[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by crossmd /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think this thread has served its purpose..and why it's still open then, is beyond me.

I disagree, interesting facts continue to develop, such as the fact that the cab driver did not have a valid license:

Cabbie in Kane case had no valid license : Home: The Buffalo News

Heh, OP's prediction could be spot on.

 

[Kirosia]

^ Maybe he wasn't really a cabbie, but some sort of taxi serial killer. (Yes I saw that CSI)

 

[frozenice]

I worked for over two decades in federally regulated industries in Canada (railway and aviation) and one thing I learned is that in situations like this imagine there is a piece of big cheese at the very core of the monopoly and ask yourself what is best for the piece of big cheese. And sure enough the truth and reality will bend itself to whatever is best for the big cheese.

I must say I am most surprised that no one else here knew that this was how it was going to play out. To me it was just a no-brainer.

 

[Kirosia]

^ Er.. I think everyone knew that he was going to sue for money. In fact, it'd be surprising if he didn't.

And if even if the entire thing was a fabrication (or an elaborate con), you still started the thread assuming the cabbie was attacked over 20 cents, and deserved it. Still makes you a ****** in the eyes of many.

 

[crossmd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ Er.. I think everyone knew that he was going to sue for money. In fact, it'd be surprising if he didn't. And if even if the entire thing was a fabrication (or an elaborate con), you still started the thread assuming the cabbie was attacked over 20 cents, and deserved it. Still makes you a ****** in the eyes of many.

QFT.

I still can't imagine this evolving anywhere that's really going to be that constructive.

 

[frozenice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirosia /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ Er.. I think everyone knew that he was going to sue for money. In fact, it'd be surprising if he didn't. And if even if the entire thing was a fabrication (or an elaborate con), you still started the thread assuming the cabbie was attacked over 20 cents, and deserved it. Still makes you a ****** in the eyes of many.

I never said the cab driver deserved what happened. What I did say was what happened was a predictable outcome as a result of the cab drivers actions. I have not edited any of my posts so feel free to show me where I said or implied that he "deserved it". And if not, apologize. Thanks.

 

[Kirosia]

Quote:

The cab driver should of known that if you choose to play these kind of fraudulent little games with drunks at 3 or 4 in the morning that sooner or later one of them would get angry and give him a slap upside the head. It was an entirely predictable outcome and one that he brought upon himself and he is not the innocent victim he is pretending to be.

That implies he deserved it for trying to con them. In this case "predictable outcome" isn't much different than "he got what he deserved". The entire thread is based on you agreeing with Kane's actions under what little information was known at the time.

 

[Sherwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by frozenice /img/forum/go_quote.gif It was an entirely predictable outcome and one that he brought upon himself and he is not the innocent victim he is pretending to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frozenice /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have not edited any of my posts so feel free to show me where I said or implied that he "deserved it".

That's a pretty strong implication.

 

[frozenice]

I certainly have a much different interpretation of the word deserve, but I do stand behind what I said and the words I used.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirebottleRon /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone who thinks their behavior was justified is nuts. Life is full of decisions and the decision to participate in a beating/robbery for 20 cents is not rational, intelligent, or acceptable behavior any way you look at it. For those of you who dont believe in tipping cabbies and waiters, you are low life scumbags and I recommend you not take cabs and that you strictly eat at places like McDonalds.

On the one hand, it's crazy to beat someone up over 20 cents. On the other hand, the cabbie should carry a reasonable amount of change. The other thing we don't know is how the ride went overall. While I am generally a very generous tipper, there have been times when I felt the service I received was not worth a tip. On those occasions, I would absolutely demand my change. Would I knock some guy out over 20 cents? No... Never... Not even when drunk...

Consider, however, if this scenario went down... You're drunk, you hand the cabbie some cash to pay your fair, but he was a real ass the whole time and you don't want to tip him. He takes your money. You ask for your change and he refuses. Being drunk, you are a little more aggressive than you might be otherwise and grab for your cash. The cabbie, who in his mind is defending himself, knocks your hands away and pushes you back. At this point you're very angry and have been assaulted. <grey area and moral question> Is it okay to "defend yourself", and take back what is rightly yours?

Obviously in this case 20 cents is not worth it, but at what point would it be okay? $5, $20, $100? The cabbie was stealing if he refused to give the change his customer was due.

On a side note: We like our hockey players to be rough around the edges and the first to fight. Fighting is one of the major draws of hockey as a sport. Perhaps in our quest for entertainment, we promote this sort of behavior. How is it right then for us to be angry at, and then punish that which we create? If you breed a dog to fight, and then train it to do so, it will fight... If you train a human to do the same, the human will exercise restraint to a degree, but instinct and training will rule in the end. Then of course, alcohol in large amounts worsens the situation by letting out whatever is on the inside. In this case: A fighter.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper994 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Consider, however, if this scenario went down... You're drunk, you hand the cabbie some cash to pay your fair, but he was a real ass the whole time and you don't want to tip him. He takes your money. You ask for your change and he refuses. Being drunk, you are a little more aggressive than you might be otherwise and grab for your cash. The cabbie, who in his mind is defending himself, knocks your hands away and pushes you back. At this point you're very angry and have been assaulted. <grey area and moral question> Is it okay to "defend yourself", and take back what is rightly yours? Obviously in this case 20 cents is not worth it, but at what point would it be okay? $5, $20, $100? The cabbie was stealing if he refused to give the change his customer was due.

No, regardless of amount. You're in a contract dispute and there is no right to the use of force to "take back what's yours" in this instance. You have a problem, you call the cops, who are authorized to use force in this situation, and/or take it to court. Like it or not, that's modern civilization for you.

 

[crossmd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper994 /img/forum/go_quote.gif On a side note: We like our hockey players to be rough around the edges and the first to fight. Fighting is one of the major draws of hockey as a sport. Perhaps in our quest for entertainment, we promote this sort of behavior. How is it right then for us to be angry at, and then punish that which we create? If you breed a dog to fight, and then train it to do so, it will fight... If you train a human to do the same, the human will exercise restraint to a degree, but instinct and training will rule in the end. Then of course, alcohol in large amounts worsens the situation by letting out whatever is on the inside. In this case: A fighter.

So taking this further..gladitorial death fights in 1st century Rome are okay now, because that's what they were trained to do..amirite? I understand that this is a stretch, but is this not sort of what you're implying?

He is not trained to fight. He is trained to play hockey. If he cannot control his aggression off of the rink, as a human, he is obligated to control himself regardless of substance influence. His job is to play hockey. He is not a professional wrestler or a cage fighter, but a hockey player. And in any of these professions in society today, it is NOT okay to take violence into a situation over 20 cents. There is no double standard. There cannot be. Where would you draw the line? So yeah, its right for us to punish what we "create."

 

[Kirosia]

I believe all disputes should be settled via MORTAL KOMBAT. (The game)

 

[tenzip]

Hmm, it seems to me that there are penalties for fighting in hockey. Perhaps the same should be applied outside the game?

 

[Graphicism]

Maybe I've missed this but was there a tip involved?