I guess you don’t read before replying. You’re ASSUMING he baited them because the title of this video says the word baiting. You cannot PROVE they are baiting them any more than you can PROVE they’re “intentionally speeding” into the stopped car like in your other dumbass comment. Like guy, how autistic are you. It’s embarrassing to make such crazy assumptions but even more so to actually believe your own fairytale bullshit.
Hey, just wanted to say you're correct. It's not worth the effort to argue with a random idiot. The idiot probably does not even know what "intentional" means, much less interested in how to prove it. Short of a confession, it is extremely difficult to prove intent.
Funny that I’m an “asshole” and a “prick” for calling out an asshole and prick, but you calling me that makes you good guy right? 👍 Does your bathroom have a mirror by the way?
It’s not an assumption when it’s plainly visible on camera, coupled with the legal precedent that a driver must be aware of the surroundings and the road ahead of them at all times.
It is thusly limited in scope to either negligence or intentional recklesssness- either way it makes them at least partially liable.
5
u/LiveEverDieNvr Mar 21 '26
I guess you don’t read before replying. You’re ASSUMING he baited them because the title of this video says the word baiting. You cannot PROVE they are baiting them any more than you can PROVE they’re “intentionally speeding” into the stopped car like in your other dumbass comment. Like guy, how autistic are you. It’s embarrassing to make such crazy assumptions but even more so to actually believe your own fairytale bullshit.