• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Remember that guy who drove his Bugatti Veyron into a swamp?

Awesome. What is soooooo fvcking awesome about this is it's like seeing Bigfoot and actually having a high def video camera. No way that guy had any clue people were filming it. How many Bugattis get totaled ever in history? And this was caught and put on youtube. It does look quite deliberate actually.
 
That is the danger of trashing such a high-visibility car in an era when everyone in American has an HD camera in his pocket. You could probably get away with this in your Buick Century, but any self-respecting man would at least recognize the Bugatti as something special and worthy of attention (even if, as here, he thought it was something else - the "filmmaker" thought it was a Lamborghini). It certainly looks likely that he intentionally drove the car into that swamp.
 
if I understand what's happening, this is the insurance co. suing the driver/owner of the car in order to not pay out the $2 million. It's not actually a criminal trial or is it?
 
Bacstar said:
if I understand what's happening, this is the insurance co. suing the driver/owner of the car in order to not pay out the $2 million. It's not actually a criminal trial or is it?
Click to expand...

Yea dude. Insurance fraud is a federal offense. It's one of the most severely punished non-violent crimes.

This guy is screwed.
 
and the federal magistrate's judge hearing the suit has decided he's not qualified to sort out the "quizzical factual circumstances"
Click to expand...

"In the humble opinion of this court, this case involves quizzical factual circumstances that compel credibility determinations which this court may not make at the summary judgment stage," he wrote.
Click to expand...

WTF does that mean? Judge is like "I don't want to deal with this shit just gimmie paycheck but don't make me have to do any judicial duties like oh i dunno preside over a case too confusing for a 3 year old k thx plz"?
 
What's the salvage value on one of those? Can I buy it from the insurance company for the salvage value? Or has it already gone to a junk yard? 🙂
 
whoa. the video really tanks the guy's claim. he didn't swerve to avoid shit he drifted over slowly into the water.

the guy should do jail time for damaging such a car!
 
Well if the reports are true, the car does cost more than the $2 million to produce.
I just want to be friends with his friend. Who would give someone a million dollars to buy a car?
 
JeffreyLebowski said:
Well if the reports are true, the car does cost more than the $2 million to produce.
I just want to be friends with his friend. Who would give someone a million dollars to buy a car?
Click to expand...

A friend who thought they would get away with the insurance fraud...the friend is also a defendant in the case.
 
disappoint said:
WTF does that mean? Judge is like "I don't want to deal with this shit just gimmie paycheck but don't make me have to do any judicial duties like oh i dunno preside over a case too confusing for a 3 year old k thx plz"?
Click to expand...

Per the MSN comments:

"Hey MSNBC! Find a journalist who understands the law if they a[re] going to write about legal issues. This statement is factually incorrect: "the federal magistrate's judge hearing the suit has decided he's not qualified to sort out the quizzical factual circumstances." The case is at the summary judgment stage, the judge is simply saying that he can't decide without hearing evidence, not that he's not qualified! Sheesh!"
 
DrPizza said:
What's the salvage value on one of those? Can I buy it from the insurance company for the salvage value? Or has it already gone to a junk yard? 🙂
Click to expand...

Based on the what the article said, he ran the engine for 15mins which I imagine thoroughly thrashed the engine. I can't imagine what fixing a 16cylinder HP engine costs nowadays though plus all the other water damage to interior and electronics?
 
Bacstar said:
Based on the what the article said, he ran the engine for 15mins which I imagine thoroughly thrashed the engine. I can't imagine what fixing a 16cylinder HP engine costs nowadays though plus all the other water damage to interior and electronics?
Click to expand...

That's okay, I drop a 6cyl in there, and who's going to know? 😛 🙂
 
sisq0kidd said:
Per the MSN comments:

"Hey MSNBC! Find a journalist who understands the law if they a[re] going to write about legal issues. This statement is factually incorrect: "the federal magistrate's judge hearing the suit has decided he's not qualified to sort out the quizzical factual circumstances." The case is at the summary judgment stage, the judge is simply saying that he can't decide without hearing evidence, not that he's not qualified! Sheesh!"
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up, that makes more sense.
 
waggy said:
whoa. the video really tanks the guy's claim. he didn't swerve to avoid shit he drifted over slowly into the water.

the guy should do jail time for damaging such a car!
Click to expand...

If the allegations are true-

well he did not expect someone to video tape the event lol
 
I adhere to a strict policy of only buying second-hand, pelican-enraging, swamp-murdered Bugattis if they're sold at a biiiiiig discount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top