Jump to content

Guy spray paints car, gets ass beat. Discuss.


Mallard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Obviously, the guy was in the wrong for vandalizing his car but he didn't really do any damage. Spray paint can be removed in a few minutes and anything worse can be detailed out. Its not like he keyed it or took a bat to the thing...

 

Now the moron assaulting him and causing bodily damage can and probably will get sued. A few hundred bucks to that ugly ass EVO is nothing for what his legal fees are going to be if that guy goes after him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Obviously, the guy was in the wrong for vandalizing his car but he didn't really do any damage. Spray paint can be removed in a few minutes and anything worse can be detailed out. Its not like he keyed it or took a bat to the thing...

 

Now the moron assaulting him and causing bodily damage can and probably will get sued. A few hundred bucks to that ugly ass EVO is nothing for what his legal fees are going to be if that guy goes after him...

 

Spray paint can do damage to the clear. If it was assault, then it was wrong. From the video, it seem like it was a case of assault and not self defense. But it doesn't show what happened before the video. If what the Evo owner said was true, then it was a case of self defense at the begging of the confrontation, but breaking the vets leg when he is trying to flee in his van was the assault. The media and lawyers will help earn the vet a ton of money with that video. Putting the video up to brag about the situation was the dumbest thing the Evo owner could have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the original forum it' was posted on there are several lawyers who all agree that the kid was in idiot and will face charges since he posted the video. One had shown the video to the people in his office and it sounded like they were already working of bringing the charges against him. Now it's made the front page of Jalopnik too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never touch another man's car. I don't care if it is a new Z06, and Evo, or 1995 civic DX hatch daily driver with 245,000miles. You just don't touch another man's car.

 

 

As for the history aspect, Would it be ok to smash a BMW because you are jewish? No.

Also, We had concentration camps for Japanese Americans in WWII.

Check out Fort Missoula Internment camp in Montana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never touch another man's car. I don't care if it is a new Z06, and Evo, or 1995 civic DX hatch daily driver with 245,000miles. You just don't touch another man's car.

Agreed, but solving the situation by taking the law into your own hands is not acceptable. The kid took it too far.

 

 

As for the history aspect, Would it be ok to smash a BMW because you are jewish?

No. The histroy was just mentioned so it was understood why he was targeted, since so many people seem clueless and think it was random.

 

Also, We had concentration camps for Japanese Americans in WWII.

Check out Fort Missoula Internment camp in Montana.

We did not kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Since he is a trained fighter, can his hands be considered a deadly weapon?

 

Pretty sure it's a myth. Legally if he's a professional fighter who is paid, there may be some legal weight but no official registration exists that I know of.

 

In the case here, I would say it will likely go down that the kid confronted the guy who became combative and the kid defended himself. Doubt much will come of it. Video doesn't show anything except adrenaline flowing through a pretty pissed off individual. Welcome to the internet and the age of cell phone videos. Sure, some drama "could" be brought out, but no weapons were used and unless the old guy has a witness come forth, he doesn't have much. I've seen worse on COPS reruns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone in the service now please go find a Jaguar and spray paint 1776 on the side please?

 

I don't think there are any veterans from that war still around, and if they are I wouldn't mess with one. Becauze HIGHLANDER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, I'm reminded of the vid of the mouthy chick at McDonald's that came over the counter and then got McClubbed. I think there are a lot of parallels between that situation and this one:

 

1. Someone was committing a crime (vandalism in one case, aggravated menacing in the other)

 

2. The victim retaliated

 

3. And people somehow are trying to find ways to blame the victim

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but common sense would suggest that perpetrator's tend to lose their rights for crying foul right around the time they opted to break the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they do.

 

So if a vet robs a bank here in the states he should be pardoned? makes sense

 

For some reason, I'm reminded of the vid of the mouthy chick at McDonald's that came over the counter and then got McClubbed. I think there are a lot of parallels between that situation and this one:

 

1. Someone was committing a crime (vandalism in one case, aggravated menacing in the other)

 

2. The victim retaliated

 

3. And people somehow are trying to find ways to blame the victim

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but common sense would suggest that perpetrator's tend to lose their rights for crying foul right around the time they opted to break the law.

 

and that concludes todays show folks. Nothing to see here, move along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if a vet robs a bank here in the states he should be pardoned? makes sense

 

That's a little extreme. Let's try this: 2 men pee on your lawn while you're mowing your grass. One is your daughter's deadbeat boyfriend, one is someone who signed the dotted line to risk their life to protect you and your way of life. Do you feel differently? I'm not saying it was okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason, I'm reminded of the vid of the mouthy chick at McDonald's that came over the counter and then got McClubbed. I think there are a lot of parallels between that situation and this one:

 

1. Someone was committing a crime (vandalism in one case, aggravated menacing in the other)

 

2. The victim retaliated

 

3. And people somehow are trying to find ways to blame the victim

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but common sense would suggest that perpetrator's tend to lose their rights for crying foul right around the time they opted to break the law.

 

This post wins. I don't know why our justice system doesn't start and end with "hey, if you don't want to get the shit beat out of you for vandalizing someone's car, DON'T FUCKING VANDALIZE CARS"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...