I'll sign something to keep her on the team. We can't let insane people hold us hostage. She did nothing wrong, just try to escape from a crazy person.
This woman didn’t have a weapon, she wasn’t even beating on the vehicle in any threatening manner, she wasn’t threatening bodily harm.
It’s a bizarre interaction. It’s a frightening one. But it’s not a violent one until the driver decides the best way to shake this woman is not by backing up and fleeing, or even by trying to throw her off the vehicle by a sudden stop, but by dragging her down a road at speed.
That’s legitimately fucking insane and the driver should consider herself lucky the judge factored in the other lady’s insane behavior and only handed down a 6 month suspension.
Rewatch the video. If someone is trying to forcibly enter your vehicle and then prevent you from leaving...pretty sure most women I know would be in flight or fight mode. The crazy lady could have ended the interaction at anytime, she chose not to. Deiver was trying to escape a crazy person.
How the fuck is driving with a person on your car self defense? Her life was never in danger, but she willingly put the other woman's life in danger. What if she got under the car? You need to be somewhat of a psycho to behave like this.
but she willingly put the other woman's life in danger.
This is where the discussion separates, because I don't see it that way. The other woman willingly put her OWN life in danger. She jumped onto the hood, refused to jump off in safe speeds despite having dozens of opportunities to do so, gave verbal consent multiple times to keep going.
It is fucking baffling to me that you somehow place more blame on the driver.
i’m with you. idk why anyone would transfer accountability to the driver in this situation when that woman clearly stood in front of a moving vehicle and then jumped on. and this is is after she approached her vehicle and tried opening the door in a rage. how can that be anything other than self defense lol. if crazy lady was crazy man then im sure it she wouldn’t have been charged
That frankly doesn't matter. You think glass doesn't break or humans are stuck to only using their hands? Nobody will give a shit that the crazy person is behind half a centimeter of transparent surface, they will want to get away. Normal people shouldn't need to spread their assholes to make sure the crazy person throwing both of them in danger doesn't get hurt.
Except that's not what the court 'recognized'? lmao
"The behaviour of the complainant was erratic, it was dangerous, it placed you in danger, you also placed her in danger," Thompson said.
"It was a poor decision that you made in the circumstances, being confronted with what anyone objectively would see as a terrifying situation."
The judge herself directly says she was in danger and said what every sane person would think about the situation. It's honestly like you've never been outside. "Not in danger" That glass won't protect her from anyone who wants to hurt her, buddy. And all she received was a 6-month driving suspension, which is about the minimum she can receive according to the law.
But the "passenger" wasn't either. She CHOSE to be. It went from neither in danger, to one voluntarily placing herself in danger and refusing to get off.
Are train drivers also putting people who run in front of trains in danger? Are drivers of cars putting people who jump on the roads in danger?
Or are those people being fucking stupid and placing themselves in danger?
She's blocking the driver from leaving. She clearly has no authority to do this. Its called False Imprisonment at that point. You can only really block someone if they actually commit a crime. Cutting a drive thru line isn't really a crime now isn't it or atleast a arrestable offense.
Doubt you can False imprison someone that is in a car using your body. As the driver you lock the doors and call police, what the fuck is wrong with people in this thread justifying the psycho driver behavior?
Still she's physically blocking her exit as she's trying to leave feeling threatened. Being in a car doesn't matter as you don't know what the person might be carrying that could still harm you. She tries to drive off, the woman puts herself infront of the person not seeking conflict. The woman is intentionally restricting her movement blocking the exit to the public road even though a vehicle wich can easily run her over comes towards her, she decides herself to grab onto said vehicle instead of moving away. Its called the conscequences of your own actions and some sort of mental issues doing all this shit for someone who cut a line in a drive thru.
By Australian standards the driver's behavior would not have been anywhere close to meeting the definition of self defense and would absolutely meet the definition of reckless driving.
Ok so we just sit there for 2 hours while she’s on my hood. Fantastic
Edit: in my city it took over an hour for police to come to my apartment after the apartment unit below me shot their gun off and a bullet flew up into my oven
The fact that they are potentially preventing you to leave should fall under kidnapping. It probably won't, but it should. You should not have to be held against your will at a location because some idiot decided to jump on your vehicle. If they made that choice, they should be held accountable.
If you refuse to let go of my car after I start to drive, then I see you as a bigger, more unstable threat and that makes me fear for my life. I'm not slowing down until you're no longer an unpredictable threat to my life.
There's cemeteries full of people who didn't think the other person was going to hurt them. A reasonable person wouldn't act like that I'm a drive thru but here we are.
In the US if the psycho on the hood was a cop they’d have put some ventilation holes into the driver asap. And then be put on paid leave for a few days before they’re back on the job.
*this is also the case even if the cop intentionally jumps onto the hood or puts themselves in harms way. I’d leave a list of examples but it would be tldr
Or, you know, the fact that she essentially committed kidnapping by trying to trap the lady in place inside her car could be used as the justification.
Or you, you could read your own words on "injury" and see the crazy lady pounding on her car as evidence of that.
Not sure it rises to that level, but not shown in this video, the crazy lady did try to open the driver's door in the confrontation before this video starts.
By Australian standards? What's the approved Australian method of dealing with this? Having a box of venomous car spiders or snakes to throw at the woman?
You still might get in trouble if it gets drawn out like this. My understanding is that the ideal move is jerk the wheel to the left and drive over her, or crush her against the building QUICKLY. Then you can claim it happened in an instant and you feared for your life. Say she called you a fascist for loving America and you shouldn’t even catch charges.
Idk, it’s a bit crazy for sure but the lady hanging onto the hood did try opening the driver’s door when she was in the drive thru, then beating on her windows and trying to break the cars antenna before walking away just to come back and block the car. So she did kind of prove herself to be a danger. Idk but if someone tried opening my doors then beat on my windows when they couldn’t get in, disappeared only to reappear when I’m trying to leave, I probably wouldn’t take my chances either. Lady easily could’ve gotten something to break my windows with or worse.
This is the equivalent of someone seeing you have a gun, standing in front of you, daring you to shoot them and refusing to move out of your way. Lose-lose situation. Why should an ordinary person be punished in this case, either though having to spend a day solving this situation through official means or for solving it your way (even with recorded consent). This is the only way to get rid of crazy people who think there is no consequence to their actions.
Not ridiculous at all, it could easily have resulted in them falling under the wheels resulting in a serious injury or even death. They could have just called the cops and stopped. Only justification is if the driver was in imminent danger of being physically attacked which obviously was not the case here.
It’s not in this video but The lady tried to get in to the drivers car. Then disappeared only to reappear to block her from leaving. If I was the driver I would be worried she might have left to get something to break my windows with since she was trying to get in the car before. There is cctv footage of her trying to open the drivers doors and then trying to break her antenna before walking away and coming back to block her.
This is the problem though. According to laws, this is a lose lose situation for the driver, which is why the law view of this situation should change. Either you have to bother with calling cops and waiting or you have to bother with the consequences of "taking them with you". Why should an ordinary person be put in a lose lose situation at no fault of their own and have to pay for it?
If a man gets on my hood and tries to get me to stop my vehicle because he wants to verbally abuse me or worse, how is staying in my vehicle and driving away the wrong option? Or is it because she's a woman she can't possibly be dangerous? It's ridiculous, if the driver had done something illegal prior to the video, why didn't the crazy person call the police and report their license plate?
Can you explain clearly how the driver is somehow in the wrong here? Did you expect them to stop at the request of an agitated aggressive stranger?
Well, considering the person fell from the car on what looks like a highway then that not only can kill her but also might be a danger towards other drivers (we see other cars) and maybe cause other indirect accidents. This is not to say I don’t understand your reasoning nor that what you say is senseless.
I do understand the idea of thinking the driver should not be charged. I do disagree with that thought. The only reason I have an objection is the lady was standing and the driver drove into her. Then the driver proceeded to drive through the lady and take her to high speeds where she lost grip of the car that hit her.
Obviously the woman on the hood is unstable but do they deserve in this situation to be executed by the driver with no due process?
The driver could have easily stopped and called the police instead of pretending she was in a video game.
You're mindset that anyone who inconveniences you while driving (which I'm sure you consider a god given right) deserves to die is actually completely unhinged and barbaric if you actually think about it for two seconds.
The fact that your comment is so highly upvoted shows how much the auto industry has infected a large portion of the population with brainworms.
You’re of the mindset that the police exist to protect you (which I’m sure you consider a god given right). I have some bad news for you. They aren’t. Law enforcement is just that: enforcers of the law. They come after a crime is committed to bring the perpetrator(s) to justice. There is one person, and one person alone, responsible for your safety and survival. That person is you. There are countless graves filled with those who held your beliefs. As for me, when some crazy attempts to unlawfully imprison me (because that’s what she was doing), you can be sure I’ll remove myself from the imprisonment and call the police on her later.
It's kinda unhinged how many people don't see a problem with this. Escalating immediately to using potentially deadly force is not an appropriate response to someone getting in your way.
There's a concept in law of being able to respond with "like force" or the principle of proportionality in self-defense, where a person is justified in using a level of force equivalent to, or in proportion to, the force or threat they are resisting.
Here in LATAM the cops will not give a shit neither to solve neither to settle the dispute so if someone did jump on somebody's car here the result would be far worse
But guess what, nobody does anything like that here. I wonder why
It's also unhinged to continue to hold onto the hood of a car when someone starts to drive. From my perspective, the agitator continued to make the choice to hold on when she had ample time to let go of the hood at slower speeds. Her "faith" in the driver to not increase their speed is pure folly, and she alone put herself in that position In the first place. Should the driver have sped up? For legal reasons and general human decency, no. But to dismiss the stupidity of the agitator is unhinged too.
You got the answer to your original question right here, though.
You think people are unhinged for siding with the driver. /u/AncientHighlight4515 explained to you perfectly the way their mind operates:
to dismiss the stupidity of the agitator is unhinged too
You didn't say a single word about the agitator, but not only did they read words that don't exist, they even took the time to write a rebuttal to those non-existent words and post it in a public space. That's how locked-in they are to this train of thought.
Not to single out this individual poster, it's clear a plurality of people, at least.
In most Western countries the driver would be getting charged in this situation.
Yes, I disagree in general. Jump on the hood of a car and you get what you get. But... you're following through with an action that you know could kill the other person regardless of the fact that they are acting out of stupidity or even doing something illegal themselves.
If she wanted to attack me, she would have had to move out from in front of my car. At that point, I would just drive away. If she refused to move from in front of my car, I would let the police handle it when they arrived. The idea that the driver had no other reasonable avenue of action from what she did is absurd.
Depends. If you mag dump them, it still will fall under self defense. Also if you shoot them and they advance or do not make an attempt to leave your home, you can continue to shoot them.
Now this also depends on the type of castle doctrine your state has.
Source: Family members who have actually had to kill home invaders (yes plural).
I think it would have been more okay if the driver hadn't gotten on a road with other vehicles. At that point, both the driver and the rider were willingly endangering both each other and other people.
I mean, I think there were other ways to get off that messed up lady but they chose that route instead. It wasn’t a case of a side visible weapon threatening their life as well.
Lmao, driver is clearly insane and should be in jail for attempted murder or at least aggravated assault. Definitely should not be trusted with the ability to operate a motor vehicle. But ofc if you use a car as a weapon you might as well kill 6 kids or whatever because the most you will get is a slap on the wrist.
The article doesn’t say anything about how the lady tried opening Shaw’s doors and damaged her car before this video happened. But the video on the article does show a clip of her trying to open Shaw’s doors.
191
u/AlpineVibe Apr 16 '26
Gold Coast: Car swerves along road, trying to shake off woman clinging onto bonnet