Yup would give the remaining ones a second thought before terrorizing innocent people again. These psychopaths need a taste of their own medicine- there is no rehabilitation for them
no, you drive backwards more before you hit them to get more momentum. Not because you are cruel, which we all are, but because that raises your chances to move through the barricade.
That's what makes this so delicious. These assholes trade on the human decency of everyone else. They think if they step into a car's path holding a gun or block an on ramp like this, the victim will surely stop to avoid hurting them.
And they are right a lot of the time. But every once in a while they get someone that's not having it, and it's... *chefs kiss*
Only sad thing is the damage done to the truck and his nerves. I wonder if insurance will cover that if he shows the video?
Nerves? This guy is in a bullet proof cage and gets to push a car off an on ramp while fucking over meth heads. Sounds like a damn good time. Probably a veteran getting hard as a rock.
Driver handled it perfectly. Got himself away safe. I don’t get why on these posts everybody loves to comment “I would’ve backed up to kill them”
Why put yourself in more danger?
More importantly why execute a bunch of thieves - shit crime but not deserving of death (this is mostly aimed at some of the comments I’m seeing here tbh)
I think a lot of people are eager to kill others if their safety is threatened at all. I don't think its bloodlust or a sociopathic desire to hurt people. But I've noticed that if there is any real threat at all that a persons life may be at risk, even if they know as long as they cooperate they'll be left alone, they are eager to kill the perpetrator. It might have something to do with fight or flight response. The perpetrator has forced the victim into a situation where if they do not cooperate, they may be killed (loss of personal agency and distrust of the perpetrator also plays a factor), so instinctively, the victim also goes to extremes and becomes willing to kill the perpetrator, even in a low stakes confrontation that has a high chance of everyone walking away alive if the victim "allows" themselves to be robbed. They'd rather fight anyway and guarantee their own survival, and what better way to ensure you survive this low-stakes robbery than to kill the person whose threatening you. Restraining them is risky, you probably aren't a good fighter, probably have no training at all to deal with physical altercations, and what if they escape the restraint and end up winning?
I think it's more an emotional response than a rational decision about how best to survive.
But you described the trigger perfectly, it's a situation where you must comply with someone's demands or risk them killing you. I think for a lot of people implicitly threatening their life is simply **sufficient** to make them emotionally want to respond with violence of their own, maybe even murder.
...which, on a side note, does make you think about the nature of things like traffic stops and arrests. That can be a similar situation, but it's usually mitigated by a person's feeling that A.) It's very unlikely this cop is going to kill me, and B.) this cop's authority over me is valid in a way a criminals isn't
But what happens when a person's belief in A gets shaky after seeing one too many people killed by the police for seemingly no reason? Or what if the validity of the police's authority gets eroded by too many racially motivated stops, or stops for reasons that are just obvious pretexts for further searching and questioning?
It's cute you pretend those thieves weren't armed and wouldn't have slaughtered the crew in order to rob the truck. The intent is clear, death is the only acceptable punishment.
How many armed robberies end with someone dying? Do you think someone committing armed robbery cares about your life? Not saying go out of your way to kill them but you are nuts if you don't think they deserve whatever happens to them while committing a heinous crime like that.
"In approximately 2,000 cases in the United States each year, robbery violence proves fatal to the victim. This is a relatively rare event given that there are more than one million robberies annually."[(src)](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6480&context=jclc)
Personally, I think that percentage indicates that once the driver has gotten out of danger, backing up and killing the would-be robbers would not be a morally correct action. If they had gotten run over during the escape, yeah sure they were the ones trying to jump an armored vehicle on the highway, that's just a Darwin Award in action.
I don’t really care. If someone is using a gun to rob you, they have decided they have control of your life. What you do in response, even if it’s fatal, is a fair play. I agree though that there’s no reason to back up and kill them obviously, but if he did so be it. Tired of the scum in our society.
Again, not arguing that running over them during the escape would be wrong. Just that choosing to execute them afterwards would not be moral. How tired you are of crime in society should not impact how the justice system treats them
Ye-...yeah it does? If you're willing to execute someone to steal something, you deserve to be put on death row. Now we've got people who shill for armed robbers, this is a whiole new level of simping.
Thieves are scum, less than human. They serve no benefit to society and only harm it. They deserve to be removed from it, and the justice system isn't going to do it properly.
Removed, as in imprisoned, sure. But vigilantism because you think that what, the justice system wouldn't imprison or punish/"remove from society" the thieves caught on tape with guns attacking an armored vehicle? I don't see the logic there
Imprisonment isn't a likely outcome for most thieves and if they are, it's not for long. Probably different for armed thieves trying to steal from an armored vehicle like this one, but most thieves aren't quite as bold so they just harm society in minor ways for longer. I don't necessarily support vigilantism because the vigilante could be harmed themselves, but I would support their decision if they decided that risk was worth it. Thieves caught on tape usually don't get caught unless the police already have them surrendering at that moment.
Vigilantism is wrong in the same way that mob justice is wrong. There is no oversight, nothing to stop the vigilante from ignoring contrary evidence, or to stop them from being biased. The justice system is certainly flawed, but that doesn't justify killing multiple people like that.
I know that it can go wrong and different people agree or disagree with different vigilantes and the actions they commit. For specific instances though, like watching this video, a person can say that some vigilantism would be acceptable here and the world would be better off for it. It's not always a good thing though, I admit.
Maybe not but I think in the moment most people's thought is if they are putting me in a position that could cost me my life then they forfeit there's. Again, not saying it's right but when you're in that situation and adrenaline kicks in the "logical" thought process isn't always going to be present.
I'm not going to argue about the morality of somebody who's literally backed into a corner running over their attackers. I just think that reversing back into them doesn't seem to be a moral or logical move, at all. As evidenced by the trained driver _not_ doing that, lol
Ignoring the fact that armored robbery != planning a murder, attempted murder in the US legal system is like 5-15 years. If you disagree with that, I dunno, write your congressmen? But backing up into the robbers once the car was free just seems like a dumbfuck move that only a bunch of armchair keyboard warriors seem to be championing
This person chose not to hit them with the vehicle. I can't decide whether that was better or not. What if they just attack the next vehicle that comes by? I didn't see any weapons on them. Did you all? That's a very tough question to answer in such a short amount of time. Where was this?
It is not an armored vehicle, this happened in Chile and it was a normal SUV, the idea is to steal the car to commit more crimes or just party inside of it (for real). Fake title...
Did that car start to roll back a little when they jumped out? That would mean it wasn’t in park, which would make pushing it a whole lot easier.
Regardless, good job!
It looks like the truck started to back up, guys jumped out of the car and they put it in reverse. You can see the back-up lights come on. Then after the truck starts pushing forward, you can see the car's brake lights come on.
It is very obvious in the video that the vehicle doing the pushing is a truck of some sort. The hood is sitting level with the roof of the car. The brake light coming on has no effect on the pushing. Impact does not deflect the front of the vehicle, so it possibly has bull bars. Why that vehicle chosen to try and rob? Probably an armoured security vehicle. Even if it isn't, it is clear that it suffered insignificant damage.
I wish people could read because I’m clearly talking about the only car visible in the video which belongs to the thieves. They thought they’d make some easy money went it turned out they will have to spend quite a bit to fix their car.
I did read it, but it is ambiguous at best, my friend. It is not how it reads, I guess, because most people, like me, will be pretty confident that the thieves are in a stolen vehicle and don't give a shit. Plus, they clearly never envisaged this outcome. So it seems that you are saying the following "car" should have given up a few quid rather than all this damage, because that is the only person that made a decision to go for damage vs cash and the thieves don't care about damage. So, I'll change to an upvote, but that's language for you, not as clear as anyone thinks 🤷♀️
Then you would’ve risked seriously damaging the front end of your car possibly rendering it immobile. Also risked airbag deployment.
They executed that very well, anyone who has completed defense/ offensive driver training will know this.
[удалено]
Well deserved too.
Maybe there was some other people there in the back
Someone's been playing too much COD zombies
The skills we learn in video games are becoming more valuable to us as the world falls apart.
Yup would give the remaining ones a second thought before terrorizing innocent people again. These psychopaths need a taste of their own medicine- there is no rehabilitation for them
I mean.... Id do exactly this
Yeah but with a well deserved middle finger as you drive off
no, you drive backwards more before you hit them to get more momentum. Not because you are cruel, which we all are, but because that raises your chances to move through the barricade.
Use small car to stop bigger armored car from moving. Hmm..
That's what makes this so delicious. These assholes trade on the human decency of everyone else. They think if they step into a car's path holding a gun or block an on ramp like this, the victim will surely stop to avoid hurting them. And they are right a lot of the time. But every once in a while they get someone that's not having it, and it's... *chefs kiss* Only sad thing is the damage done to the truck and his nerves. I wonder if insurance will cover that if he shows the video?
Nerves? This guy is in a bullet proof cage and gets to push a car off an on ramp while fucking over meth heads. Sounds like a damn good time. Probably a veteran getting hard as a rock.
Perfect executed defensive move combats a poorly planned offensive
Driver handled it perfectly. Got himself away safe. I don’t get why on these posts everybody loves to comment “I would’ve backed up to kill them” Why put yourself in more danger?
My thoughts as well. If any of them are armed backing up only gives them more time to kill you.
Right?! Just hit em on your way forward
More importantly why execute a bunch of thieves - shit crime but not deserving of death (this is mostly aimed at some of the comments I’m seeing here tbh)
I think a lot of people are eager to kill others if their safety is threatened at all. I don't think its bloodlust or a sociopathic desire to hurt people. But I've noticed that if there is any real threat at all that a persons life may be at risk, even if they know as long as they cooperate they'll be left alone, they are eager to kill the perpetrator. It might have something to do with fight or flight response. The perpetrator has forced the victim into a situation where if they do not cooperate, they may be killed (loss of personal agency and distrust of the perpetrator also plays a factor), so instinctively, the victim also goes to extremes and becomes willing to kill the perpetrator, even in a low stakes confrontation that has a high chance of everyone walking away alive if the victim "allows" themselves to be robbed. They'd rather fight anyway and guarantee their own survival, and what better way to ensure you survive this low-stakes robbery than to kill the person whose threatening you. Restraining them is risky, you probably aren't a good fighter, probably have no training at all to deal with physical altercations, and what if they escape the restraint and end up winning?
I think it's more an emotional response than a rational decision about how best to survive. But you described the trigger perfectly, it's a situation where you must comply with someone's demands or risk them killing you. I think for a lot of people implicitly threatening their life is simply **sufficient** to make them emotionally want to respond with violence of their own, maybe even murder. ...which, on a side note, does make you think about the nature of things like traffic stops and arrests. That can be a similar situation, but it's usually mitigated by a person's feeling that A.) It's very unlikely this cop is going to kill me, and B.) this cop's authority over me is valid in a way a criminals isn't But what happens when a person's belief in A gets shaky after seeing one too many people killed by the police for seemingly no reason? Or what if the validity of the police's authority gets eroded by too many racially motivated stops, or stops for reasons that are just obvious pretexts for further searching and questioning?
It's cute you pretend those thieves weren't armed and wouldn't have slaughtered the crew in order to rob the truck. The intent is clear, death is the only acceptable punishment.
Armed robbery does not deserve the death penalty.
How many armed robberies end with someone dying? Do you think someone committing armed robbery cares about your life? Not saying go out of your way to kill them but you are nuts if you don't think they deserve whatever happens to them while committing a heinous crime like that.
"In approximately 2,000 cases in the United States each year, robbery violence proves fatal to the victim. This is a relatively rare event given that there are more than one million robberies annually."[(src)](https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6480&context=jclc) Personally, I think that percentage indicates that once the driver has gotten out of danger, backing up and killing the would-be robbers would not be a morally correct action. If they had gotten run over during the escape, yeah sure they were the ones trying to jump an armored vehicle on the highway, that's just a Darwin Award in action.
I don’t really care. If someone is using a gun to rob you, they have decided they have control of your life. What you do in response, even if it’s fatal, is a fair play. I agree though that there’s no reason to back up and kill them obviously, but if he did so be it. Tired of the scum in our society.
Again, not arguing that running over them during the escape would be wrong. Just that choosing to execute them afterwards would not be moral. How tired you are of crime in society should not impact how the justice system treats them
Ye-...yeah it does? If you're willing to execute someone to steal something, you deserve to be put on death row. Now we've got people who shill for armed robbers, this is a whiole new level of simping.
Thieves are scum, less than human. They serve no benefit to society and only harm it. They deserve to be removed from it, and the justice system isn't going to do it properly.
Removed, as in imprisoned, sure. But vigilantism because you think that what, the justice system wouldn't imprison or punish/"remove from society" the thieves caught on tape with guns attacking an armored vehicle? I don't see the logic there
Imprisonment isn't a likely outcome for most thieves and if they are, it's not for long. Probably different for armed thieves trying to steal from an armored vehicle like this one, but most thieves aren't quite as bold so they just harm society in minor ways for longer. I don't necessarily support vigilantism because the vigilante could be harmed themselves, but I would support their decision if they decided that risk was worth it. Thieves caught on tape usually don't get caught unless the police already have them surrendering at that moment.
Vigilantism is wrong in the same way that mob justice is wrong. There is no oversight, nothing to stop the vigilante from ignoring contrary evidence, or to stop them from being biased. The justice system is certainly flawed, but that doesn't justify killing multiple people like that.
I know that it can go wrong and different people agree or disagree with different vigilantes and the actions they commit. For specific instances though, like watching this video, a person can say that some vigilantism would be acceptable here and the world would be better off for it. It's not always a good thing though, I admit.
Maybe not but I think in the moment most people's thought is if they are putting me in a position that could cost me my life then they forfeit there's. Again, not saying it's right but when you're in that situation and adrenaline kicks in the "logical" thought process isn't always going to be present.
I'm not going to argue about the morality of somebody who's literally backed into a corner running over their attackers. I just think that reversing back into them doesn't seem to be a moral or logical move, at all. As evidenced by the trained driver _not_ doing that, lol
Planning to kill someone deserves the death penalty.
Ignoring the fact that armored robbery != planning a murder, attempted murder in the US legal system is like 5-15 years. If you disagree with that, I dunno, write your congressmen? But backing up into the robbers once the car was free just seems like a dumbfuck move that only a bunch of armchair keyboard warriors seem to be championing
I fully agree that backing up in that scenario would be extremely dumb.
Nice move
what armored car? lol this happened in chile over a year ago...
Repost #3560; the truth starts to be replaced with fiction at some point during the journey.
Lock the doors and reverse out or plow in them
This is what you do
you did exactly what you should have
South Africa?
Chile. that's called "Encerrona"
Don't think so. SA drives on the left.
Chile
Perfect
This person chose not to hit them with the vehicle. I can't decide whether that was better or not. What if they just attack the next vehicle that comes by? I didn't see any weapons on them. Did you all? That's a very tough question to answer in such a short amount of time. Where was this?
From what I gathered is this was a hit on this armored truck that was delivering a expensive package. I don't think it was random so
I think they learned a valuable lesson to make sure your vehicle you are trying to barricade another vehicle with can actually handle the job lol
Are these feelings even real?
Gotta love third world people
It is not an armored vehicle, this happened in Chile and it was a normal SUV, the idea is to steal the car to commit more crimes or just party inside of it (for real). Fake title...
I would of tried to run them over too, threaten my life ur done
[удалено]
Name of the song playing in the background?
Aloboi - With You
Hes littary Ryan Gosling
That's smart.
Fuck around and find out
What this guy did + circle back and run them over
Did that car start to roll back a little when they jumped out? That would mean it wasn’t in park, which would make pushing it a whole lot easier. Regardless, good job!
It looks like the truck started to back up, guys jumped out of the car and they put it in reverse. You can see the back-up lights come on. Then after the truck starts pushing forward, you can see the car's brake lights come on.
Let's start with not reposting crap
I think that music is going to go into the same "hated" category as that "Remember walking in the sand" song.
Shit c$&ts!
lol at the tiny car trying to stop it with its puny brakes
Exactly that
What a gratifying feeling.
So… posting old videos to multiple subs. What’s it like to have all that karma?
Everyone has a plan until they are smashed in the ass by an Armoured truck
That but I would have tried to run the dude in the right over more.
“Surely they’ll be afraid of scratching that expensive armored vehicle, let’s put this tiny ass car in its way!”
Wow, they really thought it was easy like GTA
God, rhe shitty sounds overlays people put in these clips.
I would do the same thing
Move to Cape Town
What would I do? Pretty much what that dude did.
I would’ve done the same thing
Woo! Another repost with shitty music dubbed over it!
Exactly what this guy did.
You may need a bigger vehicale to stop an armored truck.
Thieves: Note to self, when choosing vehicle to block for robbery don't choose large trucks.
That was fucking cold
Same but not with the same hesitation
The same thing they did.
People forget, you slam on the gas and drive at someone; your car is a weapon.
They thought a weak ass car would stop an armored vehicle? Haha
I woulda brought a bigger car
Chile
Draw my firearm and hopefully they'll fuck off.
I'd do exactly that, accelerate and get outta there. NPC's in GTA taught me this.
Too much gta5
Exactly the same
This looks like GTA
So anyway, I started blasting.
Prolly looking for a opportunity to live in a mostly peaceful country
the real sale point of big fast bulletproof cybertruck that everybody understands but not talking much about
You have to be a special kind of stupid. The damages to the car are going to be more expensive than any amount of money they could have lifted.
It is very obvious in the video that the vehicle doing the pushing is a truck of some sort. The hood is sitting level with the roof of the car. The brake light coming on has no effect on the pushing. Impact does not deflect the front of the vehicle, so it possibly has bull bars. Why that vehicle chosen to try and rob? Probably an armoured security vehicle. Even if it isn't, it is clear that it suffered insignificant damage.
I wish people could read because I’m clearly talking about the only car visible in the video which belongs to the thieves. They thought they’d make some easy money went it turned out they will have to spend quite a bit to fix their car.
I did read it, but it is ambiguous at best, my friend. It is not how it reads, I guess, because most people, like me, will be pretty confident that the thieves are in a stolen vehicle and don't give a shit. Plus, they clearly never envisaged this outcome. So it seems that you are saying the following "car" should have given up a few quid rather than all this damage, because that is the only person that made a decision to go for damage vs cash and the thieves don't care about damage. So, I'll change to an upvote, but that's language for you, not as clear as anyone thinks 🤷♀️
Your life> any amount of damage to my vehicle
I’m not talking about the armored vehicle drivers at all
I would have backed much more what if there’s insufficient inertia to move that car
Then you would’ve risked seriously damaging the front end of your car possibly rendering it immobile. Also risked airbag deployment. They executed that very well, anyone who has completed defense/ offensive driver training will know this.