What amazes me is that the guy who was run over is actually in stable condition... the video on the first page of this thread looks absolutely brutal.. I'm so surprised he even survived being run over like that.
Toronto Star: Video shows Montreal taxi running over man during fight/dispute.
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
This is my point exactly, you only saw the back half of dispute. The police and witness have said it wasnt nearly as one sided as the video shows.
For the record, I'm not even defending these guys. I just find it amazing how people are so quick to draw conclusions without knowing all the details.
Last edited:
Unless you're at a specified crossing, you don't necessarily have the right of way as a pedestrian. If you jump in front of a car on the road, you do not have the right of way.
I once hit an old woman with my car after she ran out in front of it from between two streetcars as I was changing lanes. She got charged, not me. I think she was attempting to commit suicide.
The pedestrians in the video had the right of way to move out of the way. They had ample time to do so. No sane person is going to stay in that situation indefinitely while their car is being destroyed, and a group of people are being threatening and attempting to gain entry. He did the right thing by trying to flee. I don't think he tried to run over anybody intentionally. We'll never know. However, it doesn't matter to me if it was intentional or not.
The claim that he felt threatened and had to flee is incompatible with the claim that it was just an accident because someone jumped in the way. Plainly he was aware of the people around his car and the risk of causing a serious injury. You can't run people over just because they don't get out of your way!
Thus it will come down to whether he can claim self defense from feeling threatened. That in turn depends on whether he started the fight, which we don't know because it happened before the video started rolling. If he previously tried to ram them he's cooked. If the earlier event was just an accident with no malice then he may have a way to argue that.
Thus it will come down to whether he can claim self defense from feeling threatened. That in turn depends on whether he started the fight, which we don't know because it happened before the video started rolling. If he previously tried to ram them he's cooked. If the earlier event was just an accident with no malice then he may have a way to argue that.
Not to mention, a few things:
1) He followed them, chasing them in his taxi a block or two
2)There is clearly a time when he could have drove off and called the police even on video. He sat in the interction quite some time for some reason.
1) He claimed to have been stiffed, racially insulted, and possibly assaulted. He was within his rights to follow them to give their location and description to police.
2) I believe his lawyer said that he was trying to call the police at that point but was unable to get through. That was when the crowd approached his car and chaos ensued.
..........
So you now know that he purposely drove down the street and tried to ram them. How exactly did you come across this fact, was there video proof, did the cab driver admit to it? Has he been convicted? What changed your mind from not knowing to saying he tried to ram them?
I thought I read somewhere that witnesses said that's what he tried to do. I could be wrong but I thought I read that.
It would help if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never says he did. In the post you quoted i simply pointed out he had no legal right to ram them, without saying whether or not he did. I have fundamentally said we don't know whether or not he did. The police likely believe they know, but so far they're not telling. We will have to wait for the trial.The Fruity Hare said:
Are you saying he didn't?
Wait a second, the skate boarder must have been jumping on his roof or something. Lord knows that alll taxi drivers are very stable and would never doing something crazy like that. just ask Robert De Niro.
