Uber Investor Suggests Addressing Police Killings With an App (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader write: To address the problem of motorists killed by police officers, Shervin Pishevar, the Iranian-born VC who backed Uber, is suggesting an app that allows police officers to communicate with motorists during traffic stops without either party leaving their vehicles. USA Today reports that Pishevar "says he has slept very little in the past 48 hours as he seeks input from law enforcement, software engineers and designers, lawmakers and from community members," and he's now working with former New York City police commissioner. Engadget has criticized Pishevar's proposal, writing "Dear Silicon Valley, not everything can be solved with apps."

At midnight on Friday, Uber also shut down their service for one minute "to create a moment of reflection for the Uber Community,", and also added a peace sign to their app, encouraging its users to "take a moment to think about what we can do to help," and changed the countdown for the arrival of a car into the amount of time left "to reflect on gun violence".

Comments

but..

[Anonymous Coward]

"guns don't kill people" and "need guns to protect ourselves!".
Americans are idiots. This sort of BS doesn't happen in other countries because we have proper gun control laws and we don't let crazies able to carry a gun or buy one without any background check at gun shows. Why do you think the US is THE country where there's the most gun related crimes in the world, because you keep failing to regulate them properly by thinking you need a gun to protect yourselves... Well if nobody had guns, maybe you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself god damn it.

Re:This app exists

[Koen Lefever]

This app already exists, it's called "Phone". Give police access to a database of license plates and cell phone numbers and you could already achieve this.

Both the app and your alternative would only work if I get forced to own (or rather be owned) and carry a phone. No thanks.

Re: This app exists

[dabadab]

No, actually I do not think so.
But I also do not live in a country where police officers shooting people is a daily occurence.

Re:Do your job

[rfengr]

I'm sick of the whole "you have to be armed to be killed". That's not how the law works, and for good reason. If you are attacked you have every right to defend your life. Micheal Brown and Trayvon Martin are both thugs who deserve what they got; good riddance.

Re:or ...

[fluffernutter]

If this is indeed what happened, then the shooting is a tragedy but I don't blame the officer. People need to respect what the police say in a situation like that, even without a gun in the vehicle.

Re:Do your job

[Etcetera]

If you have a non-lethal option you are obliged to take it. If you can run away or otherwise avoid a deadly fight, you are obliged to. At least that's how it is in most developed countries.

Actually, that depends on the jurisdiction in the US, and the specific circumstances of the situation. Although it would generally be preferable (from a humanistic standpoint) to use an available non-lethal option, the sticking point is who has the burden of proof that an option was available. This comes into effect in the so-called Castle Doctrine (in common law) as well as Stand Your Ground laws, which extend this to anywhere you have a lawful right to be in.

Lethality is distinct from self-defense, but in most jurisdictions if you have a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury then defense including deadly force is permitted. The "reasonable" clause there (as inevitably interpreted by a jury) pertains as to whether the escalation was justifiable or not. If a 10 year old kid is coming at you with a yellow wiffle ball bat and the jury feels that your fear of serious bodily injury was unreasonable, then the use of deadly force would become a manslaughter charge instead of justified homicide (at least in my state).

Also... IANAL. So yeah.