The Taxi Driver "Knew Martial Arts"

[Bill Mattocks]

Bozeman man sentenced for attacking cab driver

Would have loved to have seen that confrontation...

"During Griebel’s Monday morning appearance, Salvagni indicated that the driver was trained in martial arts and that Griebel “took the brunt of the physical injuries” during the fight.

“But he started it,” the judge said."

 

[Buka]

I would have liked to have seen that, too. Good for him.

 

[Steve]

Would you guys characterize this encounter as self defense for the cab driver?

 

[drop bear]

Would you guys characterize this encounter as self defense for the cab driver?

That was an arrest.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Would you guys characterize this encounter as self defense for the cab driver?

Depends on the circumstances. When he went after the guy for not paying, that was not self-defense. However, he certainly has the right to pursue the guy and demand to be paid. If the non-paying customer took a swing at him at that point, he certainly does have the right to defend himself. The theory as I understand is that even if the taxi driver put himself in a situation where he would have to defend himself, he was where he was legally allowed to be, and not breaking the law by demanding that he be paid. In other words, he did not trespass or invade the man's home, nor was it illegal for him to demand his money.

If the taxi driver had swung first, that would be a different issue; not self-defense at that point.

 

[Buka]

Would you guys characterize this encounter as self defense for the cab driver?

I think it's more of a case of "All's fare in love and"...no, wait.

 

[Steve]

Depends on the circumstances. When he went after the guy for not paying, that was not self-defense. However, he certainly has the right to pursue the guy and demand to be paid. If the non-paying customer took a swing at him at that point, he certainly does have the right to defend himself. The theory as I understand is that even if the taxi driver put himself in a situation where he would have to defend himself, he was where he was legally allowed to be, and not breaking the law by demanding that he be paid. In other words, he did not trespass or invade the man's home, nor was it illegal for him to demand his money.

If the taxi driver had swung first, that would be a different issue; not self-defense at that point.

True, and you bring up a good point. I should be more specific. Was this self defense legally? I think legally, he may have a case. As drop bear noted, there was an arrest, and the judge seems to believe he knows who "started it."

But was this self defense on a practical level? I don't know. On the risk/reward spectrum, I'm not sure how $30 ranks. Or to relate this to the "die on your feet" thread, if you had $30 in your wallet, and someone brandishes a club, demanding it from you, would you give it to them? If you confront that person, are you acting in your own defense?

I'm just curious what you guys think. No wrong answer here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

True, and you bring up a good point. I should be more specific. Was this self defense legally? I think legally, he may have a case. As drop bear noted, there was an arrest, and the judge seems to believe he knows who "started it."

Legally, I believe the law is on the side of the taxi driver in this circumstance. That does not mean that the taxi driver might not get sued by the passenger later on - anyone can file a lawsuit.

But was this self defense on a practical level? I don't know. On the risk/reward spectrum, I'm not sure how $30 ranks. Or to relate this to the "die on your feet" thread, if you had $30 in your wallet, and someone brandishes a club, demanding it from you, would you give it to them? If you confront that person, are you acting in your own defense?

OK, that's two questions. In terms of self-defense principles, no, pursuing someone and engaging in a violent confrontation over $30 is not a good practice. On the other hand, taxi-drivers are generally in a semi-self-employed status. They lease their taxis from the taxi company and pay them a percentage of their nightly earnings. When someone refuses to pay, not only is the taxi driver stiffed, but he has to pay the taxi company their cut for that fare, so he's ripped off twice; at least as I understand it. For people living in the lower echelons of income, that can be a very bad thing to simply shrug off. I understand why a taxi driver would pursue the guy; I would not, but our needs are not the same.

As to the self-defense qua self-defense issue, if a person is where they are allowed to be, doing what they are allowed to do, then they are as entitled to engage in self-defense as anyone else. The taxi-driver was definitely allowed to pursue his fare from the guy; just like store security chasing a shoplifter into the parking lot. If the shoplifter decides to engage in fisticuffs, the security guards are allowed to defend themselves.

I'm just curious what you guys think. No wrong answer here.

Yeah, I get it. From a pure self-defense standpoint, I'm not going to go to fists to defend $30, but if it meant I wasn't going to eat that night...hmmm, maybe.

 

[Steve]

Legally, I believe the law is on the side of the taxi driver in this circumstance. That does not mean that the taxi driver might not get sued by the passenger later on - anyone can file a lawsuit.

Agreed.

OK, that's two questions. In terms of self-defense principles, no, pursuing someone and engaging in a violent confrontation over $30 is not a good practice. On the other hand, taxi-drivers are generally in a semi-self-employed status. They lease their taxis from the taxi company and pay them a percentage of their nightly earnings. When someone refuses to pay, not only is the taxi driver stiffed, but he has to pay the taxi company their cut for that fare, so he's ripped off twice; at least as I understand it. For people living in the lower echelons of income, that can be a very bad thing to simply shrug off. I understand why a taxi driver would pursue the guy; I would not, but our needs are not the same.

This is just background, but as I understand it from a neighbor who drives a cab, he leases the cab for a fixed fee. For that fee, the company maintains the car mechanically and legally (cab licenses and such). He keeps it clean and fills up the gas tank. He and his son split the day. So, his son drives 4 am to 4pm and he drives 4pm to 4am.

Financially, they owe the same fee for the lease whether they make $20 or $2000 in a day, so the more fares they pick up the better. Also, they like short drives more than long ones, because if he has to drive you from downtown to a suburb, he has to cover the time and the gas getting back into town, unless he lucks out and gets a fare that wants to head back into town.

I may have an incomplete understanding of the model, and/or this might not be how it works universally. What I have gleaned about how things work is from conversations we've had over a scotch about how pissed off he is that the Uber model is allowed to essentially do what he does but with no regulatory oversight or the overhead he's saddled with.

As to the self-defense qua self-defense issue, if a person is where they are allowed to be, doing what they are allowed to do, then they are as entitled to engage in self-defense as anyone else. The taxi-driver was definitely allowed to pursue his fare from the guy; just like store security chasing a shoplifter into the parking lot. If the shoplifter decides to engage in fisticuffs, the security guards are allowed to defend themselves.

Yeah, I get it. From a pure self-defense standpoint, I'm not going to go to fists to defend $30, but if it meant I wasn't going to eat that night...hmmm, maybe.

There are a lot of interesting (interesting to me, at least) what ifs that can be considered from this. For example, what if the taxi driver had a concealed weapon? What if the bad guy had one? What if things didn't go well for the cab driver... would our assessment of his actions be any different?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I think it's more of a case of "All's fare in love and"...no, wait.

Groan.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

...
There are a lot of interesting (interesting to me, at least) what ifs that can be considered from this. For example, what if the taxi driver had a concealed weapon? What if the bad guy had one? What if things didn't go well for the cab driver... would our assessment of his actions be any different?

Yeah, I hear you. Lots of questions there.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Would you guys characterize this encounter as self defense for the cab driver?

Of course.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Yeah, I hear you. Lots of questions there.

It is just as likely the cab driver does carry a concealed weapon, but chose not to use it, in favor of practicing his martial arts.

 

[Steve]

It is just as likely the cab driver does carry a concealed weapon, but chose not to use it, in favor of practicing his martial arts.

Is it just as likely? On what are you basing that?

 

[Koshiki]

As I understand it, he got out to demand his money, and was greeted with a small bat, which sounds like it was previously concealed.

In the first bit of the encounter, I'd classify the driver's action as defense of property at the expense of defense of self. So, not self-defense, and a poor choice from that perspective. However, self-defense is not always everyone's top priority, nor does it necessarily need to be in every case.

In terms of the actual smacky-cracky bit, that was clearly self defense on the part of the cabby. If someone attacks you with a bat, pretty much anything you do to them while they are still a threat is self defense, at least in my book, and fortunately, in most legal books too, as I murkily understand it.

So stage A, the pre-fight: not self defense.
Stage B, the fight: self defense.

 

[drop bear]

True, and you bring up a good point. I should be more specific. Was this self defense legally? I think legally, he may have a case. As drop bear noted, there was an arrest, and the judge seems to believe he knows who "started it."

But was this self defense on a practical level? I don't know. On the risk/reward spectrum, I'm not sure how $30 ranks. Or to relate this to the "die on your feet" thread, if you had $30 in your wallet, and someone brandishes a club, demanding it from you, would you give it to them? If you confront that person, are you acting in your own defense?

I'm just curious what you guys think. No wrong answer here.

I will still go by the legal on this in that it is not self defence. (And we don't do stand your ground stuff.)

So for self defence you are supposed to escape a situation not pursue it.

But reasonable use of force does exist outside of the boundaries of self defence. Like if you are making an arrest because some jerk stole your stuff.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There isn't enough details in the article other than the taxi driver didn't get arrested. So in that case the taxi cab driver can claim self-defense. I can only speak of this from a U.S. perspective.
1. Not paying for taxi fare is enough to be charge with a crime . So don't do it. It'll just make your day worse.
2. Trying to get money from services rendered is not a crime. You are allowed to do it.

If someone pulls out a bat to hit you then you'll have 2 options, either leave the scene or attack the person with the bat. Depending on how close you are to the person the correct self-defense move would be to engage. I'm not clear what they mean by "rushed" A rush can be done from a distance or up close. If you are close and the person starts swinging a bat then you'll want to stay close as that's the safest part of the bat.

The only thing that I didn't agree with is wasting time trying to collect the money. Just call the police on the guy since you know where he lives. Let them deal with it especially when it's clear that it's a crime. It's less mess to deal with.