[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Tell him you’ll press charges if he even considers making you pay for the window.
[/quote]
Since he caused no damage to the OP what would you sue him for?
Civil court is for MONEY. The only thing he could do no is call the police and press charges which would make the DA and probably the responding officer laugh.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
If you took it to court, I bet it would go this way-
He didn’t hit you, so there was no crime or act of negligence.
You did hit him. Therefore, you owe him money for the damage to his car. If the police were called it would have been an assault committed by you, and you would owe restitution for damage which occurred in the commission of a crime.
He might have been a jerk for doing that, but you are an idiot for responding with violence, and there is no way you come out of this clean.
Pay up.
[/quote]
Very Possible.
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
With Bonez on this one. There are a zillion different things that you could take a picture of to lend some credibility to this, most notably your hand. But I’d settle for maybe some shattered glass on the ground/in the car. Or a picture of a windowless honda civic maybe. Or maybe just a picture of a leg brace. Or a picture of any car. Trolls don’t seem to have the ability to take pictures, so if you just take a picture of anything, you might be believable. [/quote]
No need for pics. It was only a Honda.
I once knocked out a Regal Buick for looking at me the wrong way, Right cross on the drivers side. Knocked the battery clean out.
No lie Look it up.[/quote]
Wikipedia says Regal Buicks run on hamster power. Thus, no battery. Your story does not hold up.[/quote]
The Hamster wears a Walkman that needs 2 AA batteries. Check your facts before calling me out BRO.[/quote]
I’m totally picturing you punching a car, and a hamster with a walkman flying out of it, while the batteries fly in a different direction. It’s awesome.[/quote]
You Win.
Since I can not give a logical response due to LMAO.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
If you took it to court, I bet it would go this way-
He didn’t hit you, so there was no crime or act of negligence.
You did hit him. Therefore, you owe him money for the damage to his car. If the police were called it would have been an assault committed by you, and you would owe restitution for damage which occurred in the commission of a crime.
He might have been a jerk for doing that, but you are an idiot for responding with violence, and there is no way you come out of this clean.
Pay up.
[/quote]
So if someone shoots at me, but they miss and I retaliate, I’m the criminal according to you?
If a guy tries to hit me with his car (on purpose), but I dive and avoid it, there’s no crime at all here?
[/quote]
There may be a crime. But what does vigilantism have to do with it?
Self defense =/= vigilantism
[/quote]
What? The thread about the vigilante is somewhere else.
[/quote]
What I was getting at is that I dont see how breaking a window factors into this.
Pull the guy out and punch him in the face for all I care. But what does breaking a window accomplish? Was it to scare the guy in response to getting scared? Eh, whatever.
If someone shoots at you but misses are you going to take his gun and break it into 3 pieces screaming “AHHH this will teach you not to shoot at me” while angrily pumping your fist in the air?? lol
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
With Bonez on this one. There are a zillion different things that you could take a picture of to lend some credibility to this, most notably your hand. But I’d settle for maybe some shattered glass on the ground/in the car. Or a picture of a windowless honda civic maybe. Or maybe just a picture of a leg brace. Or a picture of any car. Trolls don’t seem to have the ability to take pictures, so if you just take a picture of anything, you might be believable. [/quote]
No need for pics. It was only a Honda.
I once knocked out a Regal Buick for looking at me the wrong way, Right cross on the drivers side. Knocked the battery clean out.
No lie Look it up.[/quote]
Wikipedia says Regal Buicks run on hamster power. Thus, no battery. Your story does not hold up.[/quote]
The Hamster wears a Walkman that needs 2 AA batteries. Check your facts before calling me out BRO.[/quote]
I fact checked this and a Honda Civic hamster could still be using a Walkman using AA batteries.
So, this totally makes sense.
edit: turns out a Regal Buick also was built from 1973 onward, it is a wonder the hamster was not gramophone powered.
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
With Bonez on this one. There are a zillion different things that you could take a picture of to lend some credibility to this, most notably your hand. But I’d settle for maybe some shattered glass on the ground/in the car. Or a picture of a windowless honda civic maybe. Or maybe just a picture of a leg brace. Or a picture of any car. Trolls don’t seem to have the ability to take pictures, so if you just take a picture of anything, you might be believable. [/quote]
No need for pics. It was only a Honda.
I once knocked out a Regal Buick for looking at me the wrong way, Right cross on the drivers side. Knocked the battery clean out.
No lie Look it up.[/quote]
Wikipedia says Regal Buicks run on hamster power. Thus, no battery. Your story does not hold up.[/quote]
The Hamster wears a Walkman that needs 2 AA batteries. Check your facts before calling me out BRO.[/quote]
Luckily he hadn’t upgraded his hamsters recently. I read somewhere that all replacement hamsters were being given iPods now…something about going green.
[quote]JLone wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Tell him you’ll press charges if he even considers making you pay for the window.
[/quote]
Since he caused no damage to the OP what would you sue him for?
Civil court is for MONEY. The only thing he could do no is call the police and press charges which would make the DA and probably the responding officer laugh.
[/quote]
So you think that someone who tries to run you over with a car would be funny to the DA and LEOs?
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]JLone wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
Tell him you’ll press charges if he even considers making you pay for the window.
[/quote]
Since he caused no damage to the OP what would you sue him for?
Civil court is for MONEY. The only thing he could do no is call the police and press charges which would make the DA and probably the responding officer laugh.
[/quote]
So you think that someone who tries to run you over with a car would be funny to the DA and LEOs?[/quote]
He was not trying to run him over so your argument doesn’t make sense. And you are talking about criminal offenses vs civil. You can’t report an attempted murder with a car a week later. They will ask you why you waited a week to report it and the OP would respond, “A, I couldn’t make up my mind of whether I wanted to.”
So yes in real life when you wait a week and try to press criminal charges you are not taken seriously.
Does that make sense to you?
You do owe him… an ass whipping
i feel like OPs reaction might have been out of control
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
No, you don’t owe money.
As a piece of personal advice, going into “rage mode” with “tunnel vision” when presented with a dangerous situation probably won’t work out for you in the long run.
PS Aren’t you a “racist” troll from PWI? [/quote]
X2…
You definitely need to get your rage under control. You weren’t at fault in this situation, but busting in to rage mode can land your ass in jail. It’s also the kind of personality trait that can land you on youtube with a video like the Judge beating the fuck out of his daughter. He clearly has anger management issues.
Are you the type of dude who would beat the shit out of somebody for looking at your girlfriend in a bar?
OP is a epic troll (most likely another one of HH sock puppets) who in a thread in PWI endorsed the killing of any fetus with any mental deformity…so nobody had to care for them.
He is a sick cookie, who is a despicable human being if he is anything like his online persona in real life.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
OP is a epic troll (most likely another one of HH sock puppets) who in a thread in PWI endorsed the killing of any fetus with any mental deformity…so nobody had to care for them.
He is a sick cookie, who is a despicable human being if he is anything like his online persona in real life.
[/quote]
X 2 and strangely in a few months Clip will be back asking other variations of social fuctardness (yes thats a word deal with it)
The twist is that the OP is his own roommate and he tried to run himself over (understandable). Therefore, he owes it to himself to not be so annoying in future:
[quote]roybot wrote:
The twist is that the OP is his own roommate and he tried to run himself over (understandable). Therefore, he owes it to himself to not be so annoying in future:
[/quote]
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
The twist is that the OP is his own roommate and he tried to run himself over (understandable). Therefore, he owes it to himself to not be so annoying in future:
[/quote]
[/quote]
The leg brace is trademark Hitchcock.
troll thread…im not buying this. he either made it up…or in reality knew it was his roomate and just decided to rage and knowinlgy smashed his roomates car window and almost his face before realizing he had to restrain himself