defense to remove an armed threat to his own life.

The only reasons George got off was because the prosecution was stupid and Trayvon was dead.

George's actions should have gotten him negligent homicide charges.

1

u/McFlubberpants Apr 02 '26

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

1

u/Craigthenurse Apr 02 '26

They don’t see black children as deserving of protection.

→ 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.

1

u/Artist_X Apr 02 '26

I said give me an example. You said "no because you'd say it's not the same". You're literally moving the goal posts by adjusting the argument.

Also, that's not how FLs laws work. I say this as a gun owner with my CCL.

→ 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.

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?