Holy shit montreal cab driver runs over customer after argument

MTV said:
My Moroccan gf says the guys in the vid are Moroccan lol
Click to expand...

This one time I offered MTV's girlfriend Tims doughnuts and she politely declined, all while MTV reached for the most heavily glazed roussette au miel.
 
surprise said:
I think it's blatantly obvious he purposely tried to run over the idiot. The whole video he has ample time to drive away.. yet he stays there then CIRCLES to try to mow them down..
Click to expand...


ok, hypothetically speaking, what if the cabby called the cops at first and was hanging out until they came around? Then when shit got too real he was forced to drive away?
 
I love how everyone is just ignoring the taxis beatup front end. The kids went after the cabbie after he tried to run them over ONCE, and then TWICE and finally hit the target the THIRD time.

I hope this guy gets life.
 
Rat^3 said:
-Taxi Cab driver was being harassed
-Taxi Cab was then being smashed and attacked by a drunken mob
-Taxi Cab ran and someone got in the way...

If the driver is being charged with hit and run, the lawyer will come back and say "Well if he stayed the mob would have killed him and you would then have potentially 2 deaths on your hand." With a drunken mob mentality the cab driver would have been killed. Not to mention they would get all that on film also.

It sucks for the guy who was hit, but in my opinion he shouldn't have been in the street period.
Click to expand...
what video did you watch? The cab driver could've driven away at 1892317 different occasions.
 
Subzero said:
Yes you can. It's actually the first thing you learn about when following a first aid course.
Click to expand...

What my red cross instructor told my course is:

If you don't act with intent to cause harm then you can't be sued.



But in this case what they did is the exact right thing to do: there is no reason to move a victim if he is not in imminent danger of death.
 
Matt_mg said:
What my red cross instructor told my course is:

If you don't act with intent to cause harm then you can't be sued.



But in this case what they did is the exact right thing to do: there is no reason to move a victim if he is not in imminent danger of death.
Click to expand...

this

on est pas au etat-unis ici, il y a une loi qui protege ceux qui essaye d'aider une victime.
c'est meme la premiere chose qu'il disent dans le cour. subzero tu a besoin de retourner prendre ton cour je croit.
 
surprise said:
I love how you are sympathizing with the man who chose to use his car as a weapon to run over a drunk idiot.
Click to expand...

What video are you watching? First of all there smashing the guys car. Second, they're in the middle of the god damn fucking street. I'm completely sympathizing with the cabbie here. I can't believe you're sympathizing with idiots destroying a man's property without ANY initial physical reaction from him. He chose to use his car as a weapon because he was being attacked. SOMEONE WAS CHAIN STOMPING ON HIS CAR ALSO. What the fuck? Aslo, the fucking smart ass before getting run over tries to hit the car WHILE ITS ROLLING TOWARDS HIM LOL. Darwin's theory at best here.

Here's a lesson. Dont fight a car.


I have 0 sympathy for the man who got hit.
 
Sa mes arrivé la même chose... 3 gars qui leur ressemble en plus mais moi c'étais à Sherbrooke.. ils voulais voler mon Jeep pendant que j'étais dedans tssss j'ai pas roulé sur eux mais disons que c'est pas l'envi qui manquai, à les voir allez, comme ceux que j'ai pogner, ils font sa souvent
 
surprise said:
I don't have any sympathy for him either. That said, the cabbie should be charged with whatever they can throw at him.
Both parties were completely wrong.
There's evidence of the cabbie deliberately driving to cause harm.. crashing into things, missing the monkeys, circling around then trying again. That's intent to cause bodily harm, not self defense. Dude had every opportunity to drive away, by staying and using his car as a weapon to cause harm, he was wrong and will be charged 100%.


hypothetically, same scenario happens..
Drunk idiots slam the doors too hard.. Instead of purposely trying to hit them, the cabbie pulls out a gun and shoots one of them.. would you still think he was in the right?
Click to expand...


comparaison de marde... si des gars saoul etait aller pour l'attaquer dans son char oui il serais normal d'utilisé une arme.
 
surprise said:
everyone is leaving out what happened BEFORE the video started rolling. According to all the witnesses.. the cabbie was provoked and then immediately went into a killing frenzy using his car as a weapon. It would have been very equivalent if the cabbie was provoked and then took out a gun and started shooting.

Sure drunk retards are exactly that, retards, but the cabbie did everything wrong.
Click to expand...

If he pointed a gun, the drunk retards would not come around and kick his car though..
 
surprise said:
I don't have any sympathy for him either. That said, the cabbie should be charged with whatever they can throw at him.
Both parties were completely wrong.
There's evidence of the cabbie deliberately driving to cause harm.. crashing into things, missing the monkeys, circling around then trying again. That's intent to cause bodily harm, not self defense. Dude had every opportunity to drive away, by staying and using his car as a weapon to cause harm, he was wrong and will be charged 100%.


hypothetically, same scenario happens..
Drunk idiots slam the doors too hard.. Instead of purposely trying to hit them, the cabbie pulls out a gun and shoots one of them.. would you still think he was in the right?
Click to expand...

It's not as if MR stand for Morality & Respect... I think your comparison as merit and puts things in perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top