I hope someone answers your question as I'm curious as well. I do not think the guy that placed the cones would be responsible for the damage to the truck.
First, say Bubba hit the cones then killed one of the neighbors or their kids. He'd get charged with some form of vehicular manslaughter, but OP could easily be charged too. Short of anyone getting killed or seriously injured though, just say 'I thought the wind was blowing them over, I didn't expect anyone to be crap and stupid enough to be running them over on purpose, even someone as dumb as Bubba'. Plausible doubt, it would be difficult to convict OP of anything. They just wouldn't likely let that fly if someone gets seriously hurt or killed by said actions.
it depends on where you are, some places have laws that all things 3ft from the road need to be destroyable. So depending on where the op is he could be held liable and possibly face legal consequences
To answer the question: No he's not responsible. Technically his intent is to put up cones to notify drivers there are kids at play, not to damage a truck, that sweet bit of revenge is just an added bonus.
"Technically his intent is to put up cones to notify drivers there are kids at play" You can't put stuff on the road regardless of your intent. The shoulder of the road is a part of the road.
There's a few flaws in your statement: 1) he's not legally allowed to put up traffic cones anywhere on any road way. The only people who are allowed to do that are road crews. 2) the traffic cones are made of rubberized plastic to prevent them from damaging vehicles should they be hit 3) purposely and with malice, filling them with concrete and rebar shows intent, and malice. He is 100% responsible for the damage. This is no different than people who string up aircraft cable across roads to prevent atv's etc from driving down them. They too are criminally responsible for the injuries they cause. There was a story out of Michigan (I think it was) where a home owner got tired of all the vehicles parked along their dirt road which ran parallel to a nice stream. Lot's of people went canoeing and kayaking along this stream. The stream and road were public property. The homeowner posted signs No parking which were promptly ignored. (because they were not legal). They then put nails spikes along the shoulder to flatten all the times of people who parked there. You can guess what happened? They were found to be the culprit, they were charged and yes, they were forced to pay for all the damaged tires. PLUS towing costs.
@@muskokamike127 This. Depending on the state/township there could even be hefty fines for putting up false cones not approved by the local ordinances.
Since you were already familiar with Frankie's BS, I think I would have left her there as soon as she went up to house at 124 Oak Street. "You said all you had to do was show up!" I wouldn't have let her into my car in the first place.
They use cement in cones here all the time for construction to keep the wind from moving them. And OP said the cones were at the shoulder of the road (outside of the regular lane of traffic). The traffic cones were also stationary objects. They didn't "jump" in front of his truck. I can't speak for everywhere, but where I am, if you hit a non-moving object (especially one outside of the driving lane), the driver alone is responsible. Plus the guy was obviously speeding in a residential neighborhood with kids (as noted by the amount of damage), so it is highly unlikely that any judge or jury would rule in his favor. It would be much more likely that he (driver) would be charged and probably lose his license.
@@chrisrandom5193 Rebar is commonly tied to the inside the thing being filled with cement, to hold it together. Otherwise, the cement would just pop out of the cone, like a mold. It also helps hold the cement together.
Years ago we had a neighbor who instead of driving down to the school driveway(less than 50 feet from his house, would turn around and drive off through our side yard. It was leaving a rut in our yard. So my husband fixed up a piece of metal with nails in it sticking up in about the width of a car, painted it green and placed it where the idiot neighbor was driving through the yard. The next time he drove through our yard, he got 4 flat tires.He never drove through our yard again. This neighbor also tried to hit my son because a wiffle ball went into his yard, just ff the sidewalk. He came over to our house and rang the doorbell, my son answered the door and he swung at my son and knocked my son's hat off.My husband found out and told that neighbor if he ever laid a hand on our children he would not live to see another day.
I have a similar story, my uncle always had this one rude old woman from down the street drive through his yard rather than go to the end of the street (his house had no fence so she use the yard as a shortcut to the main road behind the house) well he had had enough and wanted to make a garden anyways so he tilled the soil in his back yard till it was realy soft, she drove through it just a day after some rain and her little VW beetle was sunk up to the top of its tires xD
It is the driver's responsibility to see and avoid and that includes cars, mailboxes, garbage cans and especially pedestrians. If a driver runs into construction barricades they can't sue the repair crew. I'm not sure if a homeowner can leave stuff in the street without being cited as that would vary city to city and that might include the quarter pipe. The car insurance might battle it out with the homeowner's insurance, unfortunately.
since the cones were placed beside the street, not in the street the OP could argue that the cement and rebar were meant to keep the cones from blowing away. Now I am not sure what the city OP is in would say about him placing the cones on what are sometimes considered nature strips however the fact that the driver went up onto the nature strip to hit the cones and since it did so much damage to the truck it can be proved that the driver was speeding (likely reckless driving charge there).
On that second story, I just don't know how people like that live with themselves, that is one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. They were actually tolerant of her to a degree further than I think I would have been.
I lived in a house on a curve two blocks from the high school, and at least twice a year, my mailbox got knocked over. I had a four foot long piece of half inch wall, well casing pipe left over from a prior project. During the summer school vacation, buried the pipe two and a half feet in the ground where my mailbox goes. I filled the pipe with concrete, to hold the mailbox. Then my wife planted some flowers, to camouflage the pipe. About three weeks into the new school year, my mailbox claimed its first casualty. I got three fenders that year, and I still laugh whenever I think about it!
Safety Cones: If they were in his yard, I imagine that in most states he wouldn't be liable, especially if he stated that he used the cement to weigh down the cones so they wouldn't be knocked over easily, nor stolen...
@@melody3741 if "frankie" had ended up dead would you still be saying this? no this isnt the right way, they shouldve been direct with her and explained how her actions affect their friendship. they clearly cared about her, otherwise why would they have been friends. what if she had a mental disorder that caused her behavior? Ignorance is no excuse.
@@masonjo4043 Frankie is not a child. She is an adult. She is responsible for her safety. They agreed to get her to Denver, they honored it even though she didn't honor the terms of the deal. If anything had happened to her it would have been from her own past actions, they did not owe her anything.
OP said Bubba INTENTIONALLY steer towards the shoulder to hit the cones. That would be a big old NOPE. If they were in the middle of the road, that would be a different story. But they were up towards the shoulder in front of OP's home.
Short answer: No he's not responsible Long answer: The cones were on the shoulder and off the road. They were not intended to cause harm as long as someone drove on the road. Bubba went out of his way to hit them Replace the cones with a car parked on the street in the shoulder. If Bubba hit the car because he purposely went off the road and/or wasnt paying attention, it's his fault
Not true, in residential roads there is no shoulder and the entire road is considered viable for traffic flow. If they had been blocks of concrete he would have been fine but due to the fact the the cones were disguised blocks of concrete he would almost certainly have lost a lawsuit.
@@in4theride75 "I thought it was a strong breeze that knocked over the cones the first time. So I strengthened the cones to prevent the wind from knocking them over a second time."
@@in4theride75 the OP said their kids were skating next to the street, so I presume there's either a concrete area, like a storm drain, next to the road, or the cones were in the mouth of OP's driveway. Putting them there would be OK. Also, not sure about your area, but my town's residential streets DO have a small "shoulder" of sorts, a gutter for the storm drains, that everyone uses like a shoulder. You can put whatever you want there, as far as I can tell, so long as you have it clear every Tuesday morning for the street sweeper. I don't live in town proper, so I don't know the law, but that's how it works here.
All the first guy has to do is feign ignorance, "I just wanted the cones to not fall over in the wind, I had no idea he was going to purposely run them over!" And you're off Scott free yo
He would not even need to do that, if the cones are on his property and can prove it then he is in the clear. There is no law saying you can't have cones filled with cermet and rebar.
@@StilltheAp0llyon Traffic cones are frequently filled with cement or some other weighted material to keep the wind from moving them (especially when doing roadwork). Plus, the driver went out of his way and swerved into the shoulder of the road to hit them (meaning they were not placed in the regular lane of traffic and/or obstructing the flow of traffic). I don't know what it's like where you are. Maybe the law is different in your region, but where I am, the driver did the equivalent of hitting a lamp on the side of the road (meaning the driver alone is responsible). It also depends on how you define hazardous, as traffic cones are used to warn people of hazards. They might not be considered hazardous in a court for that very reason. The intent to cause damage could be argued but would be very difficult to prove (because of how common it is to weight cones). Side note, we recently had someone drive through the fence of my complex because "traffic cones were in the way" for some road repairs. Guess who the cops charged for speeding, reckless driving, and property damage. (Hint: It wasn't the city's road crew)
The last story, actually set up the interview with Dick, let him come in... watch him sweat as you do the interview, then ask him "Hypothetically" how he would handle a co-worker having to call out due to an accident
Yeah, this one is fun. Either answer would be wrong. 1. if he said he would be lenient, then he is a liar. 2. if he said he would be an asshole, then yeah, we don't need assholes.
With the truck story, I would have gotten a security camera after the first or second incident in addition to the cones. It would help with proving a pattern of recklessness and/or maliciousness if the police were needed.
If OP had left the cement cones in the middle of the road yes he could be liable. Since he put the cones on the side of the road and Bubba had to swerve and try to hit them then no, it is totally Bubba’s fault
@@Danarchy3 You still can't put things on the road even if it right out the front of your house. The road is for cars to drive on and, if space allows, park. The area is controlled by local and state government road laws and bylaws. Even little roads in suburbia. You can't put things on public areas outside your boundary. This includes the footpath, unless excepted (e.g. garbage cans when allowed).
@@martinXY you CAN put things in your yard. It's like when someone hits your mailbox and you replace the wooden post with an I-beam. If someone hits it it's either because they didn't have control of their vehicle or they aimed for it.
@@isaac13d The traffic cones weren't placed in his yard, they were placed at "the side of the road". The side of the road is still a part of the road. It's definitely not the owner's property, which means he can't just drop things on there when he wants to. It's not even clear if the quarter-pipe the kids were playing in was on the OP's property. The advantage of living in a cul-de-sac.
You can use the excuse that you filled the cones with cement to keep them from blowing away and you can’t run over them because it’s destruction of property. So OP was covered no matter what. 🌟❤️🌟❤️🌟❤️🌟❤️🌟❤️
@@Frostfern94 As far as I understood the cones weren't on the road, they were on OP's property, the idiot drove purposefully over to hit them so he deserved what he got lol
For the first story, the cones were out of the way, and they would do minimal damage if you are going the speed you are supposed to in a residential area, so I think they wouldnt be liable for any charges
Reckless drivers: Back in the Olden Days, before the internet, before cell phones, when touch-tone telephones where the hot new thing, my crazy uncle was visiting relatives in the Maryland suburbs with his small children. This was one of the first DC suburbs, 1950s-era, narrow streets, lots of kids playing everywhere. Some young studly teen had gotten his hands on some hot rod of a car, like a Camaro, and he was squealing tires and driving fast down these one-lane roads with children. My uncle went to try to talk to the kid but the kid just stomped on the gas and took off around the block again. So my uncle picked up a large decorative rock off someone's lawn and stood in the middle of the intersection with the whole block looking at him. When Studly came flying down the road, my uncle stood there and raised the rock over his head. Studly screeched to a halt. My uncle shouted at him, "Drive like a civilized person, or I'll throw this rock through your windshield!" The terrified teen stomped on the gas and tried to go around him, but not knowing how to drive a powerful, rear-wheel drive sports car, he slid out and crashed into two parked cars, wrecking his Camaro. My uncle calmly put the rock back exactly were it had been. The cops came and plenty of neighbors with small kids all told the cops the teen was a menace and that he had been speeding around the streets all day long and that he must have just lost control. The cops interviewed my uncle and he told them he had no idea of some rock the kids was raving about, that he certainly never threatened anybody. Not one single eyewitness backed up the teens wild story about some crazy man with a large rock. The cops cited the kid for reckless driving, and he had to sell his wrecked Camaro to pay off the damage pay for the damage to the other cars.
You made this up!!! Camaros didn't come out until 1967, so it couldn't have been in the fifties. If you are going to make something up get your facts first. The fastest car in the 50s could have been a Chevy most likely would have been a 59 Corvette. Or maybe 59 Bellaire with a 348 engine. Get your facts right before you make story. Hahaha hahaha hahaha
@@mosesruben4027 Some young studly teen had gotten his hands on some hot rod of a car, like a Camaro, he didnt directly call it a camaro. just in the style of one
Yes, Bubba could sue, but the problem is that- A: They were placed properly. B: They are safety cones. C: If he were not speeding, his car would be fine.
Answer to the question concerning the first story: Depends on where the cones and signs were placed, and how they were placed. Lawyers would look for anything to get the driver off, so everything has to be lined up correctly. 1. Were the signs permanent installations? In this instance, no they weren't, since the signs and cones were moved after the concrete had set, meaning after they were placed, they could be moved again if needed. This, is important, because in most cities, if one does not have permission from the city, permanent sign fixtures would be illegal; as such, if they were actually shoved into the ground, making a more permanent sign post, would have gotten the driver off because "signs were illegally installed." Able to move concrete filled cones, proves non-permanence, therefore, not illegal. 2. Where were the signs placed? So long as the signs were in his yard, or in the yard of a neighbor, of whom the OP had permission to place the signs, he is in his legal right to place those signs, so long as they do not interfere with traffic of any kind, both sidewalk (assuming there is one) and road. Close to the curb as possible, but not in the road itself, is still legal. For the most part, Reckless driving on part of the driver, gives OP a clear road, in the legal department. As for intent to cause damage to the vehicle: Plausible deniability. "I thought it was a strong breeze that came through that knocked the signs over the first time. So I strengthened their foundation to prevent the wind from knocking them over a second time."
The OP put rebar in the cones, rebar is added to concrete for strength purposes only. Once concrete is placed and sets up the weight and friction of the material under the concrete hold it in place, there would be no need for reinforcing concrete inside a traffic cone. Rebar, or reinforcing bar, is a common feature of many concrete applications. Its primary purpose is to increase the tensile strength of the concrete, helping it resist cracking and breaking. With greater tensile strength, concrete is better able to resist breaking under tension. Once concrete sets up it is a solid and can not be placed again. So adding rebar to the cones could be considered overkill and could endanger drivers passing by the cones, If someone were to have a heart attack and run into a cone that was filled with rebar and concrete they could be held liable for damages intentionally or unintentionally. There is absolutely no need for rebar reinforcement in a traffic cone that you just want to keep in place using concrete for weight.
@@alamoone4465 IF someone has a heart attack and leaves the street, the least problem is damage to the car. No one would take a second look on the cone which stood on the property of the OP. Any judge with clear mind would deny any possibility to sue the OP because no sensible driver would speed, drive reckless and/or leave the street and purposely endanger people, especially if there are signs on them which tell that there are children. They would suspend the drivers license, and that's it. After medical psychological examination the driver could get a new drivers license. At least in Europe, I think in the US there are similar rules. The driver learned his lesson the hard way, but he learned...
Used to have someone that sped down our road while me and my sister waited for the bus, my dad waited for him one day and pulled out in front of him with his truck and they had a chat.
When my kids were little there was a teenage kid that lived two houses down. His buddies would drive past our house like maniacs. I waited for them and stepped out in the street in front of their car. They stopped and I simply went to the drivers window and said “Don’t drive like that in my neighborhood”. That was all it took and they stopped. A few weeks later I was talking to the dad of the teenage kid and he told me I really scared those kids. I thought it was funny because I never threatened them or anything like that.
First story: Bubba would have to prove that OP did it all on purpose where as OP can just say that the cement was to help keep the cones in place since the others kept getting knicked over and that the guy is at fault for purposely driving to the sidewalk to hit the cone. Its a big "he said/she said" situation and the only thing that can be proven is that the Bubba was speeding and swerving to purposely hit things
First story If the police were called the best defense would be to claim that the concrete was added to the cones to keep them from getting blown over by the wind. Second story She probably became a lot lizard to get back home.
I remember hearing similar stories on other r/ProRevenge videos where people are told not to run over or park somewhere, and the homeowner putting something up to wreck the car when they did it again. One in particular was a guy who filled his trash bin with water, and had it freeze solid overnight, and when the guy wrecked his car, the cops sided with the homeowner, as the driver had run over it numerous times before. Granted, I think this was in Canada, so not sure if they have the same laws as they do here in the US.
Re: Story 1, speeding in a neighborhood: My former neighbor had a similar problem. He had a low stockade fence next to his driveway and the driveway sloped down towards the road. Idiot teenager would drive ridiculously fast down the road. Neighbor got a baby stroller and placed a doll in it. He hid behind his fence and waited for the idiot teen. His timing was perfect. The stroller was destroyed, doll went flying and the teen driver learned a valuable lesson.
I have a similar story, to the first one on this video. So this happened almost 15 or so years ago in my old neighborhood. A group of kids got it in their head that it was OK to go around the neighborhood in their pick up truck, They had a brush guard on the front (an oversized one at that), and will go around the neighborhood drunk and ran into peoples mailboxes knocking them over and destroying them especially the ones that were made of wood going into the ground. Well it ended up happening that this old man in the neighborhood that my dad knew had it happened to him a couple of times already. For the sake of argument his name is George. George had had enough. And he was also a worker at a steel shop. So George went and grabbed himself an 8 foot piece a railroad rail. He took it home, and stuck it in the ground at the spot where his mailbox was and buried it at the considerable height that her normal mailbox would be. He attached the mailbox to it and then took wood fence board and covered the steel rail with it.. And just waited he was sitting nice in his house one day on a Saturday afternoon and finally heard a big crash. He rushed outside to see that the jeep now had a piece of rail or a rail right in the middle of where the engine should be. Steam going everywhere and the two teens knocked out cold. Moral of the story, is to not assume that every mailbox is made the same LOL
I was a claims adjuster for 21 years. It may depend on the state you’re in, but if the cones were not impeding traffic OP would not be responsible for damages done.
When a punk kept speeding down our street, I found out where his mom lived and brought my 9yr old son along to chat with her about her the situation. Kicker was that his grandma was there too. Its been almost a year now and not a problem since.
One of my friends was having trouble with a neighbor running thru piles of leaves my friend had put on the side of the road. My friend moved the next pile to the other end of his yard and piled the leaves around a fire hydrant. Within a day or so, the neighbor thought it would be a good idea to run thru that pile. It tore the front end from under the car and destroyed the fire hydrant. Cost the neighbor a crapload of money to pay his way out of that mess.
I heard similar story about a punk in the neighborhood running over snowmen in people's front yards. So one guy built a snowman over a tree stump about 2 feet thick and a couple feet high. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Truck totaled.
Bubba cannot sue for the same reason he avoided calling the cops. He would have to admit to reckless driving, and then he's shit out of luck and would likely be even more out of pocket because OP's lawyer would likely file for Bubba to pay his legal fees.
With regards to the safety come story....OP could have used this line: "I honestly had no idea that (neighbor) was going to run the cones down.....I wanted to make sure that the safety cones wouldn't blow away ,that's why I filled the cones with cement
Op definitely would not have been held liable for damage to Bubba's truck. Bubba was breaking the speed limit and purposely steering towards the cones which would mean driving towards the shoulder. Speeding, Reckless driving, I would say bubba would probably lose his license for about a year and have to take traffic school. Bubba could have even been drunk and that's why he didn't want the police called. Alcohol does make you feel like you're 10 ft tall and bulletproof sometimes
About 40yrs ago when my children were still kids we lived about 2 blocks off of the main road. The street ended about 4 blocks past my house with 25 mile per hour signs post all along the way. This one person and the term is used to be polite repeatedly would speed from the turn onto the road to his destination about 3 blocks past my house. I had tried several times to get him to stop so I could attempt to get him to slow down with no luck. He sped past the house one day headed toward the back I loaded my shotgun and waited for him to leave. As he was coming my way I stepped into the street and he stopped and started trying to be a tough guy. I just told him that this would be his only warning "If he hurt one of my kids running down the road like he had been The only thing the police would need to do was put me in handcuffs and call the coroner for him". He slowly drove on out and within 30min. the local law enforcement was at my door as he sat in his car smiling at the end of my driveway. After talking to me and neighbors we walked to his car and the officer told him that he should take the warning to heart. He never sped down our street again.
If the safety cones were not in the street in the direct path of Bubba's truck, then OP is not responsible for the damage to the truck. You play stupid games, then you win stupid prizes. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
3:42 because the cones were his property "Bubba" would have been on the hook for destruction of property and an engineer could have told cops what speed he had to hit them at to do that kind of damage thus he would be held accountable for reckless driving.
Parent worries about a truck endangering his kids, meanwhile allows them to install a quarter pipe in the middle of the road. I bet the irony was lost on him.
@Cade Cooper You have no idea how anything works do you? Shoulder of the road, is the only area in which concrete filled cones would cause issue for the homeowner. HOWEVER, the story said "side of the street" not specifically shoulder. Side of the street could mean one of three areas: 1)Shoulder, if there is one, most residential areas do not have a shoulder to begin with. 2) Curb, every road has one, even if it is not as pronounced as other roads. It is a traffic violation that is often ignored because going over a curb is more accidental than done on purpose. 3) Yard next to the road, yes this is entirely possible, and is more likely to be found in a residential neighborhood. Shoulder: Illegal to drive in the shoulder. So why was the driver, driving in the should, and speeding up? let's ignore the illegal driving of the shoulder, because what if he just veered into them... the fact he sped up, reckless driving (any kind of veering on the road, can considered reckless driving, even to avoid something in the road itself), reckless endangerment on part of the driver... Curb: illegal to go over the curb... the fact the driver sped up, showed purposeful intent to go over the curb. Speeding up and going over the curb on purpose: Reckless driving, reckless endangerment... Yard: Illegal to drive in someone else's yard without permission. Speeding up and driving into someone else's yard: reckless driving, reckless endangerment, trespassing... Homeowner: concrete filled cones, which is some times done by construction crew, in some areas, to prevent heavy winds from moving the cones... The rebar isn't needed, so homeowner might be liable for that... however, reckless driving and reckless endangerment on part of the driver, means the driver is more at fault than the homeowner.
@Cade Cooper I live in tornado ally. Concrete filled cones, with cinderblocks on top of the weighted base plates, are quite common, in an effort to reduce the chances of a tornado hurling those cones. Concrete filled cone isn't permanent. If done correctly, the concrete can easily be removed from the cone. Those cones are expensive, compared to the cost of the concrete mix they used to fill those cones. Easements are beneficial not for the property owner, but for those who use the easement outside of the property owner. Utilities, Gas and water for example, have easement on your property, for accessing those pipes. Construction crew can use that easement themselves as well. The owner of the property, in which that easement exists, is not allowed to put anything permanent there, without proper authorization... that includes a flower garden. There is also the Right-of-Way (ROW) zone, for public traffic, both pedestrian and vehicle. if the ROW includes sidewalk, and a grassy area between sidewalk and road, it is property to the homeowner, in which it is their responsibility to take care of it (mowing the lawn, and clearing weeds), so is treated as a special kind of easement. NOTHING is allowed to be placed in the ROW, if it impedes the flow of traffic both pedestrian and vehicle. Which means nothing on the sidewalk, and nothing in the road. Road Shoulders are a special case, because despite being considered part of the road, placing something in the road shoulder, does not impede vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Hence why homeowners, or visitors to the property, are allowed to park in the shoulder, but only if the driveway to the specific property is full. Because placing objects in the shoulder, does not impede the flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic, homeowners are allowed to place other things in the shoulder, so long as they are not permanent fixtures. Local ordinances also differ from one city to another. Meaning, it ultimately depends on where you live, on whether or not the homeowner would be in trouble or not, for the concrete cones. I live in an area, where local ordinance, is 5-feet clearance from road and permanent fixtures. 2 feet clearance for heavy temporary fixtures. If I wanted to, I can put orange concrete filled traffic cones 2 feet from the road, and if someone hits them, that someone would have to first prove those cones were there with ill intentions, if I am to be held liable for damages. There is far more to this, than you are wanting to admit. If we want to find out whether the homeowner is liable, we need to know city, and the city's ordinance at the time the story occurred. However: there are enough commonalities for us to get a picture of most likely scenario: Intent of the cones, was to warn drivers of a residential neighborhood, and that there are children at play... which means driving the speed limit or slower, and slowing down when one sees children playing. Speeding up, as a result, is reckless driving, and reckless endangerment. That reckless driving, is the reason the vehicle was damaged. If the driver wasn't being reckless, the driver's vehicle would still be undamaged.
But she'd have to use/sell to get out of there so she didn't get to use either how she wanted. Edit: unless she found someone really nice who bought her sob story that her friends abandoned her and gave her a free ride.
If the orange cones weren’t placed in the street but on the shoulder then I don’t think that “Bubba” has a case at all. From what I gathered from the story OP placed warning signs on the shoulder and they were run over or knocked over so OP added the cement to weigh them down so that they would stay in place. Bubba knew that he didn’t have a leg to stand on with his threats so that’s why he called the tow truck and did not contact the authorities.
With that first story, I prefer the one where OP bought a cheap stroller and a realistic looking baby doll, and then when the idiot who kept speeding past his house next passed, he pushed the stoller into the road so the driver ran it over...
This for he story of the cement in the traffic cones. All he had to say was that the wind kept blowing over the cones. And he was concerned that signs to help protect the kids living there, now couldn't be seen. He put the cent in them to ensure that they stayed upright so that anyone driving down the road would be able to see them. And that they were far enough off the road that the only way to hit them, is if you hit them on purpose. Well that's exactly what he did. Sounds like that one family who built a snowman in their yard. The snowman was over top and covering a stump. Someone tried to run the snowman over and got one heck of a surprise.
In Canada the damage would be considered self inflicted. "Own damage" is the legal term. Sixty years ago the kids in my neighbourhood did this to a man who used to scream down our narrow street in his sports car. On Hallowe'en we filled every garbage can (metal in those days) to the brim with water and lined them two deep across the street before his usual time. Total destruction! Mind you, our parents had to buy some new garbage cans, but we never saw that idiot again and our street hockey games became much safer.
Whether OP would have been liable for buhbuh's truck would depend on the state but if they were my cones, I'd tell the court that my cones were blowing over so I weighted them. He didn't have to steer into them.
My four uncles dragged a big log across the road for a guy who refused to slow down when going through their neighborhood. It ripped both axles of his car.
I believe this would fall in line with the federal laws as mailboxes. Federal postal code states they are only to be 4x4 posts so they break away and cause little damage. All these stories of people re-enforcing the posts are technically illegal. And that is why road cones are made of plastic and on a break away system.
This is how traffic laws work. If someone put something deliberately in the middle of the road for others to run over and caused damage to someone elses vehicle, that's illegal. Now, if the cones were to the very side of the road out of the way and they deliberately ran those things over, that can be there fault but in some cases you can still be held liable. It's a very sketchy area for discussion and different laws exist in different states so I would NOT recommend doing this at all and just get video evidence of it, their license plate and call the cops and let them deal with it.
Shoulder, if the residential neighborhood in question has a road shoulder, would be the only sketchy part. It is illegal to drive over a curb, even if it is often ignored, because in most cases, it is very brief, and only a single wheel, and more often happens when someone is parking, or turning. Curb is a possible "side of the street" placement, but is iffy to a very lesser degree. Yard, is another possible "side of the street" scenario, and the most likely scenario for a residential area... the driver would then also be "trespassing." homeowners are also allowed to place anything in their yard (though more permanent fixtures may require city permission to put up, depending on where one lives, but as the cones were moved into position after being filled with rebar and concrete, permanent fixture not an issue), and it is never the fault of the homeowner, if someone drives into something that is on their yard, no matter how close to the road that something may be.
As long as the cones were on OP's property, "bubba" didn't have a leg to stand on! Besides, it's perfectly reasonable to fill cones with cement....to keep them in the intended place, of course!
The guy who placed the cones, I don't think would be liable, because the story said the guy in the truck veered towards the cones that were on the shoulder
Regarding the first story, talked to three different lawyers. As long as the cones were out if the main roadway, which it read like they were - OP is in the clear. You see.... Criminal intent lay with the truck, it isn't entrapment because the OP is not law enforcement. Commit stupid crimes, win stupid prizes!!
I’m no lawyer but I bet you could argue OP didn’t have the intent to cause harm because 1) People don’t usually run over traffic cones 2) The traffic cones were 3 feet tall, that’s very visible to anyone 3) The cement could have just been to keep them steady so people can read the signs and they don’t fall over
No he couldn’t sue him for the cones. They are safety cones and there’s nothing in the law saying you can’t secure them however you want. He destroyed his own truck while illegally speeding and trying to destroy private property.
That cement and rebar in a witches hat story has been going around since i was as kid. It’s an urban legend by now 😂. I’ve heard it with fancy cars, trucks, old clunkers, motorcycles, a shitty kid on a pushie. First time i’ve heard it with a ‘Bubba’ though.
I had a friend whose garbage pickup day was on a Thurs. so he'd set his garbage cans near the end of his driveway on Wed. night. Every Wed. night close to midnight he'd hear his garbage cans go flying, someone was swerving just enough to hit his garbage cans. So finally after weeks of this he decided to drive some nails through some boards and set them near the cans. When he heard his cans go flying, he got up and jumped into his car to see if he'd find a vehicle with a flat tire. Sure enough a ways up the road there was a vehicle pulled into a McDonalds lot with two flat tires. He called the police and when they got there he explained everything to the cop and the cop told him the driver of the vehicle was a17yr old now waiting for his dad to get there to help him. Turned out it was a high school kid on his way home from work who was doing this, the kid said he just did it out of boredom. While the cop got a kick out of what he did to catch this kid, he did warn him that even though the kid had to go onto his property to hit the cans, if the kid had lost control of his vehicle due to the flat tires and got injured, my friend would be liable. This happened in Wisconsin, so it may be different in other States, but you can't entrap people in a way they could be injured. A few days after this incident the kid came to his house and apologized for what he had done, so it all ended well, but it could have gone very wrong.
If it was the FIRST time he ran over the cones, yes, the cone-placer would be liable. But it was the SECOND time the driver tried this, so no, the cone-placer would NOT be liable.
We let an "Earth First!" hippie friend come along on a trip to the Olympic Mountains in Washington. He was all brown rice and black beans vegan food with a shit ton of garlic diet and said he had everything covered for his needs. It was a long trip from Eugene. He might have put in a buck or two for gas but then said we were going that way anyway and we had invited him along. So since we had jobs it shouldn't be a problem. We stopped at supermarkets a couple of times. He needed extra time to shop because the way he shopped was to wait until the coast was clear and then dumpster dive behind the supermarket. And then tell us that we should be doing it too. We tolerated him but drifted apart pretty quick after that trip. Poor guy didn't have anybody to go hike with after that as he'd estranged all of his friends including the Earth first frenemies.
Op would not be in trouble because he could say that he was just weighing the cones down and that he didn't realize that the truck was going to come by on the damn side and try running them over. He just wanted his kids to be safe and the cones kept falling over. he would definitely not be in trouble and even if they hd prfoof he wanted to cause damage he didnttell the truck driver to drive over his property and that it was his fault
I lived in a once-farmland suburb, so we had a grid of through-roads all a mile apart. In between them were the spaghetti bowls of residential streets, often impossible navigate on from one grid road to another. Except R--- Road, where I lived. It snaked between houses, condos, and a large park, with no stop signs, between #3 and #4 Roads. It became a very popular rat racing and general speedway route, and cars would roar by, screeching around the corners, at all hours. Someone's dog was hit, and it was only a matter of time before a child was. I was out for a walk one night, and heard a sports car howling toward me around the "big bend" of the road. As the car came into view, I stepped out into the street and hurled an imaginary rock right at his windshield. The driver dynamited the brakes and slewed the car around to a stop. He leaped over the door yelling threats to kill me, but I just retreated behind a neighbor's big RV and he couldn't find me. With his girlfriend becoming annoyed and calling him to come back, he finally got in the car and drove away. I never saw that car again, but that's not to say it made a big difference in the traffic.
I am not a fan of being passive aggressive like the camping dude. I would have just told her, "this is the end of the line for you, here's a few bucks for pancakes but we're leaving without you." And then left.
“Frankie, you broke the unwritten law. You freeloaded on your freinds. You do that Frankie, your enemies don’t respect ya! You got no friends no more!,You got nobody Frankie…” (If anyone gets this reference I will be pretty happy, XD)
With regard to the first story, the argument could be made that Bubba did this to himself by running over stuff he shouldn’t have been running over. Those things were not in his way, he purposefully went and ran them down. They were placed on the side of the road, rather like those big yellow bins that are placed on the ramps for interstate exits. Bubba got what he deserved.
Mailbox is your/USPS property, and not in the roadway. Realize if some kid got killed from Bubba hitting the cones, OP would probably get charged with something as well.. Realize it only takes a jury 50% to decide you're are civilly liable, doing something that 'most people would know increases the hazard of someone getting hurt' can be very risky, even if it involves someone else doing something intentionally dumb as well.
Bubble likely could have sued and won at least some money. He was negligent, but OP intentionally put up something that could seriously injure or kill someone. It reminds me of the shotgun booby trap case. Someone set up said trap in a remote property that people were known to break into and steal stuff from. A robber broke in and got injured, while he did get arrested and served jail time for his crime, he sued the owner for the crippling injuries he suffered (which likely would have killed him if he hadn't had an accomplice to take him to the hospital). He won some damages.
we had a similar thing when I was re-tarmacing the road.we would put cones out to keep us safe from traffic and this bozo used to come speeding down the road knocking all the cones everywhere.So we hatched a plan and filled them all, I think there was about 20 cones so we filled them all with concrete and let them set overnight.we put the cones out in the morning and yes you guessed it he came down and hit about 4 cones and came to a screeching halt with the front of his car absolutely wrecked.He called the police and they arrested him.Car wrecked and arrested....................Result as far as we were concerned.
Yeah either that or someone retold the story and it got changed somewhat, before reaching this video. Fake or not still entertaining to hear how you could possibly get pro revenge, but i agree i mostly think it's fake changed due to views n what not.
![r/ProRevenge - Shady Couple STEALS Car From My Dealership! I Have Their Kids Taken! [My Revenge]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dcxZOD5f_O8/mqdefault.jpg)
![r/ProRevenge - HORRENDOUS Boss Wants a BIG Promotion! Not On My Watch! [Revenge On My Boss]](/img/n.gif)
I hope someone answers your question as I'm curious as well. I do not think the guy that placed the cones would be responsible for the damage to the truck.
You get what you get for being a bastard, that Bubba deserved it.
Op would easily win
First, say Bubba hit the cones then killed one of the neighbors or their kids. He'd get charged with some form of vehicular manslaughter, but OP could easily be charged too.
Short of anyone getting killed or seriously injured though, just say 'I thought the wind was blowing them over, I didn't expect anyone to be crap and stupid enough to be running them over on purpose, even someone as dumb as Bubba'. Plausible doubt, it would be difficult to convict OP of anything. They just wouldn't likely let that fly if someone gets seriously hurt or killed by said actions.
OP could not be charged because there is no way to prove that he placed the comes there
it depends on where you are, some places have laws that all things 3ft from the road need to be destroyable. So depending on where the op is he could be held liable and possibly face legal consequences
To answer the question: No he's not responsible. Technically his intent is to put up cones to notify drivers there are kids at play, not to damage a truck, that sweet bit of revenge is just an added bonus.
Yes, we really don't know the intention especially after his first set of cones was ruined, he probably wanted a more "sturdy come".
JLRod1230 and if you can sell that the rebar and cement was an innocent attempt at that you could probably sell anything.
"Technically his intent is to put up cones to notify drivers there are kids at play"
You can't put stuff on the road regardless of your intent. The shoulder of the road is a part of the road.
There's a few flaws in your statement:
1) he's not legally allowed to put up traffic cones anywhere on any road way. The only people who are allowed to do that are road crews.
2) the traffic cones are made of rubberized plastic to prevent them from damaging vehicles should they be hit
3) purposely and with malice, filling them with concrete and rebar shows intent, and malice.
He is 100% responsible for the damage.
This is no different than people who string up aircraft cable across roads to prevent atv's etc from driving down them. They too are criminally responsible for the injuries they cause.
There was a story out of Michigan (I think it was) where a home owner got tired of all the vehicles parked along their dirt road which ran parallel to a nice stream. Lot's of people went canoeing and kayaking along this stream. The stream and road were public property.
The homeowner posted signs No parking which were promptly ignored. (because they were not legal). They then put nails spikes along the shoulder to flatten all the times of people who parked there.
You can guess what happened? They were found to be the culprit, they were charged and yes, they were forced to pay for all the damaged tires. PLUS towing costs.
@@muskokamike127 This. Depending on the state/township there could even be hefty fines for putting up false cones not approved by the local ordinances.
Since you were already familiar with Frankie's BS, I think I would have left her there as soon as she went up to house at 124 Oak Street. "You said all you had to do was show up!" I wouldn't have let her into my car in the first place.
OP only put the cement in the cones, so they wouldn't blow over. Who could imagine someone would hit a big orange cone?
They use cement in cones here all the time for construction to keep the wind from moving them. And OP said the cones were at the shoulder of the road (outside of the regular lane of traffic). The traffic cones were also stationary objects. They didn't "jump" in front of his truck. I can't speak for everywhere, but where I am, if you hit a non-moving object (especially one outside of the driving lane), the driver alone is responsible. Plus the guy was obviously speeding in a residential neighborhood with kids (as noted by the amount of damage), so it is highly unlikely that any judge or jury would rule in his favor. It would be much more likely that he (driver) would be charged and probably lose his license.
if police took report it would have gone down as "i did;nt know it was loaded"
OP added Steel rebar with the cement so it could go either way as rebar isnt needed to stop the cone from being blown over by the wind
@@chrisrandom5193 Rebar is commonly tied to the inside the thing being filled with cement, to hold it together. Otherwise, the cement would just pop out of the cone, like a mold. It also helps hold the cement together.
I know right? And if OP told that to the cops, then drop from that driver will happen. What could he possibly say? 😂😂
Years ago we had a neighbor who instead of driving down to the school driveway(less than 50 feet from his house, would turn around and drive off through our side yard. It was leaving a rut in our yard. So my husband fixed up a piece of metal with nails in it sticking up in about the width of a car, painted it green and placed it where the idiot neighbor was driving through the yard. The next time he drove through our yard, he got 4 flat tires.He never drove through our yard again. This neighbor also tried to hit my son because a wiffle ball went into his yard, just ff the sidewalk. He came over to our house and rang the doorbell, my son answered the door and he swung at my son and knocked my son's hat off.My husband found out and told that neighbor if he ever laid a hand on our children he would not live to see another day.
I have a similar story, my uncle always had this one rude old woman from down the street drive through his yard rather than go to the end of the street (his house had no fence so she use the yard as a shortcut to the main road behind the house) well he had had enough and wanted to make a garden anyways so he tilled the soil in his back yard till it was realy soft, she drove through it just a day after some rain and her little VW beetle was sunk up to the top of its tires xD
@@SUPRAMIKE18 I bet that lady had a expensive repair to her VW. I also bet her hubby didn't it was funny either.
It is the driver's responsibility to see and avoid and that includes cars, mailboxes, garbage cans and especially pedestrians. If a driver runs into construction barricades they can't sue the repair crew. I'm not sure if a homeowner can leave stuff in the street without being cited as that would vary city to city and that might include the quarter pipe. The car insurance might battle it out with the homeowner's insurance, unfortunately.
since the cones were placed beside the street, not in the street the OP could argue that the cement and rebar were meant to keep the cones from blowing away. Now I am not sure what the city OP is in would say about him placing the cones on what are sometimes considered nature strips however the fact that the driver went up onto the nature strip to hit the cones and since it did so much damage to the truck it can be proved that the driver was speeding (likely reckless driving charge there).
On that second story, I just don't know how people like that live with themselves, that is one of the most pathetic things I've ever heard. They were actually tolerant of her to a degree further than I think I would have been.
I lived in a house on a curve two blocks from the high school, and at least twice a year, my mailbox got knocked over. I had a four foot long piece of half inch wall, well casing pipe left over from a prior project.
During the summer school vacation, buried the pipe two and a half feet in the ground where my mailbox goes. I filled the pipe with concrete, to hold the mailbox. Then my wife planted some flowers, to camouflage the pipe.
About three weeks into the new school year, my mailbox claimed its first casualty. I got three fenders that year, and I still laugh whenever I think about it!
Safety Cones: If they were in his yard, I imagine that in most states he wouldn't be liable, especially if he stated that he used the cement to weigh down the cones so they wouldn't be knocked over easily, nor stolen...
As far as the camping one goes . They should have had the balls to tell her no to begin with . Especially knowing ahead of time what she was like .
If they did that she would have never learned her lesson, i loved that story!
@@melody3741 if "frankie" had ended up dead would you still be saying this? no this isnt the right way, they shouldve been direct with her and explained how her actions affect their friendship. they clearly cared about her, otherwise why would they have been friends. what if she had a mental disorder that caused her behavior? Ignorance is no excuse.
@@masonjo4043 Frankie is not a child. She is an adult. She is responsible for her safety. They agreed to get her to Denver, they honored it even though she didn't honor the terms of the deal. If anything had happened to her it would have been from her own past actions, they did not owe her anything.
I would have driven off when I saw the old man answer the door. She said to wait and see if "her friend" was home? Well, he was.
@@I.am.Sarah. Adult or not, throwing her into danger just because she cheated $60 was an overkill.
OP said Bubba INTENTIONALLY steer towards the shoulder to hit the cones. That would be a big old NOPE. If they were in the middle of the road, that would be a different story. But they were up towards the shoulder in front of OP's home.
The concrete in the cones was meant to keep them from being blown into the road by the wind from speeding cars.
Short answer: No he's not responsible
Long answer: The cones were on the shoulder and off the road. They were not intended to cause harm as long as someone drove on the road. Bubba went out of his way to hit them
Replace the cones with a car parked on the street in the shoulder. If Bubba hit the car because he purposely went off the road and/or wasnt paying attention, it's his fault
Should have let him call the cops
Not true, in residential roads there is no shoulder and the entire road is considered viable for traffic flow. If they had been blocks of concrete he would have been fine but due to the fact the the cones were disguised blocks of concrete he would almost certainly have lost a lawsuit.
It comes down to intent and disguising the cones shows intent for property damage.
@@in4theride75 "I thought it was a strong breeze that knocked over the cones the first time. So I strengthened the cones to prevent the wind from knocking them over a second time."
@@in4theride75 the OP said their kids were skating next to the street, so I presume there's either a concrete area, like a storm drain, next to the road, or the cones were in the mouth of OP's driveway. Putting them there would be OK.
Also, not sure about your area, but my town's residential streets DO have a small "shoulder" of sorts, a gutter for the storm drains, that everyone uses like a shoulder. You can put whatever you want there, as far as I can tell, so long as you have it clear every Tuesday morning for the street sweeper. I don't live in town proper, so I don't know the law, but that's how it works here.
All the first guy has to do is feign ignorance, "I just wanted the cones to not fall over in the wind, I had no idea he was going to purposely run them over!" And you're off Scott free yo
Placing a hazardous object in the roadway makes you liable whether you think its a hazard or not.
@@StilltheAp0llyon Wasn't on the road though? The dude had to go out of his way to hit the cones.
cones? what cones? did someone put cones out on MY street? why would they do that?
He would not even need to do that, if the cones are on his property and can prove it then he is in the clear. There is no law saying you can't have cones filled with cermet and rebar.
@@StilltheAp0llyon Traffic cones are frequently filled with cement or some other weighted material to keep the wind from moving them (especially when doing roadwork). Plus, the driver went out of his way and swerved into the shoulder of the road to hit them (meaning they were not placed in the regular lane of traffic and/or obstructing the flow of traffic). I don't know what it's like where you are. Maybe the law is different in your region, but where I am, the driver did the equivalent of hitting a lamp on the side of the road (meaning the driver alone is responsible). It also depends on how you define hazardous, as traffic cones are used to warn people of hazards. They might not be considered hazardous in a court for that very reason. The intent to cause damage could be argued but would be very difficult to prove (because of how common it is to weight cones). Side note, we recently had someone drive through the fence of my complex because "traffic cones were in the way" for some road repairs. Guess who the cops charged for speeding, reckless driving, and property damage. (Hint: It wasn't the city's road crew)
The last story, actually set up the interview with Dick, let him come in... watch him sweat as you do the interview, then ask him "Hypothetically" how he would handle a co-worker having to call out due to an accident
Yeah, this one is fun. Either answer would be wrong. 1. if he said he would be lenient, then he is a liar. 2. if he said he would be an asshole, then yeah, we don't need assholes.
@@TheBiggreenpig 🤣🤣🤣🤣 brilliant
Man! Destroyed a jackass’ truck and got him in a hogtie?!? That magnificent bastard! I salute him!
With the truck story, I would have gotten a security camera after the first or second incident in addition to the cones. It would help with proving a pattern of recklessness and/or maliciousness if the police were needed.
If OP had left the cement cones in the middle of the road yes he could be liable. Since he put the cones on the side of the road and Bubba had to swerve and try to hit them then no, it is totally Bubba’s fault
The shoulder of the roadway is still a part of the road. You can't put your stuff on the road.
martinXY 🤣🤣 yeah ok. Talking about a highway maybe but in front of your house, nice try
@@Danarchy3 You still can't put things on the road even if it right out the front of your house. The road is for cars to drive on and, if space allows, park. The area is controlled by local and state government road laws and bylaws. Even little roads in suburbia. You can't put things on public areas outside your boundary. This includes the footpath, unless excepted (e.g. garbage cans when allowed).
@@martinXY you CAN put things in your yard. It's like when someone hits your mailbox and you replace the wooden post with an I-beam. If someone hits it it's either because they didn't have control of their vehicle or they aimed for it.
@@isaac13d The traffic cones weren't placed in his yard, they were placed at "the side of the road". The side of the road is still a part of the road. It's definitely not the owner's property, which means he can't just drop things on there when he wants to.
It's not even clear if the quarter-pipe the kids were playing in was on the OP's property.
The advantage of living in a cul-de-sac.
You can use the excuse that you filled the cones with cement to keep them from blowing away and you can’t run over them because it’s destruction of property. So OP was covered no matter what. 🌟❤️🌟❤️🌟❤️🌟❤️🌟❤️
Depends on whether or not it was on the road.
Very true! I forgot to mention that. 👍😉
@@Frostfern94 As far as I understood the cones weren't on the road, they were on OP's property, the idiot drove purposefully over to hit them so he deserved what he got lol
The op not at fault in anyway. The cones were not obstructing traffic. Since they are not on the road. So the person driving would be at fault.
"She wasn't exactly liked, but she was tolerated for whatever reason"... Yeah she had weed.
Looking at the world today, it is clear that Frankie survived to reproduce...
Who is Frankie?
@@diyboomboxesintexas2805 second story
For the first story, the cones were out of the way, and they would do minimal damage if you are going the speed you are supposed to in a residential area, so I think they wouldnt be liable for any charges
Frankie sounds so much like my older sister. It ain't her, but to know there are other people out there exactly like her makes me feel sick.
Reckless drivers: Back in the Olden Days, before the internet, before cell phones, when touch-tone telephones where the hot new thing, my crazy uncle was visiting relatives in the Maryland suburbs with his small children. This was one of the first DC suburbs, 1950s-era, narrow streets, lots of kids playing everywhere. Some young studly teen had gotten his hands on some hot rod of a car, like a Camaro, and he was squealing tires and driving fast down these one-lane roads with children. My uncle went to try to talk to the kid but the kid just stomped on the gas and took off around the block again.
So my uncle picked up a large decorative rock off someone's lawn and stood in the middle of the intersection with the whole block looking at him. When Studly came flying down the road, my uncle stood there and raised the rock over his head. Studly screeched to a halt. My uncle shouted at him, "Drive like a civilized person, or I'll throw this rock through your windshield!" The terrified teen stomped on the gas and tried to go around him, but not knowing how to drive a powerful, rear-wheel drive sports car, he slid out and crashed into two parked cars, wrecking his Camaro. My uncle calmly put the rock back exactly were it had been.
The cops came and plenty of neighbors with small kids all told the cops the teen was a menace and that he had been speeding around the streets all day long and that he must have just lost control. The cops interviewed my uncle and he told them he had no idea of some rock the kids was raving about, that he certainly never threatened anybody. Not one single eyewitness backed up the teens wild story about some crazy man with a large rock.
The cops cited the kid for reckless driving, and he had to sell his wrecked Camaro to pay off the damage pay for the damage to the other cars.
ah ah ah.......when touchtone was new front-wheel-drive cars were an extreme oddity.
You made this up!!! Camaros didn't come out until 1967, so it couldn't have been in the fifties. If you are going to make something up get your facts first. The fastest car in the 50s could have been a Chevy most likely would have been a 59 Corvette. Or maybe 59 Bellaire with a 348 engine. Get your facts right before you make story. Hahaha hahaha hahaha
@@mosesruben4027 Some young studly teen had gotten his hands on some hot rod of a car, like a Camaro,
he didnt directly call it a camaro. just in the style of one
@@mosesruben4027 LEARN HOW TO READ, the "STREETS" were from the 50's.
@@mosesruben4027 He didn't say it *happened* in the 1950s, he said the streets were 1950s-era narrow streets.
Yes, Bubba could sue, but the problem is that-
A: They were placed properly.
B: They are safety cones.
C: If he were not speeding, his car would be fine.
You're wrong, Bubba could sue and would easily win.
@@exilemike he intentionally run over cones. What type of dummy run over cones and speeding?
@@1985toyotacamry obviously the idiot driving the truck.
Answer to the question concerning the first story: Depends on where the cones and signs were placed, and how they were placed. Lawyers would look for anything to get the driver off, so everything has to be lined up correctly.
1. Were the signs permanent installations? In this instance, no they weren't, since the signs and cones were moved after the concrete had set, meaning after they were placed, they could be moved again if needed. This, is important, because in most cities, if one does not have permission from the city, permanent sign fixtures would be illegal; as such, if they were actually shoved into the ground, making a more permanent sign post, would have gotten the driver off because "signs were illegally installed." Able to move concrete filled cones, proves non-permanence, therefore, not illegal.
2. Where were the signs placed? So long as the signs were in his yard, or in the yard of a neighbor, of whom the OP had permission to place the signs, he is in his legal right to place those signs, so long as they do not interfere with traffic of any kind, both sidewalk (assuming there is one) and road. Close to the curb as possible, but not in the road itself, is still legal.
For the most part, Reckless driving on part of the driver, gives OP a clear road, in the legal department.
As for intent to cause damage to the vehicle: Plausible deniability. "I thought it was a strong breeze that came through that knocked the signs over the first time. So I strengthened their foundation to prevent the wind from knocking them over a second time."
The OP put rebar in the cones, rebar is added to concrete for strength purposes only. Once concrete is placed and sets up the weight and friction of the material under the concrete hold it in place, there would be no need for reinforcing concrete inside a traffic cone. Rebar, or reinforcing bar, is a common feature of many concrete applications. Its primary purpose is to increase the tensile strength of the concrete, helping it resist cracking and breaking. With greater tensile strength, concrete is better able to resist breaking under tension. Once concrete sets up it is a solid and can not be placed again. So adding rebar to the cones could be considered overkill and could endanger drivers passing by the cones, If someone were to have a heart attack and run into a cone that was filled with rebar and concrete they could be held liable for damages intentionally or unintentionally. There is absolutely no need for rebar reinforcement in a traffic cone that you just want to keep in place using concrete for weight.
@@alamoone4465 IF someone has a heart attack and leaves the street, the least problem is damage to the car. No one would take a second look on the cone which stood on the property of the OP.
Any judge with clear mind would deny any possibility to sue the OP because no sensible driver would speed, drive reckless and/or leave the street and purposely endanger people, especially if there are signs on them which tell that there are children. They would suspend the drivers license, and that's it. After medical psychological examination the driver could get a new drivers license. At least in Europe, I think in the US there are similar rules.
The driver learned his lesson the hard way, but he learned...
I completely back up the guy with the orange cones. GREAT 👍 IDEA AND JOB. LOVED IT.
Used to have someone that sped down our road while me and my sister waited for the bus, my dad waited for him one day and pulled out in front of him with his truck and they had a chat.
When my kids were little there was a teenage kid that lived two houses down. His buddies would drive past our house like maniacs. I waited for them and stepped out in the street in front of their car. They stopped and I simply went to the drivers window and said “Don’t drive like that in my neighborhood”. That was all it took and they stopped.
A few weeks later I was talking to the dad of the teenage kid and he told me I really scared those kids. I thought it was funny because I never threatened them or anything like that.
A "chat," I like that. Put so polite and eloquently. : )
Jengsci oh yes 😂
Good for your dear Dad!
@@frankvadnais3536 Good for you!
First story: Bubba would have to prove that OP did it all on purpose where as OP can just say that the cement was to help keep the cones in place since the others kept getting knicked over and that the guy is at fault for purposely driving to the sidewalk to hit the cone. Its a big "he said/she said" situation and the only thing that can be proven is that the Bubba was speeding and swerving to purposely hit things
First story
If the police were called the best defense would be to claim that the concrete was added to the cones to keep them from getting blown over by the wind.
Second story
She probably became a lot lizard to get back home.
I remember hearing similar stories on other r/ProRevenge videos where people are told not to run over or park somewhere, and the homeowner putting something up to wreck the car when they did it again. One in particular was a guy who filled his trash bin with water, and had it freeze solid overnight, and when the guy wrecked his car, the cops sided with the homeowner, as the driver had run over it numerous times before. Granted, I think this was in Canada, so not sure if they have the same laws as they do here in the US.
As long as the cones were in the yard, Bubba is SOL🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
On that first story, way to go Op, great job. The guy deliberety ran towards those cones and did it to himself. Stupidity is as stupidity does.
I would've paid anything to see Frank's face when she realized she was stranded and love to know if she ever caught up with them?
Re: Story 1, speeding in a neighborhood: My former neighbor had a similar problem. He had a low stockade fence next to his driveway and the driveway sloped down towards the road. Idiot teenager would drive ridiculously fast down the road.
Neighbor got a baby stroller and placed a doll in it. He hid behind his fence and waited for the idiot teen. His timing was perfect. The stroller was destroyed, doll went flying and the teen driver learned a valuable lesson.
I have a similar story, to the first one on this video. So this happened almost 15 or so years ago in my old neighborhood.
A group of kids got it in their head that it was OK to go around the neighborhood in their pick up truck, They had a brush guard on the front (an oversized one at that), and will go around the neighborhood drunk and ran into peoples mailboxes knocking them over and destroying them especially the ones that were made of wood going into the ground. Well it ended up happening that this old man in the neighborhood that my dad knew had it happened to him a couple of times already.
For the sake of argument his name is George. George had had enough. And he was also a worker at a steel shop. So George went and grabbed himself an 8 foot piece a railroad rail. He took it home, and stuck it in the ground at the spot where his mailbox was and buried it at the considerable height that her normal mailbox would be. He attached the mailbox to it and then took wood fence board and covered the steel rail with it.. And just waited he was sitting nice in his house one day on a Saturday afternoon and finally heard a big crash. He rushed outside to see that the jeep now had a piece of rail or a rail right in the middle of where the engine should be. Steam going everywhere and the two teens knocked out cold.
Moral of the story, is to not assume that every mailbox is made the same LOL
I was a claims adjuster for 21 years. It may depend on the state you’re in, but if the cones were not impeding traffic OP would not be responsible for damages done.
2nd Story: Ass, gas, or grass. Nobody rides for free.
literally a ride for a ride?
He left before she cleaned that ass and offer it
I always shared my grass
Gas and grass are reasonable but I think solicitation of prostitition takes it a step too far
@@cee-emm .... Apparently you don't know that expression, I first heard it like 50 years ago.
When a punk kept speeding down our street, I found out where his mom lived and brought my 9yr old son along to chat with her about her the situation. Kicker was that his grandma was there too. Its been almost a year now and not a problem since.
One of my friends was having trouble with a neighbor running thru piles of leaves my friend had put on the side of the road. My friend moved the next pile to the other end of his yard and piled the leaves around a fire hydrant. Within a day or so, the neighbor thought it would be a good idea to run thru that pile. It tore the front end from under the car and destroyed the fire hydrant. Cost the neighbor a crapload of money to pay his way out of that mess.
Bwahahahahahahha! 👌
I heard similar story about a punk in the neighborhood running over snowmen in people's front yards. So one guy built a snowman over a tree stump about 2 feet thick and a couple feet high. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Truck totaled.
I just LOVE reading about stories like that!
@@mayorb3366 😅🤣
Bubba cannot sue for the same reason he avoided calling the cops. He would have to admit to reckless driving, and then he's shit out of luck and would likely be even more out of pocket because OP's lawyer would likely file for Bubba to pay his legal fees.
With regards to the safety come story....OP could have used this line: "I honestly had no idea that (neighbor) was going to run the cones down.....I wanted to make sure that the safety cones wouldn't blow away ,that's why I filled the cones with cement
Op definitely would not have been held liable for damage to Bubba's truck. Bubba was breaking the speed limit and purposely steering towards the cones which would mean driving towards the shoulder. Speeding, Reckless driving, I would say bubba would probably lose his license for about a year and have to take traffic school. Bubba could have even been drunk and that's why he didn't want the police called. Alcohol does make you feel like you're 10 ft tall and bulletproof sometimes
About 40yrs ago when my children were still kids we lived about 2 blocks off of the main road. The street ended about 4 blocks past my house with 25 mile per hour signs post all along the way. This one person and the term is used to be polite repeatedly would speed from the turn onto the road to his destination about 3 blocks past my house. I had tried several times to get him to stop so I could attempt to get him to slow down with no luck. He sped past the house one day headed toward the back I loaded my shotgun and waited for him to leave. As he was coming my way I stepped into the street and he stopped and started trying to be a tough guy. I just told him that this would be his only warning "If he hurt one of my kids running down the road like he had been The only thing the police would need to do was put me in handcuffs and call the coroner for him". He slowly drove on out and within 30min. the local law enforcement was at my door as he sat in his car smiling at the end of my driveway. After talking to me and neighbors we walked to his car and the officer told him that he should take the warning to heart. He never sped down our street again.
Sorry libtard here, guns are over the top as they just rsculate the situation. Perhaps a spike strip for speeders.
If the safety cones were not in the street in the direct path of Bubba's truck, then OP is not responsible for the damage to the truck.
You play stupid games, then you win stupid prizes.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
3:42 because the cones were his property "Bubba" would have been on the hook for destruction of property and an engineer could have told cops what speed he had to hit them at to do that kind of damage thus he would be held accountable for reckless driving.
I'm addicted to all your r/ stories, I spend way to much time listening
I am so glad that it is not just me!! They are gold!!
Parent worries about a truck endangering his kids, meanwhile allows them to install a quarter pipe in the middle of the road.
I bet the irony was lost on him.
Only in trouble if he had them on the road itself. On the shoulder is not in trouble.
@Cade Cooper You have no idea how anything works do you?
Shoulder of the road, is the only area in which concrete filled cones would cause issue for the homeowner. HOWEVER, the story said "side of the street" not specifically shoulder. Side of the street could mean one of three areas: 1)Shoulder, if there is one, most residential areas do not have a shoulder to begin with. 2) Curb, every road has one, even if it is not as pronounced as other roads. It is a traffic violation that is often ignored because going over a curb is more accidental than done on purpose. 3) Yard next to the road, yes this is entirely possible, and is more likely to be found in a residential neighborhood.
Shoulder: Illegal to drive in the shoulder. So why was the driver, driving in the should, and speeding up? let's ignore the illegal driving of the shoulder, because what if he just veered into them... the fact he sped up, reckless driving (any kind of veering on the road, can considered reckless driving, even to avoid something in the road itself), reckless endangerment on part of the driver...
Curb: illegal to go over the curb... the fact the driver sped up, showed purposeful intent to go over the curb. Speeding up and going over the curb on purpose: Reckless driving, reckless endangerment...
Yard: Illegal to drive in someone else's yard without permission. Speeding up and driving into someone else's yard: reckless driving, reckless endangerment, trespassing...
Homeowner: concrete filled cones, which is some times done by construction crew, in some areas, to prevent heavy winds from moving the cones... The rebar isn't needed, so homeowner might be liable for that... however, reckless driving and reckless endangerment on part of the driver, means the driver is more at fault than the homeowner.
@Cade Cooper I live in tornado ally. Concrete filled cones, with cinderblocks on top of the weighted base plates, are quite common, in an effort to reduce the chances of a tornado hurling those cones. Concrete filled cone isn't permanent. If done correctly, the concrete can easily be removed from the cone. Those cones are expensive, compared to the cost of the concrete mix they used to fill those cones.
Easements are beneficial not for the property owner, but for those who use the easement outside of the property owner. Utilities, Gas and water for example, have easement on your property, for accessing those pipes. Construction crew can use that easement themselves as well. The owner of the property, in which that easement exists, is not allowed to put anything permanent there, without proper authorization... that includes a flower garden.
There is also the Right-of-Way (ROW) zone, for public traffic, both pedestrian and vehicle. if the ROW includes sidewalk, and a grassy area between sidewalk and road, it is property to the homeowner, in which it is their responsibility to take care of it (mowing the lawn, and clearing weeds), so is treated as a special kind of easement. NOTHING is allowed to be placed in the ROW, if it impedes the flow of traffic both pedestrian and vehicle. Which means nothing on the sidewalk, and nothing in the road. Road Shoulders are a special case, because despite being considered part of the road, placing something in the road shoulder, does not impede vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Hence why homeowners, or visitors to the property, are allowed to park in the shoulder, but only if the driveway to the specific property is full. Because placing objects in the shoulder, does not impede the flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic, homeowners are allowed to place other things in the shoulder, so long as they are not permanent fixtures.
Local ordinances also differ from one city to another. Meaning, it ultimately depends on where you live, on whether or not the homeowner would be in trouble or not, for the concrete cones.
I live in an area, where local ordinance, is 5-feet clearance from road and permanent fixtures. 2 feet clearance for heavy temporary fixtures. If I wanted to, I can put orange concrete filled traffic cones 2 feet from the road, and if someone hits them, that someone would have to first prove those cones were there with ill intentions, if I am to be held liable for damages.
There is far more to this, than you are wanting to admit. If we want to find out whether the homeowner is liable, we need to know city, and the city's ordinance at the time the story occurred.
However: there are enough commonalities for us to get a picture of most likely scenario: Intent of the cones, was to warn drivers of a residential neighborhood, and that there are children at play... which means driving the speed limit or slower, and slowing down when one sees children playing. Speeding up, as a result, is reckless driving, and reckless endangerment. That reckless driving, is the reason the vehicle was damaged. If the driver wasn't being reckless, the driver's vehicle would still be undamaged.
2nd story: she probably still had the rest of her 60$ and the rest of the weed.
But she'd have to use/sell to get out of there so she didn't get to use either how she wanted.
Edit: unless she found someone really nice who bought her sob story that her friends abandoned her and gave her a free ride.
@@LadyBern or sold "something else" all the way back home.
@@theoverunderthinker as they say it's either gas, grass, or ass
Imagine her appearing on Reddit to rant about this trip that happened to her a few years ago. 😂
"Camping girl" is a very sad case. There are some people who simply don't know how to live honorably.
No Bubba could not have sued. The concrete was just to keep them on the ground in case of a high gust of wind!
If the orange cones weren’t placed in the street but on the shoulder then I don’t think that “Bubba” has a case at all. From what I gathered from the story OP placed warning signs on the shoulder and they were run over or knocked over so OP added the cement to weigh them down so that they would stay in place. Bubba knew that he didn’t have a leg to stand on with his threats so that’s why he called the tow truck and did not contact the authorities.
OP just added weight to the cones holding the signs so they won`t get blown down the road by the wind.
With that first story, I prefer the one where OP bought a cheap stroller and a realistic looking baby doll, and then when the idiot who kept speeding past his house next passed, he pushed the stoller into the road so the driver ran it over...
Bubba had warrants, or was on parole, that's why they called the tow truck.
This for he story of the cement in the traffic cones. All he had to say was that the wind kept blowing over the cones. And he was concerned that signs to help protect the kids living there, now couldn't be seen. He put the cent in them to ensure that they stayed upright so that anyone driving down the road would be able to see them. And that they were far enough off the road that the only way to hit them, is if you hit them on purpose. Well that's exactly what he did. Sounds like that one family who built a snowman in their yard. The snowman was over top and covering a stump. Someone tried to run the snowman over and got one heck of a surprise.
Anyone does this to my kids would be digging their own grave!
In Canada the damage would be considered self inflicted. "Own damage" is the legal term.
Sixty years ago the kids in my neighbourhood did this to a man who used to scream down our narrow street in his sports car. On Hallowe'en we filled every garbage can (metal in those days) to the brim with water and lined them two deep across the street before his usual time. Total destruction! Mind you, our parents had to buy some new garbage cans, but we never saw that idiot again and our street hockey games became much safer.
The Darkfluff is over 9000!
Whether OP would have been liable for buhbuh's truck would depend on the state but if they were my cones, I'd tell the court that my cones were blowing over so I weighted them. He didn't have to steer into them.
Bubba endangers children and disturbs the peace, to me, thats more than car destruction
Edit: Its an opinion :3
@sam frankss doesnt that also depend on where you are
Uhm okay
I’m sure op wasn’t The only one that heard the engine roaring. Cops would prob learn pretty quickly from the Other house in the block
My four uncles dragged a big log across the road for a guy who refused to slow down when going through their neighborhood.
It ripped both axles of his car.
I believe this would fall in line with the federal laws as mailboxes. Federal postal code states they are only to be 4x4 posts so they break away and cause little damage. All these stories of people re-enforcing the posts are technically illegal. And that is why road cones are made of plastic and on a break away system.
Best. Revenge. Ever! Go dad!
This is how traffic laws work. If someone put something deliberately in the middle of the road for others to run over and caused damage to someone elses vehicle, that's illegal. Now, if the cones were to the very side of the road out of the way and they deliberately ran those things over, that can be there fault but in some cases you can still be held liable. It's a very sketchy area for discussion and different laws exist in different states so I would NOT recommend doing this at all and just get video evidence of it, their license plate and call the cops and let them deal with it.
Shoulder, if the residential neighborhood in question has a road shoulder, would be the only sketchy part. It is illegal to drive over a curb, even if it is often ignored, because in most cases, it is very brief, and only a single wheel, and more often happens when someone is parking, or turning. Curb is a possible "side of the street" placement, but is iffy to a very lesser degree.
Yard, is another possible "side of the street" scenario, and the most likely scenario for a residential area... the driver would then also be "trespassing." homeowners are also allowed to place anything in their yard (though more permanent fixtures may require city permission to put up, depending on where one lives, but as the cones were moved into position after being filled with rebar and concrete, permanent fixture not an issue), and it is never the fault of the homeowner, if someone drives into something that is on their yard, no matter how close to the road that something may be.
OP could not be held liable for "Bubba" running over the cones, they were off the street, and anyone knows you drive ON THE STREET, NOT ON THE GRASS.
Anyone else would have loved to see Frankie's reaction when her would be victims left her behind?
Yep!
As long as the cones were on OP's property, "bubba" didn't have a leg to stand on! Besides, it's perfectly reasonable to fill cones with cement....to keep them in the intended place, of course!
That hippie girl REALLY sounds like someone I've met before.
thats all hippies they never do anything useful and just bum off others
In that free camping trip story, they mentioned several times that she needed to shower 1st, did she stink that bad? 😂
The guy who placed the cones, I don't think would be liable, because the story said the guy in the truck veered towards the cones that were on the shoulder
i like how you timed "what you deserve" with you wishing cindi a happy birthday
Regarding the first story, talked to three different lawyers.
As long as the cones were out if the main roadway, which it read like they were - OP is in the clear. You see....
Criminal intent lay with the truck, it isn't entrapment because the OP is not law enforcement. Commit stupid crimes, win stupid prizes!!
I’m no lawyer but I bet you could argue OP didn’t have the intent to cause harm because 1) People don’t usually run over traffic cones 2) The traffic cones were 3 feet tall, that’s very visible to anyone 3) The cement could have just been to keep them steady so people can read the signs and they don’t fall over
No he couldn’t sue him for the cones. They are safety cones and there’s nothing in the law saying you can’t secure them however you want. He destroyed his own truck while illegally speeding and trying to destroy private property.
That cement and rebar in a witches hat story has been going around since i was as kid. It’s an urban legend by now 😂.
I’ve heard it with fancy cars, trucks, old clunkers, motorcycles, a shitty kid on a pushie. First time i’ve heard it with a ‘Bubba’ though.
I had a friend whose garbage pickup day was on a Thurs. so he'd set his garbage cans near the end of his driveway on Wed. night. Every Wed. night close to midnight he'd hear his garbage cans go flying, someone was swerving just enough to hit his garbage cans. So finally after weeks of this he decided to drive some nails through some boards and set them near the cans. When he heard his cans go flying, he got up and jumped into his car to see if he'd find a vehicle with a flat tire. Sure enough a ways up the road there was a vehicle pulled into a McDonalds lot with two flat tires. He called the police and when they got there he explained everything to the cop and the cop told him the driver of the vehicle was a17yr old now waiting for his dad to get there to help him. Turned out it was a high school kid on his way home from work who was doing this, the kid said he just did it out of boredom. While the cop got a kick out of what he did to catch this kid, he did warn him that even though the kid had to go onto his property to hit the cans, if the kid had lost control of his vehicle due to the flat tires and got injured, my friend would be liable. This happened in Wisconsin, so it may be different in other States, but you can't entrap people in a way they could be injured. A few days after this incident the kid came to his house and apologized for what he had done, so it all ended well, but it could have gone very wrong.
Nice!
If the cones were on his property, he might get away with it. If they were on the road, he's be liable I think.
He could sue but he wouldn't win. From the information in the story Bubba swerved to the shoulder to purposely run them over.
He deserves a medal.
I wonder if this is same Franky from other story where she invited herself to go with a group of friends going on beach vacation.
Franky gets around but never learns her lesson; She just makes new friends and tries again and again!
;)
Bery good! Like what you did with cones to “stop the wind from blowing the cones away”. Two faced boss deserves the shut door.
Op would not been able to get sued due to the person speeding and damaging there property
If it was the FIRST time he ran over the cones, yes, the cone-placer would be liable. But it was the SECOND time the driver tried this, so no, the cone-placer would NOT be liable.
Can we get the beer as the background again?
Yeah! I miss the bubbles!!
She could've earned some quick cash at the ruck stop . 😘 Damn freeloading hippy 😂
We let an "Earth First!" hippie friend come along on a trip to the Olympic Mountains in Washington. He was all brown rice and black beans vegan food with a shit ton of garlic diet and said he had everything covered for his needs. It was a long trip from Eugene. He might have put in a buck or two for gas but then said we were going that way anyway and we had invited him along. So since we had jobs it shouldn't be a problem. We stopped at supermarkets a couple of times. He needed extra time to shop because the way he shopped was to wait until the coast was clear and then dumpster dive behind the supermarket. And then tell us that we should be doing it too. We tolerated him but drifted apart pretty quick after that trip. Poor guy didn't have anybody to go hike with after that as he'd estranged all of his friends including the Earth first frenemies.
For the last story, they should have rescinded the offer last minute and said, "This shouldn't come as a surprise."
Op would not be in trouble because he could say that he was just weighing the cones down and that he didn't realize that the truck was going to come by on the damn side and try running them over. He just wanted his kids to be safe and the cones kept falling over. he would definitely not be in trouble and even if they hd prfoof he wanted to cause damage he didnttell the truck driver to drive over his property and that it was his fault
Sweet, sweet revenge. I love it.
I lived in a once-farmland suburb, so we had a grid of through-roads all a mile apart. In between them were the spaghetti bowls of residential streets, often impossible navigate on from one grid road to another. Except R--- Road, where I lived. It snaked between houses, condos, and a large park, with no stop signs, between #3 and #4 Roads. It became a very popular rat racing and general speedway route, and cars would roar by, screeching around the corners, at all hours. Someone's dog was hit, and it was only a matter of time before a child was.
I was out for a walk one night, and heard a sports car howling toward me around the "big bend" of the road. As the car came into view, I stepped out into the street and hurled an imaginary rock right at his windshield. The driver dynamited the brakes and slewed the car around to a stop. He leaped over the door yelling threats to kill me, but I just retreated behind a neighbor's big RV and he couldn't find me. With his girlfriend becoming annoyed and calling him to come back, he finally got in the car and drove away. I never saw that car again, but that's not to say it made a big difference in the traffic.
I am not a fan of being passive aggressive like the camping dude. I would have just told her, "this is the end of the line for you, here's a few bucks for pancakes but we're leaving without you." And then left.
“Frankie, you broke the unwritten law. You freeloaded on your freinds. You do that Frankie, your enemies don’t respect ya! You got no friends no more!,You got nobody Frankie…”
(If anyone gets this reference I will be pretty happy, XD)
Technically the cones are just cones just fill with cement so I believe he is good because that boba did is illegal.
With regard to the first story, the argument could be made that Bubba did this to himself by running over stuff he shouldn’t have been running over. Those things were not in his way, he purposefully went and ran them down. They were placed on the side of the road, rather like those big yellow bins that are placed on the ramps for interstate exits.
Bubba got what he deserved.
Don’t people cement their mailbox bases because people knock them over?
Mailbox is your/USPS property, and not in the roadway. Realize if some kid got killed from Bubba hitting the cones, OP would probably get charged with something as well..
Realize it only takes a jury 50% to decide you're are civilly liable, doing something that 'most people would know increases the hazard of someone getting hurt' can be very risky, even if it involves someone else doing something intentionally dumb as well.
in some states that is illegal
Bubble likely could have sued and won at least some money. He was negligent, but OP intentionally put up something that could seriously injure or kill someone.
It reminds me of the shotgun booby trap case. Someone set up said trap in a remote property that people were known to break into and steal stuff from. A robber broke in and got injured, while he did get arrested and served jail time for his crime, he sued the owner for the crippling injuries he suffered (which likely would have killed him if he hadn't had an accomplice to take him to the hospital). He won some damages.
we had a similar thing when I was re-tarmacing the road.we would put cones out to keep us safe from traffic and this bozo used to come speeding down the road knocking all the cones everywhere.So we hatched a plan and filled them all, I think there was about 20 cones so we filled them all with concrete and let them set overnight.we put the cones out in the morning and yes you guessed it he came down and hit about 4 cones and came to a screeching halt with the front of his car absolutely wrecked.He called the police and they arrested him.Car wrecked and arrested....................Result as far as we were concerned.
These stories helped my ear to stop ringing for a bit
The second story is fake. I saw a story that was literally the same thing except for it was beach party house, not a camping trip
Yeah i just heard that one too 😬 this is literally a "hey can i copy your homework" moment lmao
Yeah either that or someone retold the story and it got changed somewhat, before reaching this video. Fake or not still entertaining to hear how you could possibly get pro revenge, but i agree i mostly think it's fake changed due to views n what not.
There are enough scummy people in the world to have multiple stories where people get left places because they don’t pay for things.
Pixel Raid they literally use the same nicknames and descriptions as the other stories too
Most of these are shit that didnt happen.