By on July 2, 2014

Veloster-Chase-sm

The Best&Brightest reacted with apathy to a story about someone who ended a police chase by ramming the perp, making it our least popular story of the week.

Oh, just kidding! You guys went nuts! And now here’s some additional information: the fellow who did the ramming had his truck fixed and upgraded through donations from the community. According to Road&Track:

Rowley’s truck had some front suspension damage and a mangled front bumper. Not only did the truck get about $7500 in repairs, it got an additional $6500 or so in upgrades: new turbos, a new fuel system, a much more substantial bumper, and new shocks all around.

A much more substantial bumper! That’s exactly what this fellow needs.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

51 Comments on “RAM A Veloster, Get Free Stuff...”


  • avatar
    Hummer

    I’m glad, those stock bumpers aren’t made for doing much, look really good, but that dog won’t hunt.
    Cool truck been looking at the new cummins, half tons are too mangled from Cafe, unfortunate I have to go to 3/4 for anything good.

  • avatar
    -Nate

    It appears you don’t approve Jack .

    -Nate

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Aw, he was joking about the much more substantial bumper. I think.

      OTOH, there was another story/video of a guy in a truck tailgating a woman and then flipping her off as he passed her on the right, and flipping his truck over. Just think what he MIGHT have done if he had a “much more substantial bumper.”

  • avatar
    carguy67

    Velosters annoy me. Don’t know why–they’ve never done mischief to me–they just do.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Their drivers are part of the issue. A woman has one here, and it takes her THREE back-forths to park it.

      I’m sitting there like WOMAN I COULD PUT A TC IN THAT SPACE IN ONE TRY.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        Three – that’s all? I’ve seen women park Corollas with much more difficulty. My sister, who parallel parks in one slick move, watched another woman take SEVEN stabs at getting close enough to the curb, and when she finished, my sister applauded her. The woman flipped her off.

      • 0 avatar
        rpm1200

        Isn’t a Scion TC about the same size as a Veloster?

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      I had to chuckle on that. I know how it is, certain cars just annoy you for no clear rational reason but they do. For me, it’s Escalades. I don’t truly know why, and I know it doesn’t matter to me what someone else drives; I am certainly not going to go out and key them. But for some reason they do.

      • 0 avatar
        carguy67

        Aside from the general piggishness of all the big SUVs, the latest ad campaign for the Escalade–the one equating them with pharaohs, snobby noblemen, etc. and their rides–is a poke-in-they-eye to us average Joes. The irony is that the background music–Bowie’s ‘Fame’–is a slam on just that sort of behavior. Can’t believe DB sold out for that one.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Especially since “Golden Years” would have been a more appropriate song for a Cadillac.

          Back of a dream car, twenty foot long.
          Act tall, walk fine.

        • 0 avatar
          DevilsRotary86

          You are assuming that Mr. Bowie owns the song. There is a decent chance that he does not.

          • 0 avatar
            carguy67

            Good point (I did consider the possibility). I can’t find who does own the rights–Google is no help–but was reminded of John Lennon’s contribution to the song (I think we can safely presume Lennon’s take on fame).

          • 0 avatar
            DevilsRotary86

            My favorite example of this is Fogerty v Fantasy, Inc. The famous lawsuit in which John Fogerty was sued by Fantasy Records for copying the works of John Fogerty.

            The cliffnotes version is that the entire library of works done under Creedence Clearwater Revival wer owned by Fantasy Records (not sure about now). Of course, later John Fogerty had his own solo act in which he wrote and composed “The Old Man Down the Road”. Fantasy claimed that the song infringed on “Run Through The Jungle” written by John Fogerty but owned by Fantasy records. Mr. Fogerty won the case.

        • 0 avatar
          DeadWeight

          I saw a deadhead sticker on an Escalade.

          *That commercial annoys me more than most do, and nearly all marketing puffery annoys the shiite out of me. It’s almost as awful as the Cadillac ELR “poolside” ad. Cadillac’s ad agency, Campbell Ewald, is just screwing the pooch.

  • avatar
    sproc

    Turbo and suspension upgrades necessary to support the up-armor kit and forward firing ordnance.

  • avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    Yeah, howsabout a pintle mount in the bed and a M2? Now THAT’S an upgrade!

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    I’m not sure what he did warranted $14,000 in free money, though.

    • 0 avatar
      Stumpaster

      What’s a human life worth to you? 16,000, 16,995?

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Roughly accounting between 1-4 Million.

        Thankfully nobody died, but lets not pretend the Ram was some how a safer actor than the Veloster not to mention if the Ram had killed the Veloster driver he would be facing involuntary manslaughter charges right now.

  • avatar
    319583076

    Golden, jewel-encrusted truck nutz now adorn his heroic brodozer. Finally, I can soundly sleep secure in the knowledge that our streets are safe from hooligans in economy cars!

  • avatar
    FractureCritical

    Easy to see why the low post count on this one since the previous vigilante story was about an asshat on foot putting a rock through the window of an asshat in an exotic car making trouble on a local street.

    that got tons of posts about how the vigilante was clearly in the wrong (beucase he damaged an exotic).

    It’s hard to go the other way for a guy who might actually be in the right (and only damaged a Hyundai).

    double standards are a bitch, huh?

  • avatar
    LALoser

    I think the Ram driver did a good thing. Too often we are a people that sit back, warming the bench of life ready to carp at precious few others with “if”, “maybe” and so on when they stepped up and did what they could with what they had.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Because we as a society have decided that the police force is the one obligated to handle these affairs. Had they wrecked a cruiser to stop the kid in the Veloster the community would be outraged at the expense. If that Ram had screwed up and hit something else, people would be having a conniption fit. Not to mention that the Veloster’s owner still has a right to file a civil suit and may in fact win it because regardless of the context the accident was effectively an illegal maneuver committed by a private citizen.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        You must live in a different community that doesn’t possess much of what is known as “common sense.”

        If a police vehicle is wrecked trying to stop a fugitive who has already demonstrated a reckless disregard for public safety, most people I know would blame said fugitive, not the police.

        Xeranar: Not to mention that the Veloster’s owner still has a right to file a civil suit and may in fact win it because regardless of the context the accident was effectively an illegal maneuver committed by a private citizen.

        The Veloster’s owner wasn’t the driver. The 14-year-old driver had taken his grandfather’s car without permission (not surprising, given that he didn’t have a license in the first place). Grandpa promptly called the police on him, which suggests some interesting family dynamics.

        Yes, the owner can sue, but that doesn’t mean a jury will be dumb enough to find the Dodge owner liable. Although anything is possible these days…

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          If you’re employing ‘common sense’ as an argument you’ve just pulled a ideological ‘no true scotsman.’ You’re appealing to a shared normative view which isn’t necessarily rational or logical but simply requiring a majority or plurality to hold it with you. I’m not going to debate that point, it’s irrelevant to an argument because fundamentally it has no objective value.

          Then flipping to an anecdotal review seems to be defensive over something that has been brought up here repeatedly about hazardous use of utilities and cost of service for the government. I’m sure your friends would be alright with it but the community may not.

          Your argument about the liability claim falls onto argumentative moral context trying to claim that because the thief was a relative the other driver isn’t liable for the actions taken. This bares a similarity to numerous law school arguments about who is at fault and can a party sue for monetary adjustment on their loss. Normally the state would declare the Ram driver’s actions negligent at a minimum, the owner had their property stolen and misused, the ram took it upon themselves to remedy the situation and while a jury may be swayed by moral arguments about class and family the basic analysis dictates the Ram driver is by default at fault because they caused the accident and weren’t acting in the name of the law at the time of the accident.

          So, you’re right, some juries may not find them guilty of causing an accident but a surprisingly high number could and in a civil case there may not be a jury seated at all but instead go to a judge which would almost always find the Ram driver at fault for part of the value of the car.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Xeranar: If you’re employing ‘common sense’ as an argument you’ve just pulled a ideological ‘no true scotsman.’ You’re appealing to a shared normative view which isn’t necessarily rational or logical but simply requiring a majority or plurality to hold it with you.

            So far, the only proof of this rationality is “because I said so,” followed by a string of “what ifs.”

            Unfortunately, two can play the “what if” game.

            What if the Ram driver hadn’t stopped the Veloster driver, and he had hit an elderly lady in a crosswalk, or jumped the sidewalk and hit children playing, or hit a bicyclist while looking in the rear view mirror for the police.

            You do realize that the whole point of a jury is to have someone’s actions judged by people from that particular community who have a “shared normative view” and also are peers of the defendant (criminal case) or the plaintiffs and defendants (civil suit)?

            Xeranar: Then flipping to an anecdotal review seems to be defensive over something that has been brought up here repeatedly about hazardous use of utilities and cost of service for the government. I’m sure your friends would be alright with it but the community may not.

            Again, see my point above about why courts use juries drawn from the community in the first place.

            Xernar: Your argument about the liability claim falls onto argumentative moral context trying to claim that because the thief was a relative the other driver isn’t liable for the actions taken.

            A key question will be who started the whole mess. Hint – it wasn’t the Ram driver. Any case will look at the entire episode, which started when junior stole grandpa’s car. Which means junior is the one who is ultimately at fault here.

            Xeranar: This bares a similarity to numerous law school arguments about who is at fault and can a party sue for monetary adjustment on their loss.

            Any civil case will be tried in a court of law presided over by judges relying on the rules of civil procedure, rules of evidence and prior case law. Anyone not familiar with “numerous law school” arguments should therefore refrain from discussing potential civil actions.

            Xeranar: Normally the state would declare the Ram driver’s actions negligent at a minimum, the owner had their property stolen and misused, the ram took it upon themselves to remedy the situation and while a jury may be swayed by moral arguments about class and family the basic analysis dictates the Ram driver is by default at fault because they caused the accident and weren’t acting in the name of the law at the time of the accident.

            I thought we were talking about a civil case here. The state isn’t going to do anything, except provide the venue to try the case, pay the salaries of the judge and court officers, and reimburse the jury for expenses.

            Xeranar: So, you’re right, some juries may not find them guilty of causing an accident but a surprisingly high number could and in a civil case there may not be a jury seated at all but instead go to a judge which would almost always find the Ram driver at fault for part of the value of the car.

            Generally, one party will specifically request that the case be heard by a judge instead of a jury. If there is any reason to believe that the presiding judge will almost “always” find fault with someone in the situation of the Ram driver, his attorney would undoubtedly make a motion for a jury trial, given that the judge obviously can’t try the case fairly.

      • 0 avatar
        Lorenzo

        The response of the community indicates a wrecked cruiser would not have incited outrage of any sort. It was the community’s kids who were endangered. They probably wouldn’t have complained if the police had shot the guy. I think what LALoser was referring to was something covered under “When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    If the truck suffered $7500 in damages, how much was assessed against the Veloster? It was clearly totalled, but it might not have been much more costly.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    $7500 in damage to that Ram, shows ya that pictures dont tell all. The dude deserves free repairs, but I dunno about the community backed free upgrade stuff.

    People donate money to ANYTHING these days but then get all pinchy when they go to craigslist.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    1. Citizen stops a threat to community’s children by stopping a joyrider.
    2. Community voluntarily rewards citizen by fixing/upgrading his truck.

    Absolutely nothing wrong with any of this, IMO. Sounds like a nice community.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    Looks like the “best and Brightest” in that dude’s community voted with their wallets.
    It is a sign of mounting frustration in the eyes of the general public that law enforcement and government aren’t very effective at serving citizens.
    The public must of felt that the fellow would also turn out to be a victim of law enforcement and government for his intervention.

    My truck needs some repairs to the box, maybe I can ram someone all in the name of law and order.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Frustration is rarely attached to a statistical analysis and more or less forms on the premise of assumptions and general views that are self-supporting.

      Put simply, if this idiot hit somebody else the community would scream bloody murder, but his actions lucked out so he’s being rewarded. Not to mention if the police did the same thing that wracked up 14K in ‘public funds’ to repair their police cruiser the community would be outraged. Perception is the most dangerous tool in the arsenal of fools.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        Xeranar: Put simply, if this idiot hit somebody else the community would scream bloody murder, but his actions lucked out so he’s being rewarded.

        The Dodge driver didn’t accidentally hit the Hyundai while he was going to the grocery store.

        Nor was he looking to deliberately ram any vehicle he encountered, and, in a terrific spot of luck, the vehicle he rammed happened to be driven by a fugitive who had barreled through a public park full of children.

        The Ram driver wasn’t out to “hit” anyone else except the vehicle being driven by someone that he knew was fleeing from police.

        Given this fact, If he had hit someone else that particular day, it would most likely have been what we call an “accident.” Perhaps you have proof that he was aimlessly driving around, like a vehicular version of the shark in Jaws, looking for hapless vehicles to ram with his…big old Ram.

        Unless the Ram driver had hit someone else while drunk, or after drifting into the opposite lane while texting, I doubt that anyone would be screaming bloody murder over what would have been a garden-variety traffic accident. They happen regularly around here, and there isn’t too much screaming, unless the driver at fault was drunk or doing something really stupid or reckless.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Talk about misdirection, I’m not even going to bother since your argument is outlandish. To put it simply you understood the argument was if the Ram driver failed to hit the veloster and caused a further accident. If you failed to understand it, it’s time to hang up the keyboard and take a walk for a while.

          Whatever you feel for him I’m sure you feel emotionally justified, I just see a wild act by a citizen who happened to get lucky and not cause further mayhem in the name of ‘justice’.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Title 77

            Utah Code of Criminal Procedure
            Chapter 7 Section 3
            Arrest

            77-7-3. By private persons.

            A private person may arrest another:
            (1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; or
            (2) When a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe the person arrested has committed it.

            76-5-103. Aggravated assault.

            (1) A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as defined in Section 76-5-102 and uses:
            (a) a dangerous weapon as defined in Section 76-1-601; or
            (b) other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.

            (2) (a) A violation of Subsection (1) is a third degree felony, except under Subsection (2)(b).
            (b) A violation of Subsection (1) that results in serious bodily injury is a second degree felony.

            Bryson Rowley, the driver of the RAM, allegedly saw his own child almost struck by the Veloster.

            Rowley witnessed what is easily categorized as a felony act, namely his own kid almost being struck by a moving vehicle. He had good reason to believe that he had the right to arrest.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            Nice argument, Pch, now please report on the Utah legislature’s definition of ‘arrest’ because you’re going to be hard-pressed to find a clear and defined ruling on striking a person with your car even if they’re in another car.

            Regardless of the presumed legality of the arrest his right to a defense of it if the DA felt justified in charging him would be then put to the test. Rather, in other words, his right to arrest him only goes so far as the DA allowing him to arrest him. Their decision to not charge him is a matter of the DA’s preference, not a clear statute of protection.

            Otherwise you’re basically blowing in the wind on this one. Citing case law to justify the action may make it more palatable but still amounts to a fight in civil court even if he wasn’t charged criminally for negligence. Civil courts are surprisingly more flexible on the matter and again his affirmative defense of arrest rights would be hard pressed since his Ram truck didn’t exactly have the intention to detain without further incident.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Rowley claims that he was trying to block the Veloster, not strike it.

            A video of the crash shows him braking prior to the collision, which supports his claim.

            I know that you have a hard-on for this guy, but your case is weak. Stop digging.

          • 0 avatar
            geeber

            Xeranar, review the Utah statute that is applicable to this particular situation. You don’t like what the guy did – fine. But unless some shocking fact is uncovered that puts him and what he did in a different light, his actions were justified.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Xeranar – “You’re appealing to a shared normative view which isn’t necessarily rational or logical but simply requiring a majority or plurality to hold it with you.”

        Isn’t that what common sense is? a shared normative view.

        Jury of pears – that tends to be who sits in judgement.

        We humans tend to use logic to justify emotion or what is basically illogical.
        That appears to be occurring on both sides of this debate.

        “Put simply, if this idiot hit somebody else the community would scream bloody murder, but his actions lucked out so he’s being rewarded.”
        To put it even more simple, yes…. “hero or zero” is outcome based.

        “the basic analysis dictates the Ram driver is by default at fault because they caused the accident and weren’t acting in the name of the law at the time of the accident.”

        Citizen’s arrest is a different animal than self defence but in this case “fear for life of friends,or family, or children” is grounds for countering a risk with an equal or higher level of force.

        One can argue that it won’t hold up in court but I know enough police officers that have told me that it does.

  • avatar
    Xeranar

    Irresponsible behavior rewarded by a community that assumes his actions were ‘righteous’ really doesn’t boast much confidence for his behavior or the general intelligence of a community. Than again only an infinitesimal part of the community donated so it amounts to a handful of folks rewarding his behavior.

    But that’s neither here nor there, go back to the moral congratulations of each other.

    • 0 avatar
      hybridkiller

      “…you’re going to be hard-pressed to find a clear and defined ruling on striking a person with your car even if they’re in another car.”

      The good news (for your argument) is that intentionally aiming a motor vehicle at a person in/not in another vehicle is pretty universally considered assault with a deadly weapon – i.e., use of deadly force. Bad news – this guy has a pretty good claim that he was responding to a clear and imminent threat of great bodily harm to those around him.
      Legally it’s kind of a wash. Interfering with police is the only thing I can see him likely to be charged with (assuming the police/prosecutors see it as such).

  • avatar
    hybridkiller

    @Pch101

    I’m largely agnostic on the subject of Rammer being right, wrong, justified or not – mainly because the threshold of detail I need to feel comfortable passing judgment hasn’t been met.
    But since you chose to focus on the pure legality of what transpired, is there a statute that addresses a citizen interfering with law enforcement during an in-progress police response to a situation? To me that is the key legal question here. And again, I’m not condoning OR condemning what Rammer did.
    I’m asking seriously, this is not some veiled challenge to your point.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I would think that it’s hard to argue that Rowley interfered with the arrest when he deliberately facilitated it.

      What X needs to realize is that the public does have some limited right to participate in law enforcement. His arguments presume that we have no recourse but to call 911, and that’s obviously wrong. Vigilantism is still illegal, but not every act by a citizen is an act of vigilantism.

      If he doesn’t like it, then he should ask the Utah legislature to change the laws. But it is not up to us to prosecute people for behavior that was lawful at the time.

  • avatar
    hybridkiller

    I’d still like to know if there’s a statute on the books that addresses it, but whatever. Since there is such a thing as obstruction of justice (I know that doesn’t apply here) I would think that you can’t (legally) get out in front of police (when they are on scene) just because you think your judgment, skill, or training is better. But IDK, that’s why I asked.

  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    @hybridkiller – the “Rammer” has to be careful as to how he words why he did what he did.

    If he sticks to fear for the lives of neighbourhood friends, family, children then he is covered by what is acceptable in self defence. It may be acceptable in citizens arrest.

    If he says he was frustrated and angered by police inaction then he is dead in the water.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    I think we already know the pickup driver’s legal situation. The police, who usually dislike intervention by private citizens, chose not to arrest him. If the kid and his family sue, they will have a hard time finding a sympathetic jury in a community that spontaneously donated several thousand dollars to fix the defendant’s truck.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Jeff S: 022 Ford Maverick Hybrid EPA Fuel Economy Ratings City Highway Combined 2022 Ford Maverick 2.5L Hybrid FWD 42...
  • beachy: Don’t worry about it. You improved the appearance of the car.
  • bullnuke: I’d buy the car listed over on Hemmings just to lounge in it for a few hours each day. In my tophat,...
  • Lie2me: My mom has 46K miles on her 20 year old PT Cruiser that she bought new. That’s a lot of trips to the...
  • Dan: I didn’t read this as the limits changing mid lap. I read that Tim assumed a limit based on the totally...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber