That type of argument is generally known in latin as "argumentum ad hominem". I do not expect you to already know what that means, so I will try to explain it.
Your are using an argument that attack JPM's personality concerning language usage, and there after connect this to his approach and attitude towards to being a driver, and all the other drivers.
But the way that JPM chooses to talk with his engineering technicians is between him and them. It does not say anything about how he treats other drivers, either on or off the track. But you use it as proof that he is morally debased and hence imply it must be him that caused the accident in turn 1 (or at least that he drives in a disrespectful way).
But you cannot prove anything about anyones prior actions or prior situations by stating that they use foul language. If you want to tell a story about JPM being a menace and a bully, I suggest you find some race commission statements from his past, some good video footage, or a public statement were he admits it himself.
Ad hominem's are generally considered a blow below the belt, because it hits at the person, not the situation or his/hers point of view. And besides, if they are accepted they quickly lead to boomerang conclusions.
A couple of my friends constantly talk like they were born and raised on a fishermans warf. Yet they are view as loving and caring persons, that like to use colorful expressions. Is that a wromg conclusion? Are they debased?
Show me one person on this forum, that has not sweared at someone else. I bet 99% of us have done that (and probably will do again), and hence if we accept arguments of the type you prepose, we quickly run into the following conclusion:
"We have all sweared in private conversations during stressful situations, and hence we all "do not respect anybody."
in private conversations during stressful situations - can be removed yet the conlusion is still valid. So we could even have:
"We have all sweared in public and hence we all "do not respect anybody."
As I said, you are referring to what was said in a private conversation in a stressful situation. Boomerang conclusions and faulty logic aside, inferring to character and hence judgement of prior situations might be a very impressive in movies and modern journalism, but you really cannot say much, based on Montoyas swearing in private and even in public, other than Montoya uses foul language from time to time.
It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.