# Montreal Taxi Driver Runs Over Punk



## Brenner (Jan 17, 2012)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/04/30/taxi-hit-and-run-video-montreal.html

I am sure many of you seen this by now. When I first heard of this story it was framed as a hit and run by CBC, so I wasn't expecting what I saw in the video... a bunch of idiots attacking and jumping on a taxi at 2 am (alcohol involved?). As I said I was expecting to be disgusted with the taxi from the way CBC was presenting the story, innocent man suffers hit and run, instead I was just disgusted by everyone involved. The taxi should have drove away, rather than in circles in a clearly aggressive manner. It did look like he wanted to run some people over. But in my experience innocent decent people aren't attacking taxi's at 2 am.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Similarly to the dash cam video posted on here awhile ago of the insurance scam artist in Toronto. When the Globe did a story on it they somehow made the scam artist into this poor victim of internet rage, before the court decided he was guilty of insurance fraud..... Journalists are free to make up reality as they see fit nowadays. I wish they'd just present the facts...


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Punks were trying for a Darwin Award
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards
Oh well maybe next time
You couldn't pay me enough to do that job


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

mrPPincer said:


> Punks were trying for a Darwin Award
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards
> Oh well maybe next time
> You couldn't pay me enough to do that job


Being a punk isn't a _job_, it's a vocation. :tennis:


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

Hitting them with the car is fine.

But running over the guy completely? With both sets of wheels? That's excessive.

If someone was damaging my car, I'd hit them with the car, too. But I wouldn't run them over.

Taxi driver is lucky he didn't kill the guy.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's hard to know intent from the videos. Both parties are likely at fault.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

The video is certainly shocking. But your right, we need more information to put it in context.

Remember how shocking the Michael Bryant hit and run situation was until the facts came out and the crown dropped the case.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

The Bryant case also had the unfortunate air of a highly connected politician skirting above the law. I don't presume to know the merits of the case, but whenever charges are dropped against politically connected individuals there is suspicion. Same goes for the police, who are virtually invulnerable to investigation and prosecution unless there is public attention.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

I find this similar to the Trayvon Martin case in several respects. 

In both cases, you've got one party who had ample chance to leave the situation, but for whatever reason remained.
In both cases, by staying, the party ultimately became the "victim" and as a result had to act in apparent self defence.

What I find interesting is the polarization that an issue like this creates. Staunch believers in one's right to protect oneself and their property firmly believer that Zimmerman, and this Cabbie were fully justified in their actions. Staunch believers that life is sacred no matter what say that neither had any right to defend themself. 

I believe there has to be some tipping point for both sides.

How much property can an individual destroy before it is okay to defend it with any force necessary? 

In my opinion, the cabbie was fully within his right to remain until he was paid in full, and if the car was damaged, should have immediately called the police and reported it. As soon as someone is jumping on the roof of his car, he's clearly being threatened, and from that point forward, I call driving off (even over the guy) self defense.

You can argue that he should have left before it escalated, but why does he not have the right to collect his fare?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

No similarity in my book. By all accounts, Trayvon was doing nothing wrong, other than being black in the wrong neighbourhood. The guy who was run-over was threatening the cabbie and attacking the vehicle. That's not license to try to kill someone, but he is hardly an innocent party. Both groups had an opportunity to defuse the situation by leaving. My understanding was that the dispute was not about an unpaid fare. Did you read that somewhere?


Trayvon was pursued and shot by a vigilante. Not the same thing at all.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

Somewhere deep in my cerebral cortex, is a respect for 2 tons of glass and steel with 200HP to propel it. 
I don't think even alcohol can impair my judgment. 
Do others not possess that logic?
I never physically stand my ground with anyone likely to be carrying a gun, or... hockey players, boxers, large dogs barring their teeth, cars, trucks, buses, or heavy equipment.
At some point right and wrong are trumped by size and/or power.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Not sure if it was about an unpaid fare. Heard it was about a slammed door, possibly turned into an upaid fare perhaps?



> Trayvon was pursued and shot by a vigilante. Not the same thing at all.


From what I have read... and unfortunately that's all any of us have to go on in this situation... he was pursued initially, but at some point decided to turn around and attack Zimmerman. Granted he had done nothing wrong before hand, but had he continued on his way, there would have been no altercation.

The cab riders apparently slammed the door too hard... not a big deal... had they continued peacefully with their night, instead of attacking the cab, there would have been no altercation.

Beyond that, I see a similarity in the way these events have polarized people completely, and largely eliminated any rational discussion. Would be tough to be a judge in either case. Both have been tried extensively in the media.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

hystat said:


> large dogs barring their teeth.


I agree with everything you said.

Except dogs. I hate dogs. I would kick that dog right in the side of the mouth and knock all those teeth out.

I'm not scared of a dog one bit. Hate those things. They make adrenaline surge through my body. I think dogs can sense it, too. Dogs usually always run away from me or are very cautious when I'm around.


----------

