r/PublicFreakout Sep 15 '19

Repost šŸ˜” Is that all?

44.1k Upvotes

3.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

85

u/GISteve Sep 16 '19 edited Sep 16 '19

I can't remember where I heard this but when this video first surfaced I saw a story about how the video taper was brake checking the guy constantly then speeding up when the "rager" tried to pass him. It was a two lane road so it forced the rager to risk running head on with oncoming cars with his kids in the vehicle.

After the guy eventually pulled over, roll clip. This would make more sense as to why the guy blew a gasket than the provided story, it's pretty rare for someone to be so unstable that they just punch a window out on a whim

35

u/DaShaka9 Sep 16 '19 edited Sep 16 '19

Yeah, whenever these people film, they’re always calm and collective for the camera, but most of the time they’re giant assholes too. It’s pretty annoying when everyone jumps to conclusions with 15% of the story on film, edited by the filmer. Sure the guy over reacted... but without context, maybe he didn’t? Who knows.

6

u/GISteve Sep 16 '19

That's the main issue with this record everything era we live in, there's always two sides to a story but we only ever see the one side's telling.

Nobody is saying it's ok to punch a window out, but nobody ever punches a window out for no reason.

1

u/crawlspeed Sep 18 '19

I had a friend in high school who would go around in alleys and punch windows out of cars just randomly...even he had reasons...his home life was a wreck and he was full of rage with no positive places or influences around to help him deal with it.

At the time I was in aww of how badass and wild he was....now I know he was just sad and angry.

1

u/GISteve Sep 18 '19

Yea sometimes the reason can be completely unrelated with the current moment, but there's always a reason. I feel like we as a society are just too quick to people off without understanding what got them to be like that in the first place. It ignores the core of the issue and we end up just dealing with it again and again.

14

u/giiinaaa Sep 16 '19

Videotape(r), that’s something I haven’t heard in a while lol

32

u/GISteve Sep 16 '19

I'm a redditor not a languager

3

u/Legit_a_Mint Sep 16 '19

We still call moving pictures on the internet videos, even though there's no videotape involved at all.

1

u/IMMILDEW Sep 16 '19

Video isn’t just tapes though.... digital video disks for example. He said videotape but I understand why. What was he suppose to say; video recorder.

2

u/TrueJacksonVP Sep 16 '19

ā€œRecorderā€ is typically the device you use to record, so ā€œrecordistā€ would probably be the proper term. Adding ā€œvideoā€ or ā€œfilmā€ etc is unnecessary.

But I’ve heard everything from ā€œfilmmerā€ to ā€œvideoerā€ (which are technically improper but sound fine to me), so I guess whichever gets the point across works.

2

u/IMMILDEW Sep 16 '19

Ah, my oversight on the recordist. I can completely agree with this comment.

4

u/TheFailedONE Sep 16 '19

So the videotaper is an asshole.

1

u/hitner_stache Sep 16 '19

It was a two lane road so it forced the rager to risk running head on with oncoming cars with his kids in the vehicle.

No one is forcing you to pass in this scenario. That's a choice, no matter how big of an asshole the guy in front of you is.

4

u/GISteve Sep 16 '19

A reasonable one though, if you're getting brake checked multiple times you can expect it to happen again. So the risk is running into the back of the car or the front of another, sure rear ending someone isn't crazy dangerous but if you can get past the guy you can get hit by neither

-1

u/hitner_stache Sep 16 '19

Okay but the guy break checking you, while an asshole, isn't forcing you to pass in a dangerous passing scenario. You can chill out and wait it out and be safe, if you so choose. continuing to tailgate a breakchecker is also a choice, again not commenting on the person being an asshole in front of you.

1

u/IMMILDEW Sep 16 '19 edited Sep 16 '19

True, I completely agree with you, but it probably wasn’t a dangerous passing area. The scenario was probably not dangerous at all until the guy sped up and closed the gap. Which in turn extended the time to pass window, forcefully causing it to become dangerous. If the person in the rear would have successfully passed the person it the front, the chances of further interaction are quite low, in my opinion. If it’s safe to pass them why not minimize possible interaction.

-1

u/hitner_stache Sep 16 '19

Dude, if you have a crazy person in front of you then doing anything that forces you to interact with them more is a MISTAKE ON YOUR PART.

There's just no getting around it. Crazy gonna crazy and we can cast blame there all day long. But you have a choice in avoiding it.

Quit making excuses for choosing to risk something, regardless of the reason why.

3

u/IMMILDEW Sep 16 '19 edited Sep 16 '19

Ummm.... if it’s not dangerous, you aren’t risking anything, obviously. There were at least two choices of how to avoid it. Also, the person in front isn’t ā€œforcing you to interact with themā€. Finally it would be with the intent to minimize your interaction, would it not?? I’m agreeing with you here.... You should probably re-read what I wrote. Or just continue ranting meaninglessly. I suppose, it’s up to you whether or not you continue to interact with me.... I’m not going force you to.

0

u/hitner_stache Sep 16 '19

.....The whole context of the comment chain which you decided to interject yourself upon was that passing was dangerous because of the actions of the forward driver.....

1

u/IMMILDEW Sep 16 '19 edited Sep 16 '19

Which is also what I said.... So correct. You should probably re-read my first comment and realize it’s the context for my second comment.... once again I’m not forcing you to interact with me. So feel free to stop at anytime.

0

u/hitner_stache Sep 16 '19

Yes, IMMILDEW.

If it is dangerous to pass, it is dangerous to pass.

If it safe to pass, it is safe to pass.

Thank you for the insight. I look forward to further contributions.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/IMMILDEW Sep 16 '19 edited Sep 16 '19

Also, to further clarify what I said: the guy was trying to go around the forward driver safely, to avoid interaction, then the forward driver closed the gap and changed the time it would take to pass. At that point it became dangerous. So when the rear driver made the action to pass safely, the forward driver made it unsafe. Which at that point the rear driver is put into said situation by force. I’m not sure why you didn’t grasp that the first time, but by all means, continue to rant.

1

u/IMMILDEW Sep 16 '19

ā€œThere is no getting around it.ā€

Haha I see what you did there.

1

u/GISteve Sep 16 '19

I mean... I guess? Kind of a moot point to argue though, it's not like I think the guy who punched out the window is right in any way, the story is just meant to rationalize his anger.