The Dean Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't support either side here but I must say I'm pretty uncomfortable with cab drivers being able to unlawfully imprison their fares. It isn't unusual at all, for cabbies to keel the door locked while the money exchange is made, especially at night. I have had this happen on many occasions. Driving a cab, in a city at night, is a very dangerous job. Keeping the door locked protects the cabbie against a customer fleeing before paying. And it also protects both the cabbie and the customer from someone opening the door, and grabbing the cash when the payment exchange is made. I do not believe the Kane's felt threatened by this old man, and it seems clear they could have simply left if they had just let the measly $1.20 be the tip. But these guys didn't want to tip. Fine, that isn't a crime (should be, though), but attacking the cabbie and taking back the fare IS a crime. If for some reason the cabbie gave bad service, took the long way, etc and Kane felt a tip wasn't in order, he has other options. Attacking the cabbie is not an option we can tolerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It isn't unusual at all, for cabbies to keel the door locked while the money exchange is made, especially at night. I have had this happen on many occasions. Driving a cab, in a city at night, is a very dangerous job. Keeping the door locked protects the cabbie against a customer fleeing before paying. And it also protects both the cabbie and the customer from someone opening the door, and grabbing the cash when the payment exchange is made. I do not believe the Kane's felt threatened by this old man, and it seems clear they could have simply left if they had just let the measly $1.20 be the tip. But these guys didn't want to tip. Fine, that isn't a crime (should be, though), but attacking the cabbie and taking back the fare IS a crime. If for some reason the cabbie gave bad service, took the long way, etc and Kane felt a tip wasn't in order, he has other options. Attacking the cabbie is not an option we can tolerate. I've never witnessed or heard of being locked in a cab in lieu of payment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I can only reply the same way I replied to The Dean... Why don't you calm down a bit, and let all the facts come out before you convict Kane? Wow! What a great idea, let's wait until we know all the facts! Unfortunately athletes cannot tell their side of the story until after consulting with lawyers and as a result they are guilty until proven innocent in the media's eye's. Have we forgotten what happened to Corey McIntyre already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Lets see - cabbie has me locked unwillingly in the back of his cab. I want to get out but he won't let me out. He refuses to unlock the doors. Witnesses corroborate that fact. His own lawyer acknowledges that his client did as such. Goes on to say that in no way could this be described as a robbery. The odds of Radecki getting a large cash settlement are about as long as the odds of you not pouring yourself another drink in the next five minutes. It is a done deal. Cabbie will be paid. This is a huge embarrassment to Kane who has a pretty bad history. Sounds like the guy is a worthless punk. Witness can't know what went down inside cab, only that doors were locked, and Kane acted violently. For false imprisonment, a minimum time must be involved, I imagine. Did Kane sit in that cab for 30 minutes? An hour? How long before resorting to violence. If Kane felt threatened he could have called the police, or simply sat there until cabbie let him out. No evidence that cabbie wielded a weapon. It became a robbery when Kane took ALL of his money back, instead of the change he had coming (the cheap coc#sucker). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I've never witnessed or heard of being locked in a cab in lieu of payment. Who suggested someone was locked in a cab "in lieu of payment"? The cabbie often keeps the door locked during the payment process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I can only reply the same way I replied to The Dean... Why don't you calm down a bit, and let all the facts come out before you convict Kane? I'm entirely calm. After all, nobody from my favorite hockey team has been charged with a felony in the last 72 hours ... Add: Enjoy. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/151963/p...20cent_kane.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I'm entirely calm. After all, nobody from my favorite hockey team has been charged with a felony in the last 72 hours ... The week is young, Lori. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Who suggested someone was locked in a cab "in lieu of payment"? The cabbie often keeps the door locked during the payment process. Sounds a little more risky to me. If the doors are unlocked, someone may run and not pay. If the doors are locked, a potentially violent fare is locked in a car with you. I am not doubting that some do it, but I don't think locking the doors is the smartest choice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It isn't unusual at all, for cabbies to keel the door locked while the money exchange is made, especially at night. I have had this happen on many occasions. Driving a cab, in a city at night, is a very dangerous job. Keeping the door locked protects the cabbie against a customer fleeing before paying. And it also protects both the cabbie and the customer from someone opening the door, and grabbing the cash when the payment exchange is made. I do not believe the Kane's felt threatened by this old man, and it seems clear they could have simply left if they had just let the measly $1.20 be the tip. But these guys didn't want to tip. Fine, that isn't a crime (should be, though), but attacking the cabbie and taking back the fare IS a crime. If for some reason the cabbie gave bad service, took the long way, etc and Kane felt a tip wasn't in order, he has other options. Attacking the cabbie is not an option we can tolerate. So you're still insisting you saw him attack the cabbie? Your description of the events almost makes it seem as if you were there. How do you know whether this dispute arose before or after they discovered they were locked in? (Rhetorical question - you don't.) And how do you know that, had they not been locked in against their will, they would not have exited the cab quietly, cordially, and handed the driver his fare plus a nice tip? (Rhetorical question - you don't.) Instead, you seem totally convinced that Patrick Kane is a punk who wanted to draw this kind of attention to himself at 5 AM in a quiet residential neighborhood, rather than pay his cab fare and be on his way - perhaps the stupidest assumption in this whole thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The week is young, Lori. My team is affiliated with the Patrick Roy family. That's why I added the time qualifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I'm entirely calm. After all, nobody from my favorite hockey team has been charged with a felony in the last 72 hours ... Add: Enjoy. http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/151963/p...20cent_kane.jpg The kid could use some Clearasil, and folks are accusing him of robbery and assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Sounds a little more risky to me. If the doors are unlocked, someone may run and not pay. If the doors are locked, a potentially violent fare is locked in a car with you. I don't think locking the doors is the smartest choice... Do you drive a cab? Either way, it doesn't excuse the violent reaction that happened in this case. I agree we should wait until all the facts are in. But they likely will never be made public, as a settlement will be made soon. As far as I can tell, nobody is refuting the fact that Kane attacked the cabbie and took the money. It's going to be hard to justify that. 20 Cent, indeed. Perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 So you're still insisting you saw him attack the cabbie? Your description of the events almost makes it seem as if you were there. How do you know whether this dispute arose before or after they discovered they were locked in? (Rhetorical question - you don't.) And how do you know that, had they not been locked in against their will, they would not have exited the cab quietly, cordially, and handed the driver his fare plus a nice tip? (Rhetorical question - you don't.) Instead, you seem totally convinced that Patrick Kane is a punk who wanted to draw this kind of attention to himself at 5 AM in a quiet residential neighborhood, rather than pay his cab fare and be on his way - perhaps the stupidest assumption in this whole thread. Actually, you are assuming Kane is innocent in this. I am unsure of the circumstances, but conclude Kane did indeed attack the cabbie, as it has yet to be refuted. I find it hard to imagine a circumstance (given the info we currently have) to justify Kane's violent attack. If we find out that Kane didn't attack the cabbie, or that the cabbie physically threatened Kane, then the story changes. Nothing at the moment suggests either of those are likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Do you drive a cab? Either way, it doesn't excuse the violent reaction that happened in this case. I agree we should wait until all the facts are in. But they likely will never be made public, as a settlement will be made soon. As far as I can tell, nobody is refuting the fact that Kane attacked the cabbie and took the money. It's going to be hard to justify that. 20 Cent, indeed. Perfect. No, I don't drive a cab. That's why I preceded my statement with "sounds..." and "I don't think....", rather than "I know." I just find it hard to believe this whole thing was over 20 cents and will reserve judgement until I know all the facts. If he did do it, he's a punk. But I really could care less (It's not like he plays for the Sabres... )... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 can't believe this thread about a disagreement over some pocket change is going on 7 pages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No, I don't drive a cab. That's why I preceded my statement with "sounds..." and "I don't think....", rather than "I know." I just find it hard to believe this whole thing was over 20 cents and will reserve judgement until I know all the facts. If he did do it, he's a punk. But I really could care less (It's not like he plays for the Sabres... )... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Actually, you are assuming Kane is innocent in this. I am unsure of the circumstances, but conclude Kane did indeed attack the cabbie, as it has yet to be refuted. I find it hard to imagine a circumstance (given the info we currently have) to justify Kane's violent attack. If we find out that Kane didn't attack the cabbie, or that the cabbie physically threatened Kane, then the story changes. Nothing at the moment suggests either of those are likely. I believe presumption of innocence is a tenet of our legal system, no? You, OTOH, presume Kane guilty - as you have so stated. Strange, since I remember you proclaiming OJ innocent after the Bronco chase. You speak of a 'violent attack', while I ask, "What violent attack?" For all we know, the Kanes & the eyewitness speak the truth - they were locked in and wanted to get out - and the recidivist drunk cabbie with a history of trouble is the liar. Likely, he wouldn't unlock the doors, and the Kanes made efforts to escape unlawful imprisonment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Actually, you are assuming Kane is innocent in this. I am unsure of the circumstances, but conclude Kane did indeed attack the cabbie, as it has yet to be refuted. I find it hard to imagine a circumstance (given the info we currently have) to justify Kane's violent attack. If we find out that Kane didn't attack the cabbie, or that the cabbie physically threatened Kane, then the story changes. Nothing at the moment suggests either of those are likely. So this is a bit of a stretch, but I'll throw this possibility out there. Tipping is not required, so if they gave him the money and he refused to give their $1.20 in change after they asked for it, he was technically stealing from them, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Senator Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 So this is a bit of a stretch, but I'll throw this possibility out there. Tipping is not required, so if they gave him the money and he refused to give their $1.20 in change after they asked for it, he was technically stealing from them, right? If that's the case - and that really sounds much more plausible than anything yet proffered, except my original suggestion that they would not only have paid the fare but also likelygiven a generous tip, had they been treated like human beings - then the wrong guys got arrested. Noon new reports suggest that his should all be over and done with by tonite, and recidivist drunk cabbie's attorney emphatically stated that no felony charges will result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The Kane's were (according to cabbie) vague about which address to be dropped off at. This is common among college kids and other jerks who plan to jump out at a fake address...kinda like "chew and screw". Cabbie's have decided to keep the doors locked until fare is paid. Kane's probably got pissed...maybe they were going to open the door and run (typical punk, cocky kid move). They felt imprisoned, wanted every cent of their change back. Cabbie probably got mouthy about it. The Kane's flipped out a bit. Now it comes out that cabbie has had two DUI's in his past and was driving with no license. Cabbie's lawyer knows this stuff will come out, along with locking the doors... he wants to downplay the incident, get a nice settlement for the cabbie and move on. Cabbie has probably done this a hundred times, no problem. The alocohol induced cocky Kane's probably felt dis-respected. Afterall, he's a big time hockey player don't ya know??? not some punk Canisius College students. Pay the cabbie, do some community service and move on. I think Kane has and will suffer enough in the court of public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts