Brickbat: Flying in My Taxi

Screen capture

Austin, Texas, cab driver Akbar Amir-Akbari has sued the city and five police officers after he was attacked by a drunk passenger. He says the officers forced him to drive the man home after he'd been kicked out of a bar for fighting and that the police regularly force cab drivers to take drunks home.

Comments

[invisible furry hand]

Imagine if the guy had been found with a few joints in his pocket, instead of being a violent drunken jerk. They would have been falling over themselves to arrest him, instead of offloading him onto an old disabled guy

[Live Free or Diet]

I suppose it's safer for those on the road. But not for the taxi drivers.

Whoo. Having trouble hitting that space bar today.

[Fist of Etiquette]

...the police regularly force cab drivers to take drunks home.

Would he rather the police force drunks to take cab drivers home? Use your head. Idiot.

[anon]

Hey, if they're going to force someone to "do something" then it might as well be entertaining.

[Live Free or Diet]

Would he rather the police force drunks to take cab drivers home? Use your head. Idiot.

Heheheh. I should have thought of that.

[Gordilocks]

Why don't the pigs take the drunks home? At least it will keep them from possibly arresting someone with the above mentioned joints, or shooting at dogs.

[Brian D]

I think you answered your own question.

[Fluffy]

This is just the cop version of eVerify.

Every last one of you, no matter who you are or what you are doing, is a fucking deputy as soon as the state points its finger at you and says Dance.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"A city ordinance says cab drivers can only refuse to transport a person if that person is disorderly, engaged in unlawful conduct, has no ability to pay the fare or puts the safety of the driver or cab at risk."

So the cops weren't coming out of left field here. I suppose the cops felt the guy was too drunk to be a threat, so the ordinance required the cabbie to transport him.

[Eduard van Haalen]

(Incidentally, this shows how an ordinance like this can enable second-guessing. Imagine a cabbie being charged under the ordinance with *refusing* to carry the drunk; the prosecutor would have said that the drunk wasn't disorderly and wasn't endangering anyone - just because he'd been violent in the bar didn't mean he would beat up a cabbie, don't be so paranoid!)

[Rich]

Rowden had been kicked out of a bar for fighting.

A city ordinance says cab drivers can only refuse to transport a person if that person is disorderly

Behold. Seems like a slam-dunk for the cabbie.

[Ted S.]

I'd say getting attacked by the passenger puts the safety of the driver and/or cab at risk.

[Eduard van Haalen]

OK, but I was imagining a scenario where an overzealous prosecutor tried to minimize the risk. I mean, if the cabbie dared to refuse to carry the drunk, don't you think he'd have been charged under the ordinance?