BigWes wrote

HyperViper wrote

Yin wrote She isn't exactly lying. All three did get attacked. When someone attacks your vehicle with you in it, you were technically attacked. If you are in an object that and it gets attacked, you are under attack. All three were attacked, but the man seems to be the only one that was personally attacked. There is also some mental trauma there I am sure, which can be classified as an attack by itself.

This is true, but the way she has worded it make's out that she and her baby got physically attacked, that is what I'm saying.

Only an idiot would conclude that she meant "physical attacks were done to her and her daughter". She said "attacks", which is too broad to even conclude. It could mean, physical, emotional, property ect.

Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote You can't read, you twist words, and your a complete idiot.

Talk your way out of this:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

He says "hits the back window".
You said the back window was not smashed, at what time did Moby say the back window was smashed.

Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

How does the video prove me wrong? Of course the back window was not smashed, he merely hits it and then goes for the guy hitting the front window with his helmet. You said Moby had said it was smashed, when Moby said "he hits the back window", which is not smashing, they are two completely different things when used in context.

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote You can't read, you twist words, and your a complete idiot.

Talk your way out of this:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

He says "hits the back window".
You said the back window was not smashed, at what time did Moby say the back window was smashed.

Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

What? You've never been emotionally attacked? Bullied?
I think you've finally come up against something you can't worm your way out of without sounding like the most immoral person viewing the thread.

BigWes wrote

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote You can't read, you twist words, and your a complete idiot.

Talk your way out of this:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

He says "hits the back window".
You said the back window was not smashed, at what time did Moby say the back window was smashed.

Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

How does the video prove me wrong? Of course the back window was not smashed, he merely hits it and then goes for the guy hitting the front window with his helmet. You said Moby had said it was smashed, when Moby said "he hits the back window", which is not smashing, they are two completely different things when used in context.

Video shows that ONLY the driver was being ''attacked''. NOT the woman or baby, like the woman is implying, an attack is generally thought of as a physical attack, espeically in the media. You don't say ''My house was broken in to, it was attacked'' ''He called me ugly, he attacked me with words''.

Again, Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

The bikers were more at fault here. Yes, the driver made a mistake of hitting the biker, though the biker was driving like a complete ass and idiot. However, the driver had his wife and child in the car and when threatened by the bikers, I would have gotten out of there too. and the man was beaten.

Moby wrote

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote You can't read, you twist words, and your a complete idiot.

Talk your way out of this:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

He says "hits the back window".
You said the back window was not smashed, at what time did Moby say the back window was smashed.

Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

What? You've never been emotionally attacked? Bullied?
I think you've finally come up against something you can't worm your way out of without sounding like the most immoral person viewing the thread.

An attack is generally thought of as a physical attack, espeically in the media. You don't say ''My house was broken in to, it was attacked'' ''He called me ugly, he attacked me with words''.

I haven't come up against anything, it's you lot who have come up with things like:

- Biker tried to fraud insurance
- Attacked my grammar
- Said I never go outside etc

The list goes on, you're struggling in this argument so resort to find little nuggets of things to use against me, some of them I have listed for you.

You're merely just young trolls.

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote You can't read, you twist words, and your a complete idiot.

Talk your way out of this:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

He says "hits the back window".
You said the back window was not smashed, at what time did Moby say the back window was smashed.

Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

How does the video prove me wrong? Of course the back window was not smashed, he merely hits it and then goes for the guy hitting the front window with his helmet. You said Moby had said it was smashed, when Moby said "he hits the back window", which is not smashing, they are two completely different things when used in context.

Video shows that ONLY the driver was being ''attacked''. NOT the woman or baby, like the woman is implying, an attack is generally thought of as a physical attack, espeically in the media. You don't say ''My house was broken in to, it was attacked'' ''He called me ugly, he attacked me with words''.

Again, Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

Why would I give up to a hard-headed idiot who thinks he has proven this argument with no legitimate facts.

HyperViper wrote

Yin wrote She isn't exactly lying. All three did get attacked. When someone attacks your vehicle with you in it, you were technically attacked. If you are in an object that and it gets attacked, you are under attack. All three were attacked, but the man seems to be the only one that was personally attacked. There is also some mental trauma there I am sure, which can be classified as an attack by itself.

This is true, but the way she has worded it make's out that she and her baby got physically attacked, that is what I'm saying.

do you seriously think that the SUV is in the wrong do you see the way these people motorcyclists are driving and they are the ones who started as you can clearly see she about came to a complete stop after hitting the guy who was getting her to slow down for whatever reason and then no one can see what happened while she was at a stop. You seem like a 14 year old who has no family because if it were me in this situation I would have done the same. Also just watch it again and pay very close attention to what happens after the SUV hits the guys bike at around 0:30 when she comes to a stop multiple people get off their bike and went towards the SUV it is completely obvious that these bikers were out to get her to begin with before all of this they wanted to start trouble and you can actually make out that these people are bad people at the end where one guy attempts to bash out the back window with a child in the back

BigWes wrote Why would I give up to a hard-headed idiot who thinks he has proven this argument with no legitimate facts.

I have countered everything you've said with facts, opinions, and common sense. You failed early on so resorted to attacking my grammar and myself in real life just like you little trolls do.

Give up.

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote

HyperViper wrote

BigWes wrote You can't read, you twist words, and your a complete idiot.

Talk your way out of this:
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

He says "hits the back window".
You said the back window was not smashed, at what time did Moby say the back window was smashed.

Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

How does the video prove me wrong? Of course the back window was not smashed, he merely hits it and then goes for the guy hitting the front window with his helmet. You said Moby had said it was smashed, when Moby said "he hits the back window", which is not smashing, they are two completely different things when used in context.

Video shows that ONLY the driver was being ''attacked''. NOT the woman or baby, like the woman is implying, an attack is generally thought of as a physical attack, espeically in the media. You don't say ''My house was broken in to, it was attacked'' ''He called me ugly, he attacked me with words''.

Again, Just give up, you've been proven wrong and now you're attempting everything you can.

This is worse than calling people bias, you can't win a subjective debate.
Stop telling people to give up.

You haven't proven anyone wrong, you just don't want to answer.
An emotional attack is just as valid as a physical one.
So no one laid a finger on the child, the kid still had to watch their father get dragged out of a car and beaten up whilst the front window was smashed in, which could have easily injured the child.

I actually can't believe you're defending these bikers who are obviously savages after the evidence that Dunder provided of their criminal history.