Private-Hire Driver Caught On Film Arguing With Passenger Who ‘Knocked’ The Door Too Hard

Of all things, I never would have thought people would argue about: knocking doors.

A video of a private-hire driver arguing with the passenger got up on Facebook page TheLocalSociety on 5 June 2019.

Lest you’re not able to view the video, or can’t understand Mandarin, here’s the gist:

• The video starts in the middle of the argument
• Passenger, who sounded like an Uncle, says he knocked the door pretty lightly
• The driver says not to knock too hard, cause the car is his
• Back and forth continued
• The driver backed down, but passenger continued egging on the driver

And to present to you this case, my honour, we welcome you to the Justice Court of Goody Feed.

We shall cross-examine the case from both sides before our verdict.

Driver: Claims Passenger Knock The Door Too Hard

The driver, henceforth known as “Driver”, claims that the Passenger, henceforth known as “Passenger”, has knocked on the door too hard.

An additional argument brought up by the Driver is that the Passenger seems to have an intention to use more force, as in Mandarin:

“Just now, I told you there’s no need to use this much strength. Don’t do that. What did you reply? You said you are not using a stick or metal. What is that supposed to mean? You are saying you want to hit my car with a stick and metal?”

Upon cross-examination, it is likely that the Passenger meant to say that a human hand, as compared to a stick or metal, is unable to do as much damage to the car.

In the Passenger’s favour, he had done 2 additional things:

1. Tried to resolve the argument by ending the conversation.
2. Explanation of possible car damages should there be sufficient force.

As our circumstantial evidence was taken in the middle of the argument, we lack sufficient evidence to support Driver’s claim.

I shall now present the case from the Passenger’s point.

Passenger: Did Not Knock Too Hard

The Passenger’s claim is simple: that he did not knock too hard. Our circumstantial evidence was presented by the Passenger himself after all.

But to him I have to say:

OBJECTION!

It is crucial to examine the behaviour of the Passenger in my objection, so let’s break it down one by one.

1. Passenger eggs on Driver to continue the argument several times

First thing Passenger did to egg on the argument, is the recording itself that clearly serves to provoke, less than to resolve any issue.

In response to the Driver saying that “recording is no use”, Passenger even tries spurring him on by saying, “You record lor, you send la. We play together. It’s ok, we play together. We play together la.”, even when there seems to be no intention from Driver to ‘play together’.

Later on, there was a big gap of silence before Passenger clearly starts the argument again by once again raising the issue.

Your honour, would you honestly tell me this is a man who is seeking peace and understanding?

2. Passenger denies the severity of knocking

Throughout the argument, Passenger says that there’s “no need to be so loud”, “the car is made of metal”, and “it sounds louder cause you’re in the car”.

Note that there aren’t any direct statements referring to the actual sound, saying that it actually isn’t that loud. If I had not done anything wrong, I would just say “oh, I didn’t do it lol”.

Look at his statements clearly. These are denial statements that people would more likely use when they are in the wrong.

3. No understanding of Driver’s position

Lastly, Passenger seems to fail to realise that people have different perceptions. What is considered “light” to Passenger might not necessarily be so to Driver.

He seems to fail in understanding this basic principle that a scratch on the car might not be a big deal to some, but for the Driver, it is more so.

Driver, as the current possessor of the car, would also have more knowledge of the car’s current situation and can thus more accurately assess what is enough to constitute damage to the car.

Furthermore, Driver would be the one to pay the damages. Yet to this, Passenger only said, “then don’t drive”.

On the 3 above points, I object Passenger’s claim that he didn’t knock too hard.

SILENCE! SILENCE IN THE COURT!

I have no doubt that our circumstantial evidence has brought much drama and discussion in the court. For there are opinions as to the following:

But as of standing, we shall require the need for more armchair detectives to find actual evidence incriminating the Passenger.

Verdict: 

…is what I’d like to say.

But then again, as mentioned, the recording started in the middle of the argument. Nobody knows what happened before.

Whether the passenger started filming because he felt threatened. Or he was triggered so much by the driver before the recording that he did all his actions on camera.

Or he could just be looking to prove that the “customer is always right”.

So until further evidence is submitted (a.k.a both parties come clean about what happened), it’s best not to make snap judgements against either party.

The court is now adjourned.

Remember, no doxxing. It’s against the law.