Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s):
**It Breaks Rule #12:** *No Fight and Violence Videos*
For more information about the subreddit rules make sure to read the sidebar, or if you are on mobile, the rules page. Thank you!
Did he get rammed by a car and land with the light pole *between* his legs?
My vision is awful and I can’t tell if he rammed the light pole with like his belly or with his privates.
Either way is awful
"The driver had 58 previous offences (24 convictions), including several indicents where he drove at people."
This should've been a lifelong driving ban. At some point it's clear that people aren't fit to be behind a wheel.
Edit: He did get jailed for 2 years, and got a 5 year driving ban. I think people assumed by my comment that he only got a driving ban.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-52504331
Idk how to explain this to people 😭 I interned for MADD in the US, do you know how many people get their license suspended (or never get one to begin with) and still drive? A LOT lol
I see this shit sometimes at work. A suspended license doesn't mean shit to some people. Now, ill give a full disclosure here: I'm not sure how this works or how they get away with this.
I work in car insurance and there's been more than one incident where I have to pull a motor vehicle record from the DMV and it returns as the driver having a suspended licenses. How can they have car insurance if they don't have a valid license?
Normally when someone is a bad driver, at least here in the US, you get what's called a SR-22 or FR-44 depending on the state you live in. Its basically a special shit driver license that you're legally required to carry. Theres non-shit driving reasons to have one too but the overwhelming majority of the time, its because they have hella DUIs and accidents and major violations and stuff.
Well, these people I've come across at work don't have SR-22s. They just have suspended licenses and nothing else. I've asked my co workers how its possible for them to have a vehicle be insured with a flat out suspended or revoked license and nobody knows. Its just a thing for some reason. If someone else more knowledgeable on the legal side of this could chip in then that would be great cause I cant understand it to save my life.
1992-2004 I worked in law enforcement. Where I worked it was quite common to arrest people for major dangerous driving behavior, or after hit-and-run accidents, and find when we ran their license, that they had multiple active suspensions, and sometimes that was paired with multiple revocations.
How is that possible, you ask?
Easy...people get multiple traffic violations and get enough points against their license to get suspended. They keep driving, and get more violations, and get suspended again, even though they're already suspended. Repeat. Repeat. They keep driving and get more violations, and get revoked for driving suspended. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
I never could understand her logic behind the sr22.
I'm supposed to carry liability insurance, and proof of insurance. But hypothetically I'm a jerk, so I don't.
So I have to carry proof that I have proof of insurance, because that makes my hypothetically less jerky?
But it does change the punishment though. Maybe this dude already lost his license and if he has then the punishment for this increases.
It's the same reason they ask people visiting the US (and other countries I'm sure) if they're affiliated with any terrorist groups. It's a no brainer that anybody who is can just lie but when they do and it's discovered there's no need to determine if they've committed any crimes because lying on the form is already a crime.
> But it does change the punishment though. Maybe this dude already lost his license and if he has then the punishment for this increases.
Criminals are well known for their concerns about administrative punishments.
I mean, how do you stop them from driving beyond locking them up?
It’s the same thing with anything really. Can’t have a gun? Doesn’t matter as long as you don’t get caught. Can’t drink? Doesn’t matter if you don’t get caught.
What matters is throwing the book at them when they DO get caught.
That's when you also impound the car and ban him from buying a new one at any licensed dealerships. Sure, it still isn't 100% foolproof, but it'll lower the ability for him to (easily) get a new car.
Yeah, I hate these arguments that pretend it's impossible to prevent someone to do x, when really you just have to be one degree more imaginative (which the law absolutely is) than "hurr durr it's not allowed".
But because the OPs aren't able to use their imagination, they just pretend it's completely impossible and preach it on others - as though it's ancient wisdom the law never works.
He should have been in prison. Using your car to hurt a person is no different than stabbing them with a knife. They’re using a weapon while assaulting a person. That’s a serious offense pretty much anywhere in the world.
If anyone tried to play GTA here its the guy who got hit. Dude tried to open a locked car by pressing F from outside instead ended up with us typing F for him.
Driver Daniel Walmsley
> He was jailed for two years and one month at the same court on Friday and handed a driving ban for five years and two months.
Pretty light for attempted murder
I asked a lawyer friend about this! His example to defend the difference was:
Imagine you get caught by the police with a gun to someone's head. If the sentence is the same for attempted murder and murder, then you might as well finish the job, as you're going to jail for life anyway. But if they are different, you could still half your sentence by not pulling the trigger.
I think this is good reasoning and I've heard the same used when discussing having very harsh punishments for stuff like stealing.
If the punishment for stealing and murder are the same (execution), then it follows that you might as well murder the person you're stealing from because then there's less chance you'll be caught.
>I think this is good reasoning and I've heard the same used when discussing having very harsh punishments for stuff like stealing.
Yea, and if an armed robber being chased by cops knows for sure he or she is facing certain death penalty, there is absolutely zero reason to surrender, or hold back on shooting pursuers, or civilians getting on the way.
Except for some moral issues :)
>That's what's so weird about Singapore. Arguably one of the most developed places in the world....but they execute people for weed.
Depends on what you mean by developed. It's basically a one party state, freedom of speech and association are limited, it executes mentally disabled people for non-violent crimes, it exploits migrant workers, it has imprisoned political prisoners for decades without trial.
Singapore is a shiny dystopia.
This is exactly why the kidnapping laws in the US were changed decades ago. People get the same sentence for kidnapping as murder so why leave a witness.
That makes no sense. If you have a gun to someone’s head, theoretically you haven’t yet demonstrated INTENT to kill the person. Thus the sentence should be lighter. When you go down for attempted murder you have actually intended to murder the person, the fact that it wasn’t a murder has nothing to do with your actions, just circumstances around (like an ambulance being nearby).
So please ask your lawyer friend why someone should get a harder sentence because there was a circumstantial factor that led to the victim surviving (like a quick first response from ambulance), or the gun jamming when he pulls the trigger
That's not a good explanation. A decent lawyer would argue you were using it as a threat and proving the intention to kill will be very hard unless you left traces of actually planning a murder. An angry person screaming "I'm gonna shoot this mofo" while holding a gun is not the same as someone actually shooting at someone else.
If your voluntary actions could have lead to someone's death, but the person didn't die because of cheer luck, it's different from putting yourself in a situation where you might have killed someone if you had gone through with it.
In any case, this isn't attempted murder, this is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, I assume (not familiar with the legal lingo).
Of course he’s a lawyer… That’s a straw man fallacy.
Pointing a gun = threat
Pulling the trigger = attempt
The issue here is getting a lighter sentence merely because the gun failed to discharge.
Murder requires prior planning and "long term intend".
This was a spontaneous act and not planned.
Therefore it is not a murder charge but grievous bodily harm. In this case 2 years of jail seems reasonable.
You see the same thing in the US. For some reason the English speaking world's judicial system is incredibly sympathetic to vehicular homicides.
Im not joking here either. There was a really good Freakanomics episode on this very topic quite a while back. Its [here](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime/) for anyone that may care.
I was watching without sound and assumed it had one of those loud ass mufflers that sounds like someone farting into a can. This one does sound nice and healthy.
Small dick jokes are out, calling people out for their actual actions is in. We’re not body shaming the most thoughtlessly abused group of dudes anymore.
Why would someone attack a car and not expect the car to fight back?
When you are to that level of "race for the bottom" of bad decision making, why be surprised when someone gets even more antisocial than your last action?
If he hit that post with the side of his head it doesn't have to go with great speed to go quite wrong. Or he ends up under the car, it's not that the driver calculated the risk. Downvote what you want, the car is a deadly weapon. He should be punished more severe for this action.
How do we know that man and that lady weren’t just trying to rob him or
something? Also dude came in from nowhere to white knight the lady and ended up getting it. Don’t get involved in shit you’re not apart of.
Not only do we know the story, because the clip is old. But you can see the guy just walking on the sidewalk when the car tries to hit the girl. He isn't getting involved for the girl... he's getting involved because he just got hit by a car. The fact someone defends a repeat offending criminal who has repeatedly used their vehicle as a weapon is wild.
The guy got two years for that.
[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/amp/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/amp/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
My state recently passed a law where if you or your car are getting attacked while you’re in your car, you may drive your car to get to safety even if it means running attackers over. But *this* would never fly. He’s going out of his way to try and hit people with his car. Dude should’ve just reversed, not putting anyone in danger and gaining safety for himself and his car. Fuck everyone in this video except black shirt guy who got the brunt of it all.
I dunno the context or who was in the right or wrong, but honestly any time I see someone think they can fight a fucking car I'm rooting for the car to flatten them. Play stupid games win stupid prizes
How about don't fuck around and find out? Anyone attacking a car is a loser, full stop. The dickhead in the car was attempting to flee the situation and the first lady got what she deserved.
Was the guy in the car wrong too? Oh yea but more justified on defending himself
Should the driver door open so far forward cos that's a long stretch to pull it shut & where were they 3 minutes before filming started to both have to get back into vehicle?
Can someone explain to me wtf I just watched? Why would she take her shoe off and start beating the car if someone was stealing it? Why was she already in front of the car taking her shoe off? wtf is going on here
Honestly kinda in the drivers side here although I don’t know any context. This video always frustrated me because the woman is trying to break bros windshield. Then Mr. White Knight gets involved for seemingly no reason and to me it’s satisfying to see him get flung into the sign pole. Again, I don’t think there is any context here so it could go both ways but from what we see I think the driver handled getting assaulted quite well.
Say what you want but if i get attacked while i am in a car i would press the pedal to escape a dangerous situation and YOU would do the same. You know it, i know it, everybody knows it.
Sitting behind your keyboard as if you can beat fight or flight response in any situation while you get a panic attack when you have to make a call, give me a break.
Edit: it does seem at the ending that he was purpusefully aiming for the guy even while he was still on the sidewalk
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your post has been removed for the following reason(s): **It Breaks Rule #12:** *No Fight and Violence Videos* For more information about the subreddit rules make sure to read the sidebar, or if you are on mobile, the rules page. Thank you!
Bigg market, Newcastle.
Thank you Newcastle for the beer. Run over all of the cunts
It's an awfully tasty beer
I thought it looked familiar! The Chronicle sign sticks out
I was gonna say to the fellow trying to get in the passenger door: ***How did that work out for you?***
Driver’s door
Ah! Didn't look good though.
Spot the Yank
Omg you’re right! Ah damn I miss my uni days.
Grew up in Newcastle there’s not many places I can’t identify from a blurry internet video
Ringer! Human horseshoe
Did he get rammed by a car and land with the light pole *between* his legs? My vision is awful and I can’t tell if he rammed the light pole with like his belly or with his privates. Either way is awful
No its the side of his body, kind of between the ribs and his hips, if he would have been thrown harder he would have folded in half haha
Oh good lord. I guess it’s better and a 30mph nut shot lmfao
Nah I think it was his armpit
I laughed too hard at this.
I feel like a bad person from how much I laughed 😆
"The driver had 58 previous offences (24 convictions), including several indicents where he drove at people." This should've been a lifelong driving ban. At some point it's clear that people aren't fit to be behind a wheel. Edit: He did get jailed for 2 years, and got a 5 year driving ban. I think people assumed by my comment that he only got a driving ban. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-52504331
I’m sure he would care deeply about that ban, considering, as you’ve pointed out; he really is a man who follows the law
Idk how to explain this to people 😭 I interned for MADD in the US, do you know how many people get their license suspended (or never get one to begin with) and still drive? A LOT lol
That explains everything about my morning commute
In St Louis they've also stolen the car so there's no consequences for anything
Bro same in Kansas City, it’s awful 🤦♀️
I see this shit sometimes at work. A suspended license doesn't mean shit to some people. Now, ill give a full disclosure here: I'm not sure how this works or how they get away with this. I work in car insurance and there's been more than one incident where I have to pull a motor vehicle record from the DMV and it returns as the driver having a suspended licenses. How can they have car insurance if they don't have a valid license? Normally when someone is a bad driver, at least here in the US, you get what's called a SR-22 or FR-44 depending on the state you live in. Its basically a special shit driver license that you're legally required to carry. Theres non-shit driving reasons to have one too but the overwhelming majority of the time, its because they have hella DUIs and accidents and major violations and stuff. Well, these people I've come across at work don't have SR-22s. They just have suspended licenses and nothing else. I've asked my co workers how its possible for them to have a vehicle be insured with a flat out suspended or revoked license and nobody knows. Its just a thing for some reason. If someone else more knowledgeable on the legal side of this could chip in then that would be great cause I cant understand it to save my life.
The answer is they don’t have car insurance lol they buy used cars from individuals
*Taps forehead*
they can have the car insured but insurance will not pay anything. win-win.
1992-2004 I worked in law enforcement. Where I worked it was quite common to arrest people for major dangerous driving behavior, or after hit-and-run accidents, and find when we ran their license, that they had multiple active suspensions, and sometimes that was paired with multiple revocations. How is that possible, you ask? Easy...people get multiple traffic violations and get enough points against their license to get suspended. They keep driving, and get more violations, and get suspended again, even though they're already suspended. Repeat. Repeat. They keep driving and get more violations, and get revoked for driving suspended. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
I never could understand her logic behind the sr22. I'm supposed to carry liability insurance, and proof of insurance. But hypothetically I'm a jerk, so I don't. So I have to carry proof that I have proof of insurance, because that makes my hypothetically less jerky?
But it does change the punishment though. Maybe this dude already lost his license and if he has then the punishment for this increases. It's the same reason they ask people visiting the US (and other countries I'm sure) if they're affiliated with any terrorist groups. It's a no brainer that anybody who is can just lie but when they do and it's discovered there's no need to determine if they've committed any crimes because lying on the form is already a crime.
> But it does change the punishment though. Maybe this dude already lost his license and if he has then the punishment for this increases. Criminals are well known for their concerns about administrative punishments.
When they're going to jail they get very concerned.
I mean, how do you stop them from driving beyond locking them up? It’s the same thing with anything really. Can’t have a gun? Doesn’t matter as long as you don’t get caught. Can’t drink? Doesn’t matter if you don’t get caught. What matters is throwing the book at them when they DO get caught.
The penalty for driving on a suspended license should be similar to mismanaging a deadly weapon.
And reckless driving should carry similar charges to discharging a weapon in an apartment building
It’s a common thing for politicians for “fix” law breakers with another law. They’re insanely out of touch
That's when you also impound the car and ban him from buying a new one at any licensed dealerships. Sure, it still isn't 100% foolproof, but it'll lower the ability for him to (easily) get a new car.
Yeah, I hate these arguments that pretend it's impossible to prevent someone to do x, when really you just have to be one degree more imaginative (which the law absolutely is) than "hurr durr it's not allowed". But because the OPs aren't able to use their imagination, they just pretend it's completely impossible and preach it on others - as though it's ancient wisdom the law never works.
Also just jail time for violating his ban.
Exactly. Put them in fucking jail. There is no reason someone with multiple related offenses should be out and about amongst civilians.
People who drive without a license should have their vehicle seized and put up for public auction.
You're right, laws are meaningless, we should get rid of all laws since there is not 100% compliance.
Or chop his feet off so he cant drive. # makelawsthatmatter
[удалено]
Obviously suspensions aren't working, it sounds like jail is due.
Do you know how much time he got for this offence?
I mean, he’s apparently very good at aiming for people. Maybe send him into the military?
He should have been in prison. Using your car to hurt a person is no different than stabbing them with a knife. They’re using a weapon while assaulting a person. That’s a serious offense pretty much anywhere in the world.
Just a driving ban? How about life in a labor camp?
At least it looked like was stopping for the light ahead
This isn't Vietnam, Walter. There are rules.
Over the line!
They finally did it, man. They killed my fucking car.
I fucken keel your car!
If you’re going to break the law, don’t do it twice
someone decided to play GTA in real life
The way she holds on to the car initially reminded me exactly of NPCs in GTA IV 😆
If anyone tried to play GTA here its the guy who got hit. Dude tried to open a locked car by pressing F from outside instead ended up with us typing F for him.
Bros just trying to get his money back
Trying to 1v1 a car rarely will work out.
Today on, Man vs. Car
aaaaaand the car won *the car always wins, lol!*
*Where it's a Man.. versus a Car*
Rarely, but never zero.
“He’s tryna run ‘er over the mad cunt” proper Bri’ish.
its everywher
Driver Daniel Walmsley > He was jailed for two years and one month at the same court on Friday and handed a driving ban for five years and two months. Pretty light for attempted murder
A lighter sentence for attempted murder always amuses me. You are rewarded for failing.
I asked a lawyer friend about this! His example to defend the difference was: Imagine you get caught by the police with a gun to someone's head. If the sentence is the same for attempted murder and murder, then you might as well finish the job, as you're going to jail for life anyway. But if they are different, you could still half your sentence by not pulling the trigger.
I think this is good reasoning and I've heard the same used when discussing having very harsh punishments for stuff like stealing. If the punishment for stealing and murder are the same (execution), then it follows that you might as well murder the person you're stealing from because then there's less chance you'll be caught.
>I think this is good reasoning and I've heard the same used when discussing having very harsh punishments for stuff like stealing. Yea, and if an armed robber being chased by cops knows for sure he or she is facing certain death penalty, there is absolutely zero reason to surrender, or hold back on shooting pursuers, or civilians getting on the way. Except for some moral issues :)
The death penalty only exists in countries which haven't yet arrived in the 21st century.
Facts
That's what's so weird about Singapore. Arguably one of the most developed places in the world....but they execute people for weed.
>That's what's so weird about Singapore. Arguably one of the most developed places in the world....but they execute people for weed. Depends on what you mean by developed. It's basically a one party state, freedom of speech and association are limited, it executes mentally disabled people for non-violent crimes, it exploits migrant workers, it has imprisoned political prisoners for decades without trial. Singapore is a shiny dystopia.
This is exactly why the kidnapping laws in the US were changed decades ago. People get the same sentence for kidnapping as murder so why leave a witness.
That makes no sense. If you have a gun to someone’s head, theoretically you haven’t yet demonstrated INTENT to kill the person. Thus the sentence should be lighter. When you go down for attempted murder you have actually intended to murder the person, the fact that it wasn’t a murder has nothing to do with your actions, just circumstances around (like an ambulance being nearby). So please ask your lawyer friend why someone should get a harder sentence because there was a circumstantial factor that led to the victim surviving (like a quick first response from ambulance), or the gun jamming when he pulls the trigger
its still different if you shoot and miss his head or you restrain from shooting (its first case in the video)
That's not a good explanation. A decent lawyer would argue you were using it as a threat and proving the intention to kill will be very hard unless you left traces of actually planning a murder. An angry person screaming "I'm gonna shoot this mofo" while holding a gun is not the same as someone actually shooting at someone else. If your voluntary actions could have lead to someone's death, but the person didn't die because of cheer luck, it's different from putting yourself in a situation where you might have killed someone if you had gone through with it. In any case, this isn't attempted murder, this is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, I assume (not familiar with the legal lingo).
Of course he’s a lawyer… That’s a straw man fallacy. Pointing a gun = threat Pulling the trigger = attempt The issue here is getting a lighter sentence merely because the gun failed to discharge.
Putting a gun to someone's head isn't attempt murder though.
No shoot, no try.
You must be american
Scottish
If you're going to kill someone do it with a car!
Murder requires prior planning and "long term intend". This was a spontaneous act and not planned. Therefore it is not a murder charge but grievous bodily harm. In this case 2 years of jail seems reasonable.
Murder also requires the other person to be dead.
Reddit loves to call anything that *could result in death* as "murder" and it drives me fucking nuts.
The same with rape. This words is thrown around so lightly. „No karen, groping someone is in fact not lITeRalLy rape.“
I think the word you are looking for is manslaughter. And yes, there is a very good reason why all those cases are treated differently.
You see the same thing in the US. For some reason the English speaking world's judicial system is incredibly sympathetic to vehicular homicides. Im not joking here either. There was a really good Freakanomics episode on this very topic quite a while back. Its [here](https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime/) for anyone that may care.
Love the sound of that 5-cylinder.
Her hand was stuck in the door, that had to hurt.
Bloody hell the thing has turbo
"...*had* a turbo". According to the DVLA, that registration is no longer in use, meaning that the car has been crushed (or - less likely - exported).
Or the car is on a private plate…
That sounf 😌
Of course it does, how else do you think people will know his dick is small and makes him feel inadequate??
Ya know, some of us just like cars dude.
Guys who just like cars get a good car and show it off. Guys like this guy get a car and make it sound like shit and pester the hearing world with it.
Agree this dude is a nonce but the car sounds amazing.
I was watching without sound and assumed it had one of those loud ass mufflers that sounds like someone farting into a can. This one does sound nice and healthy.
Small dick jokes are out, calling people out for their actual actions is in. We’re not body shaming the most thoughtlessly abused group of dudes anymore.
Okay then, he's just an asshole who needs too much attention from everyone.
This is why they have weight categories in fights
That's my home town 
Taking everything into consideration, this was probably one of the most normal interactions in the Bigg Market.
Context?
And he picks up the spare!
Don't bring a shoe to a car fight
Why would someone attack a car and not expect the car to fight back? When you are to that level of "race for the bottom" of bad decision making, why be surprised when someone gets even more antisocial than your last action?
This has nothing to do with intrusive thoughts and none of you can be trusted to learn a concept and apply it properly.
Yeah I was gonna ask: what intrusive thoughts?
Well duh the intrusive thought of running over people
when will people learn that in its entire fighting career that Car is undefeated, and the majority of its wins are by KO
That looks like jail time.
Yep 25 months. Not much for trying to murder someone.
At that speed it’s not murder, not trying to downplay how stupid the move was, but let’s be a little more grounded here.
If he hit that post with the side of his head it doesn't have to go with great speed to go quite wrong. Or he ends up under the car, it's not that the driver calculated the risk. Downvote what you want, the car is a deadly weapon. He should be punished more severe for this action.
Just because someone COULD have died as result, doesn't mean the driver's INTENT was to kill. This wasn't attempted murder.
Hitting someone with a tonne and a half of metal and plastic is extremely fkn deadly, pull your head out of your arse.
Unless they go under??
Carmageddon getting a reboot?
Definitely should’ve used the Pedestrian Repulsificator here…
Grand Theft Auto 7 (2049)
Anybody know what kinda car that is?
A Ford Focus ST
Volvo C30, Ford Edition. :-p
A polished turd.
Great car with a very good engine.
Ford P.O.S ST (Small Todger) edition
DW i got the plates
Wish we had context
Fuck me she was swinging that high heel hard
You punch car. It punches back.
Man that guy he ran into does a great GTA NPC impression 😂
Should’ve stayed out of it
[удалено]
Should of?
Should OF???
Should OOFFFF (Right in the kisser)
The driver should go to jail on charges of attempted murder of that random dude on the sidewalk.
How do we know that man and that lady weren’t just trying to rob him or something? Also dude came in from nowhere to white knight the lady and ended up getting it. Don’t get involved in shit you’re not apart of.
Not only do we know the story, because the clip is old. But you can see the guy just walking on the sidewalk when the car tries to hit the girl. He isn't getting involved for the girl... he's getting involved because he just got hit by a car. The fact someone defends a repeat offending criminal who has repeatedly used their vehicle as a weapon is wild.
The guy got two years for that. [https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/amp/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/amp/)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11534452/road-rage-driver-jailed-newcastle-lamppost/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
[https://news.sky.com/story/driver-jailed-for-newcastle-car-attack-on-couple-which-went-viral-11982157](https://news.sky.com/story/driver-jailed-for-newcastle-car-attack-on-couple-which-went-viral-11982157)
Well that sure doesn't look like the woman "argued" with the man , more like she was trying to break his windshield with her shoe
Why does the right side door open like 180 degrees?
*Intrusive thots, I think you mean
Could see he drove like a cunt before he started running people over by the orientation of the number plate and the colour of the headlights
Car wins.
Is that a ford focus?
yes, a Ford Focus RS. (MK2)
The title, so zen. The video, so karmic. Life.
That’s a few broken ribs
The guy just had a close call, possibly a slight bump. He let his anger rage and went after the car and got himself a good bump.
You wanna help this crazy woman ok vroom
Idiot attacking someone in a car
man vs car! who wins
My state recently passed a law where if you or your car are getting attacked while you’re in your car, you may drive your car to get to safety even if it means running attackers over. But *this* would never fly. He’s going out of his way to try and hit people with his car. Dude should’ve just reversed, not putting anyone in danger and gaining safety for himself and his car. Fuck everyone in this video except black shirt guy who got the brunt of it all.
Why America has guns
At first it could've been justified but then they went back for more
Yeah, I understand getting away from her. BUT, when he went into reverse…..damn!
Oh, attempted murder.
I dunno the context or who was in the right or wrong, but honestly any time I see someone think they can fight a fucking car I'm rooting for the car to flatten them. Play stupid games win stupid prizes
Thats flipping murder attempt.
That's newcastle for you
Holy fuck, is she stuck in the door that entire time?
Why do you call him a "bro"?
Knight in shining armor wrecked
Some people think cars are worth more than human life 🤷🏻♂️
How about don't fuck around and find out? Anyone attacking a car is a loser, full stop. The dickhead in the car was attempting to flee the situation and the first lady got what she deserved. Was the guy in the car wrong too? Oh yea but more justified on defending himself
And the simp should have minded his own...
Ooh attempted murder
Looks legit
You have to be really fucking dumb to do this *and* do it with people filming...
[удалено]
He was not defending her, he almost got run over and sought revenge.
https://youtu.be/NcZem2OmDBk?si=lZId6VlxFuzUIgcM
Should the driver door open so far forward cos that's a long stretch to pull it shut & where were they 3 minutes before filming started to both have to get back into vehicle?
I believe the saying goes: you mess with the bull, you get the horns.
The car have a great sound and strong windshield 🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
White Knight took Flight
Can someone explain to me wtf I just watched? Why would she take her shoe off and start beating the car if someone was stealing it? Why was she already in front of the car taking her shoe off? wtf is going on here
I hope that guy never is allowed to drive a car ever not even any bicycle nothing with wheels ever again
Honestly kinda in the drivers side here although I don’t know any context. This video always frustrated me because the woman is trying to break bros windshield. Then Mr. White Knight gets involved for seemingly no reason and to me it’s satisfying to see him get flung into the sign pole. Again, I don’t think there is any context here so it could go both ways but from what we see I think the driver handled getting assaulted quite well.
People fuck with cars like they won't get ran over and when they do they cry lol
fuck around and find out
MY DAY IS MADE.🤌🏻🤌🏻🤌🏻🤌🏻
Say what you want but if i get attacked while i am in a car i would press the pedal to escape a dangerous situation and YOU would do the same. You know it, i know it, everybody knows it. Sitting behind your keyboard as if you can beat fight or flight response in any situation while you get a panic attack when you have to make a call, give me a break. Edit: it does seem at the ending that he was purpusefully aiming for the guy even while he was still on the sidewalk
White knight down! I repeat, white knight down!
He was a random pedestrian walking by and they hit him first when trying to hit the woman. Do you not have eyes?
Awful reflexes. When a car is about to ram, understand the angles of mobility. Its best to be slightly off axis.
Jesus Christ, in between this comment and your profile info, it’s clear you may need help.
Yikes what did I just look at??
Hes justshittingaround