Cabbies support one of their own
Cabbies have been demonstrating Wednesday morning in support of Edmond Guercy, the taxi driver shown in video clips from early Sunday, driving deliberately over a man after an altercation on the Main. (His name turns up in other stories as Guercy Edmond, being one of those Haitian names that could work either way.) He’s up for bail sometime today; cabbies feel he’s a victim in the story, not the aggressor.
ant6n 11:44 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
Ok, so if the weapon wasn’t a car, but a shotgun, which ‘accidentally’ went off, would people feel sympathetic to this guy? I feel that people do not realize that cars are dangerous weapons, because we’ve so accustomed to that danger (which is strange in our danger-obsessed society).
I’m not saying that these guys weren’t being hooligans, and I’m not saying that being a cabbie isn’t a tough job; but shooting a man with a car should really be hard to excuse.
jeather 11:47 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
Given how many people are sympathetic to shooters, I’d say yes, there would still be an outpouring of sympathy had he shot the guy and not run him over, especially from other cab drivers.
walkerp 11:59 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
I hate cars and want them off the road, but frankly I am kind of on the cabbie’s side here. That’s a tough job with little remuneration and the dude was threatened by a mob of drunken idiots, initiated by one who didn’t respect his rules. I do not think he intended to run the guy over, but was just trying to get out of the situation. And even if he did intend to run him over, them’s the breaks. Don’t initiate a fight with a dude with a weapon unless you intend to suffer the consequences of that weapon.
fred 14:16 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
does anyone actually know how the argument started? what made those clowns attack the cab? if they were just trying to bolt without paying, they wouldn’t have stuck around to kick his car, would they?
ant6n 14:16 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
I’m on nobody’s side. But the thing is that the issue is not one of “what would you do?”, but rather one of “what should one have done?”. Even these guys were being hooligans, I don’t think it’s reasonable to attack an unarmed person with a heavy weapon and claim it’s self defense. The cabbie kept driving around in circles, from the video it seems that there would’ve been many times where he could’ve escaped.
The act of driving in circles around people like this, essentially driving towards people, is basically wielding guns in peoples faces. Just because people are so used to driving (slow or fast) towards people, doesn’t make the claim of ‘accidents’ any less farfetched.
Overall, I think that the charge of assault with a weapon, seems pretty reasonable; the justice system will probably come up with a more reasonable interpretation of the situation than any of us.
paul 14:26 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
I honestly can’t decide who is at fault in this situation, but I do agree with Ant6n that the lack of consequence for killing people with a vehicle is shocking (even if it was accidental). I don’t feel that losing your license and a small fine is an appropriate punishment.
I recently read in the Atlantic when vehicles were first introduced in amass scale to our roadways (90 years ago), drivers would be charged with “technical manslaughter”. The auto lobby promoted laws to restrict pedestrian use of the street and give primacy to cars. The idea of “jaywalking” – a concept that had not really existed prior to 1920 – was enshrined in law.
Kate 14:34 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
I haven’t seen any account of what the initial altercation was about.
I agree with ant6n. The cabbie had the opportunity to leave the scene, instead of which he hung around, endangering others with his car (you’ll see a regular car and another taxi moving hastily away from the area, their drivers likely having sensed a bad situation) before looping back and riding over the guy. Looking at the video I can’t say he deliberately knocked the guy down, but I think it can fairly be said he was acting dangerously with a vehicle and didn’t much care about the consequences.
walkerp 14:39 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
Yeah, legally speaking probably everybody involved should be facing the courts.
I do agree that the cabbie should have just fled, but I get incensed over the righteousness and victimization stance that people who initiate these things always take when they get out of hand. Once you start breaking rules, you no longer have the right to assume that even bigger rules aren’t going to get broken.
Steph 15:01 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
In one of the videos you hear that the cab had hit a lamppost. In the beginning of the other video you see the front of his car is already damaged, and not the kind from hitting people. I assume there was some sort of accident beforehand and in that situation you can’t just ‘flee’ the scene. Making the decision to flee is an easy one to make in hindsight. Knowing which way to turn and flee when someone is jumping on your car is also easier to make from a birds eye view.
Raoul 15:21 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
having worked night-shift quite a few years, i can attest that there are quite a few drunken customers that are worth the jail-term for mowing them down w/ a car. (but i’d only do with a nice car).
Kate 19:12 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
Raoul, I only hope you’re making a lame attempt to be funny, because it’s too damn easy to kill people with cars. That’s why I won’t 100% buy that the cabbie just panicked. He panicked with 3000 lbs of steel, that’s always going to be a serious matter no matter what the circumstances are.
The CP story says there were allegations of a racially charged encounter with three intoxicated clients but I suspect it’s going to be difficult if not impossible to get a clear version of what happened in that taxicab before the incident we see on video.
Steph 19:27 on 2012/05/02 Permalink
More info about what happened beforehand – Thee customers left the cab over a dispute of the price. He was allegedly punched by one of the passengers punched the taxi driver, taxi driver allegedly responded by trying to run them over but instead hit a lamppost, then people started filming. The taxi driver is now out on bail and he can continue driving his taxi – but can’t pick up customers on St-Laurent street at night.
buffalo bill 08:30 on 2012/05/03 Permalink
I haven’t been reading this site very long, I like it though. I’ve noticed that the moderator(s?) always side against business, or entrepreneurs, even in this case of a black cabbie being attacked by skinheads. Is this a formally-socialist site?
Kate 08:54 on 2012/05/03 Permalink
Yes, we start every morning with a rousing chorus of the Internationale.
Chris 18:16 on 2012/05/03 Permalink
And after that, we sing Solidarity Forever! (Kate, can only you add URLs?)
Leon Trotsky 18:43 on 2012/05/03 Permalink
This is a test. Solidarity Forever
Kate 18:45 on 2012/05/03 Permalink
Chris, I just posted that link in a non-logged-in persona and it worked fine. You just have to use ordinary html syntax – not markdown or reddit style.
Raoul 05:41 on 2012/05/04 Permalink
what else would you have me say? the whole situation is ridiculous.
A) the cabbie should know better than let himself be dragged into a fight, on the main, on the weekend, at night. What was he thinking??
B) the partygoers… seriously, youre out till 4 am, im assuming they had enough money to make it to last call, but they argued over 4-5$ for a ride, cmon.
C) running them down with a car. idk, sounds like something basil fawlty would do. This guy doesnt belong in the service industry period.