Good Samaritans beat up cabbie

[mkh]

FOXNews.com - N.Y. Cab Driver Pursuing Fare Beater Mistakenly Beaten by Good Samaritans - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

NEW YORK — Police say a cab driver who tried to take a purse from a woman fare beater was beaten by a group of good Samaritans who thought they were seeing a robbery.

Police say it happened Saturday morning near the Staten Island Ferry Terminal when four woman, who had been club-going, got into a fight with the cab driver over the fare.

Police say the women left the taxi without paying and the cab driver gave chase, grabbing one of the women's purses.

That's when a group of men in a passing car thought they were witnessing a mugging and jumped on the cab driver, beating him and then fleeing the seen.

The cab driver was treated for cuts on his face.

The women were later picked up by police as they exited the Staten Island Ferry and issued summonses for fare beating.

Makes you realize that things aren't always what they seem. Jumping into situations without knowing the facts can get you in trouble.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[jbone]

I bet you those guys feel stupid.

[Rev9mm]

I just saw this story and was about to post it with the same commentary.

I found it a good reminder. If no one was in physical danger, perhaps being a good witness would have been the better route to go.

[ccw9mm]

Three on one, they should have, at most, held the guy until the truth could be identified. Giving the guy a beating because of an assumption could end up very badly for everyone. Had the cabbie been armed he could have taken each one out of the fight and been fully justified.

[PaulG]

Three on one, they should have, at most, held the guy until the truth could be identified. Giving the guy a beating because of an assumption could end up very badly for everyone. Had the cabbie been armed he could have taken each one out of the fight and been fully justified.

I agree. This doesn't have anything to do with jumping into a situation without all of the information.

I think that having observed the man attempting to take the purse from a woman, the guys were justified in interviening.

They just went too far. They didn't have the justification to beat the guy unless he attempted to beat them first.

[archer51]

Three on one, they should have, at most, held the guy until the truth could be identified. Giving the guy a beating because of an assumption could end up very badly for everyone. Had the cabbie been armed he could have taken each one out of the fight and been fully justified.

This was NYC the odds of winning the Mega Millions Lottery are better than Joe Average having a carry permit, so he'd probably be in jail right now. I think the cabbie wasn't too smart chasing after the fare beaters. Call the police, file a theft of services charge and go on about your business. Is a $20-30-50.00 fare worth putting your life at risk for?

[cvhoss]

Three on one, they should have, at most, held the guy until the truth could be identified. Giving the guy a beating because of an assumption could end up very badly for everyone. Had the cabbie been armed he could have taken each one out of the fight and been fully justified.

I'm not sure about that last part. I'll admit, this is a complicated situation. Maybe some of the board LEOs will chime in with their take, but I believe that at the time he grabbed the woman's purse, the cabbie was committing a more severe crime than she had. When she walked away without paying, she was guilty of at least theft of services, probably a misdemeanor. Depending on how much money she had in her purse, the cabbie was guilty of at least some type of strongarm/aggravated robbery and if she had enough money on her, a felony. If I'm correct, and he was at that point committing a robbery and had a gun when the men tried to stop him, I don't think he could use self-defense as an excuse any more than someone robbing a convenience store could use self-defense for shooting at an armed civilian who was trying to stop them.

Hoss

[ccw9mm]

When she walked away without paying, she was guilty of at least theft of services, probably a misdemeanor. Depending on how much money she had in her purse, the cabbie was guilty of at least some type of strongarm/aggravated robbery and if she had enough money on her, a felony.

He was stopping the theft of his property, by stopping them. The story, if correct, indicates merely he "grabbed the purse." Little different than grabbing the sleeve of a person, if in fact his goal was to stop the fleeing thieves who had robbed him. Doesn't say he took the purse. It says he grabbed it.

Think on the situation. You've been robbed of payment for your services. Not a cop in sight. You give chase and stop the thieves. You demand payment, which is rightfully yours. Three buddies gang up and, in the belief they've seen something they actually didn't see, physically beat you into submission ... only to find they've beaten up a robbery victim who was in pursuit of payment for services that had been robbed denied him.

Whatever might have been going through the minds of the three-person gang of people who jumped him, it wasn't worth a severe beating.

If I'm correct, and he was at that point committing a robbery and had a gun when the men tried to stop him ...

Nobody is legally forced to allow thieves to commit robbery, not even a NYC cabbie. Not even if that cabbie happens to be armed, does the law demand he roll over and allow robbery of payment for his services. And, being NYC, you're right that this specific cabbie likely was unarmed.

Everyone makes choices, in this life. You choose to rob a cabbie, expect to be stopped. You choose to jump a person three-on-one, expect to be resisted ... even if that violent assault kills you.

[cvhoss]

.............You choose to rob a cabbie, expect to be stopped. You choose to jump a person three-on-one, expect to be resisted ... even if that violent assault kills you.

I think that mainly, we're disagreeing on a definition.

robbery:
1. the act, the practice, or an instance of robbing.
2. Law. the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

While the woman was committing a crime, I don't believe this is the type of crime that you could justify using physical force to prevent. The cabbie had every right to follow her while on his cell phone with the police and have them come to the scene. I still think that what she did does not constitute "robbery" by legal definition. Think of it like this. You ask a plumber to come to your house and repair a faucet. He does so and then hands you a bill which, for whatever reason, you refuse to pay. Does the plumber then have the right to pick up your television and attempt to leave to satisfy the debt? No. His legal recourse is in the civil court system and calling the police. Refusal to pay for services is not the level of crime that would allow you to escalate to self-help.

We all make an effort to keep this board clean and refrain from the use of foul language because we accept that we may have youngsters reading the board. I just don't want someone to think that if he mows some old lady's lawn and she refuses to pay that he has some right to go into her purse and get his money. If he does, you want to take any bets on whose going to get arrested for robbery?

Hoss

[ccw9mm]

I think that mainly, we're disagreeing on a definition.

... Does the plumber then have the right to pick up your television and attempt to leave to satisfy the debt? No.

Physically disallowing a thief to leave a store is, IMO, a more appropriate comparison to the situation in the OP. Hands-on is fine in the case of a cashier or clerk of a store, to keep a thief from escaping.
Doesn't sound any different than the putting hands on the purse, here. Though, we've all got so little to go on, based on the puny article. Everything depends on the circumstances. But, nobody gets a free ride. That's not what the laws support.

[cvhoss]

Physically disallowing a thief to leave a store is, IMO, a more appropriate comparison to the situation in the OP. ............

Like I said, maybe some of the LEOs can chime in with what crime was actually being committed. I don't agree with the thief leaving a store comparison because if he took something from a store, that constitutes actual theft of property. Theft of services doesn't constitute a property theft that I believe you are allowed to use physical force to prevent or rectify. I agree that anyone guilty of theft of services doesn't deserve a "free ride" and should be prosecuted and held responsible in civil court. I just don't believe that the law allows you to put your hands on someone for theft of services when no real property is involved.

Hoss

[Hopyard]

Physically disallowing a thief to leave a store is, IMO, a more appropriate comparison to the situation in the OP. Hands-on is fine in the case of a cashier or clerk of a store, to keep a thief from escaping.
Doesn't sound any different than the putting hands on the purse, here. Though, we've all got so little to go on, based on the puny article. Everything depends on the circumstances. But, nobody gets a free ride. That's not what the laws support.

You make a good point that there is reason to use the shop owner comparison. I wonder what the NYC hack laws allow the cabbie to do in situations like this. Bet his rights are spelled out in exquisite detail and the drivers are trained about this at some point before getting their license.