Brutal race between blazer and jeep srt 8

[-stew-]

Would you all be calling the SRT owner a douche if he slammed into the POS Blazer?

Yes. In the same way Dale Earnhart SR is a douche for wrecking every driver he wasn't fast enough to pass.

I would buy a POS Blazer, convince my enemies into racing their daily drivers onto a track and smash into their ass.. Ultimate revenge with no repercussions.

What part of your raising makes you thing this is a decent or normal way to act? Because you simply signed a waiver stating that the venue isn't liable for any injuries you may incur. You can't run over the flag man and get away with it simply because you're on a race track.

[juicedimpss]

Looks like 88Nightmare's Blazer. Mike was that you?

couldnt have been,it wasnt leaning.








sorry mikey,i owe you a beer.

[88Nightmare]

funny you should say that. The left front coil spring on my Ranger is sagging a lot, so of course as I'm driving down the road, my ranger is leaning to the left

[Al]

An hyperbolic example would include pulling out a gun and shooting at the SRT...

I see; using the truck as a weapon could be seen as going beyond the conditions of the waiver.

[Turbo-Triumph]

I see; using the truck as a weapon could be seen as going beyond the conditions of the waiver.

the blazer lawyer would reply,

"He was not using his car as a weapon, he was doing a tactical manuever known as a 'pit manuever', and therefore his intention was to win the race, by spinning out his opponent, and did not mean intentional harm.
He did this because he knew if he didnt, he would loose the race."

[Turbo-Triumph]

.

3 minutes.

[Prince Valiant]

the blazer lawyer would reply,

"He was not using his car as a weapon, he was doing a tactical manuever known as a 'pit manuever', and therefore his intention was to win the race, by spinning out his opponent, and did not mean intentional harm.
He did this because he knew if he didnt, he would loose the race."

well, in either a small claims case or jury trial, I don't think it would meet the "preponderance of evidence" required in a civil trial. People would see right through it...it doesn't sound credible in the least.

Likewise, even if a prosecutor pressed criminal charges (be it a charge related to vandalism, assault, aggravated assault, perhaps using the vehicle as a weapon-which I think are all appropriate charges) I'm not sure such a defense would fly...because while the burden of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt," most reasonable people could see the intent of the blazer drivers owner was to cause property destruction if not outright harm, so no reasonable doubt would likely exist.

And though it might seem harsh to put the guy behind bars, I would...what kind of ass uses his vehicle as a weapon like that? Even IF he was sure no one would get hurt, it's still not unreasonable to think this person is a threat to public safety...and deserves to be put away to protect the public at large.

To me, I can understand two guys lacing up boxing gloves to "duke it out" and "settle a score".....but I would have to put my foot down if one of them breaks out the crow bar to hurt, or even to just scare the other guy.