Originally Posted by
DX-MAN
The cyclist's past history is irrelevant; he could banged on 100 car hoods or doors before, and it doesn't mean a thing. Absent a deadly threat, such as brandishing a weapon capable of injuring or killing the cabbie from outside the car, the cabbie had no business using his cab as a weapon. Hell, the cyclist could have brandished such a weapon a dozen or more times before, and it would be meaningless if he did not do so this time.
NAL, but i played a paralegal in the Army....
The best part of all of this is, the criminality of the incident (or absence thereof) will not bear on the civil suit available to the beautiful young lady who is now missing a limb.
I think we're arguing over slightly different areas. My comment didn't say that his previous history meant that he had any contributory responsiblity for the cabbie's actions, merely that, at the point we then were as far as information was concerned, we shouldn't automatically assume that the cabbie was solely responsible. From the information we had in the original report, we could not firmly say that someone with his record would not have behaved in such a way as to help kick of the entire affair. Neither could we say that he had done so.
As the details of both parties' alleged behaviour became clearer (or more fully reported) the balance of probability swung more and more towards the cabbie's responsibility for the tragedy.
Assuming that the case comes to court more swiftly than the appalling Bertonatti's trial, we should get even more accurate (one hopes) evidence as to his alleged level of criminality.
And I hope that his insurance company won't try to drag out the young lady's case against their client.