Slashdot Mirror
Uber Driver Kills His Passenger (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:
An Uber driver in Denver killed his passenger early Friday morning, telling a witness he had fired several times in self-defense, police said... Police say Michael Andre Hancock shot Hyun Kim, 45, with a semiautomatic pistol during a confrontation at 2:47 a.m. Friday, according to a partially redacted probable-cause affidavit provided to The Washington Post... Hancock does not have a criminal record in the state, the Denver Post reported. An Uber official said Hancock has been driving with the popular ride-hailing app for three years. His father, also named Michael Hancock, told KDVR-TV he had a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Putnam, the police spokeswoman, said she was unsure if that had been confirmed.
Company policy says riders and drivers cannot carry firearms in vehicles while using the ride-sharing app. Some states have regulations that override that prohibition, but in Colorado, which allows guns in vehicles to protect lives and property, the regulation for Uber users still applies, Uber spokeswoman Carly DeBeikes told The Post in a statement. Uber, rocked by allegations of inadequate screening and abuse among its drivers and corporate leaders, said Hancock's access to the app was removed
Uber was fined $8.9 million by Colorado regulators last year "for allowing 57 people with past criminal or motor vehicle offenses to drive for the company," reports the Denver Post. They note that in some cases Uber's drivers only had revoked or suspended licenses, while "a similar investigation of smaller competitor Lyft found no violations."
Company policy says riders and drivers cannot carry firearms in vehicles while using the ride-sharing app. Some states have regulations that override that prohibition, but in Colorado, which allows guns in vehicles to protect lives and property, the regulation for Uber users still applies, Uber spokeswoman Carly DeBeikes told The Post in a statement. Uber, rocked by allegations of inadequate screening and abuse among its drivers and corporate leaders, said Hancock's access to the app was removed
Uber was fined $8.9 million by Colorado regulators last year "for allowing 57 people with past criminal or motor vehicle offenses to drive for the company," reports the Denver Post. They note that in some cases Uber's drivers only had revoked or suspended licenses, while "a similar investigation of smaller competitor Lyft found no violations."
Was this the first Uberfall for Uber?
Ezekiel 23:20
I have an idea... Let's start a company like Uber, but focused on safety. We start with a limited fleet with known-safe drivers, and vehicles that are maintained and inspected by the company itself. Put company-standard equipment in that fleet, like video cameras, hands-free communications, and GPS receivers, and have the whole thing coordinated by a central location, with actual humans that know what's going on at all times. It'll be more costly than Uber or Lyft, but it'll avoid a lot of the problems they have.
All it needs is a good catchy name. Since we'll take people to places, I suggest "Takesy"!
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"Unlike the taxi industry, our background checking process and standards are consistent across the United States and often more rigorous than what is required to become a taxi driver," -- March 3, 2015, Uber spokesman Taylor Bennett
The idea that a taxi driver would murder is not really all that new.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
another valid use of a properly registered firearm, by a properly licensed civilian, in an acceptable act of self defense? Who knows, because if so, the outcome will never see the light of day...
Any Uber story is relevant to language nerds because they can complain about the company that cannot spell, and in all likelihood cannot pronounce, the German word "über".
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Seems like a really great way to get sued if the company does not allow the drivers a full range of defense options from passengers - the drivers are vetted, passengers really not (beyond driver reviews).
Luckily there's no way to enforce this so many other Uber drivers can keep carrying, it's just a shame they have to lose jobs after the stress of having to survive an attack.
Hope the Uber driver sues...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
No Uber or Taxi driver has ever shot anyone in my country. Maybe it's the guns...
Why did the guy fire at his passenger? If it was self defense, then how is this story any different from any other senseless gun murder? Guns and taxis are not the problem, it's bullets and violent people.
Company policy doesn't trump your legal right. Unless you're working for eg Walmart you have the right to carry (open or concealed) regardless of store policy. They do have the right to refuse you service if they can consistently and without discrimination apply the policy but no store manager is going to risk their job refusing off duty cops or military from entering the stores just so they can refuse the occasional second amendmenter.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
How is this at all related to "news for nerds"?
People legally defend themselves with firearms between 1 and 3 million times a year (with or without firing, depending on source). That is not news for nerds. Criminals get shot a zillion times a year. That is not news for nerds. Is it just because it was in an Uber? If an Uber driver drove off the road, is that news for nerds? If he struck a pedestrian? If he was caught driving drunk? If he unjustifiably assaults/stabs/shoots someone? It might be news, but why here? Just to start more arguments about guns?
The article's only push talks about background checks. That has nothing to do with the shooting. And the article, itself, clearly says the shooter had no criminal record. Sounds like the Washington Post is just up to is typical anti-gun crusade/agenda as always.... but just because it is Uber, that doesn't make it Slashdot worthy.
"Hancock does not have a criminal record in the state."
Why even say 'in the state' instead of no criminal record, period? This implies he does have a record outside the state, or elsewhere.
If the "Takesi" were so awesome, Uber and Lyft would never have taken off.
Your first problem with Takesi, is that your limited fleet is no where large enough to fill driver demand, and as a result you charge way more than is needed and never have cars without a huge wait (if you can even get one at all).
Your second problem is that after a while you no longer have a fleet of known safe drivers but a fleet of drivers who are assholes, rapists, and murderers. Why you failed to screen these out I have no idea, but you failed far worse than Uber or Lyft, which have ratings so bad drivers get booted very quickly. Takesis have no such feedback nor a way for a passenger to check on a driver who is about to pick them up, so assholes get to stay a driver forever.
Your second problem is that your "vehicles inspected by the company themselves" are in way worse shape, with disintegrating seats and smelly - after all why should them seem in good condition when you can't control which Takeski you get or rate them? Again passengers cannot tell what is coming for them (*shudder*).
Your third problem is that for whatever reason your "coordination from a central location" sucks horrifically compared to Uber and Lyft, who have drivers nearby almost everyone instead of a half-hour wait for a Takeski, not to mention your company distributed GPS receivers are about 400 years old and only show old Roman messenger paths compared to the very modern nav systems Uber and Lyft drivers use.
The Takeski will be more costly than Uber and Lyft, yes... but also suck more in every conceivable way. And THAT is why Uber and Lyft are so successful, because if taxis were just a bit more expensive but offered better service people would mostly use taxis. The reality on the ground is that I would pay 10x more to not use a taxi because of horrific (and I do not use that word lightly, I really mean HORRIFIC) experiences form taxi drivers and cabs.
I will say there is one exception (there's always an exception) - Black Cabs in London I've used over the years have truly been excellent, I would use those over Lyft and Uber if the wait is reasonable. They truly are professionals in a way I've never seen any other city across the Earth manage.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
i think he was talking about the employees, not the customers. they certainly have the right to disarm their employees, and it's a good idea too for insurance reasons.
Company policy says riders and drivers cannot carry firearms in vehicles while using the ride-sharing app
If the company dictates whether their driver can carry a weapon, if the company dictates the prices their drivers can charge, if the company can dictate other aspects of how their drivers perform their work, then they're employees and Uber is nothing more than a glorified cab company. They are not a "ride-sharing" company.
Hasn't Uber itself argued that its drivers aren't employees?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Uber cars kill people. Uber drivers kill people. Best to just stay away from Uber.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
"semiautomatic" pistol? as opposed to what?
sensationalist dogshit.
You mean their life. It's yet another way that the brutal forces of oppression stomp over the rights of private citizens.
Some of us just want to be safe from harm and the threat of danger, but we can't even escape that in our own homes.
Why? Because the police will come bursting in, and kill us. And what price do they pay? Four Red Cents
Tell that to your boss if you live in a right-to-work state.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Company policy doesn't trump your legal right.
Sorry, but private property owners do very much trump your right to carry. Like no one but me is allowed to be carrying on my property. When the gun nuts were in a shit fit about that chocolate Kenyan citizen, and started carrying theier AR-15's into restaurants and some other places. It wasn't possible for the other citizens to distinguish between the fine citizens or someone who wanted to shoot the place up.
So just like people with bratty children cause other customers to avoid a place, some person you can't determine their intentions but you do know they are brandishing a tool designed to kill you - they would simply go someplace else. So boom, the gun stays in teh car, or you do if you are so insecure you have to have that in a Chile's restaurant.
Your right to brandish a lethal weapon vanishes the second you come onto my property. If I see it, I'm going to assume that you are planning on using it,
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
A video camera in front seat along with modest barrier can help deter altercations for modest cost. Drivers use video cams for determining faults in accidents e.g rear / front. Barriers won't stop bullets but they can make it tough for physical attacks including knives. Wait for the details on what led to the shooting. The driver does not appear to be a paranoid vigilante patroling his neighborhood. The driver may have snapped or conversely was threatened. But without video , audio and explanation hard to assess.
Uber's regs are Unconstitutional,
a driver in his own car has 2nd Amendment rights and natural rights to defend their life.
Since UBER insists they have no employee drivers, just freelancers - they can't disarm them unless UBER is going to provide some sort of defense or armed escort for each and every driver.
1776 was a revolution of FREEDOM against the task masters and much too later, against the slave owners too.
UBER can not degrade drivers into slave of surf status.
When citizens are disarmed, they are no longer a free people z they are Hostages.
Its called Free Association.
If you don't want to abide by the company policy you don't work for them
Would not ride again!
They don't work for them. They are partners that's why their regulations don't apply to them. If they were employees with benefits, then you may have an argument.
uber drivers are 1099 workers so uber can't not say what tools they can or can't use.
There are three laws for Uber drivers. The primary law is that an Uber driver cannot kill their passenger. If this is true I fear for its implications on society as we know it.
Hi, overseas (non-US) poster here and confused about this quote and US law.
>Some states have regulations that override that prohibition, but in Colorado, which allows guns in vehicles to protect lives and property, the regulation for Uber users still applies, Uber spokeswoman Carly DeBeikes ...
My understanding is that Federal and States make law (Acts and Regulations). Companies set policies and requirements but they cannot over-ride the laws of the nation (Federal and State law).
When the Uber spokesperson talks of "regulation" does she mean "requirement", or is it actually as she said, and some US legislatures allow companies to over-ride state Law and Regulations? If so, when this happens, what oversight is there of US companies acting as regulators or legislators?
In my country, employers can't create policies that break the law, whether State law or Federal law.
... it was the Continent of Hawaii lady: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The guy shot someone else. Now, either it was murder, or it was self defence, and that is something that will have to be determined by a court.
The fact that he happened to violate company policy seems to be irrelevant to this, and is a separate matter to be dealt with by the company.
The legal negative space of being in your car and unable to behave as if it's your property is just reason #536 to not drive for Uber.
This Uber driver's really upstaged the recent headlines. Let's see Tesla's autopilot match *these* results!
Sorry, but private property owners do very much trump your right to carry.
That's nice. But how does that apply to Uber? Did they own the vehicle?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Sorry, but private property owners do very much trump your right to carry.
That's nice. But how does that apply to Uber? Did they own the vehicle?
I was merely responding the the person who wrote that company policy doesn't trump your legal right. It does. It does all the time..Private property laws trump your legal right. Same difference. If a person is so paranoid or fear filled that they cannot abide having their piece on them, then they have the legal right to not work for Uber or come onto property that bans the devices.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Only when not being an employee benefits Uber more than being an employee. When being an employee offers the greater benefit, Uber argues that side.
Tell that to your boss if you live in a right-to-work state.
Concealed is concealed. No reason to tell your boss anything.
Yeah, if something happens that requires you to draw your gun and reveal your violation of company policy, you'll probably lose your job. But if something happens that requires you to draw your gun, your job is the least of your concerns.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Company policy doesn't trump your legal right.
Sorry, but private property owners do very much trump your right to carry.
You make this claim, then go on to talk about brandishing, not carrying. Carry is usually concealed, and in that form guruevi is right and you're wrong -- private property does not trump the legal right to carry. In most states.
Property owners can ask you to leave and if you refuse you're trespassing, but if the gun is concealed they can't know to ask. In a minority of states, signs that ban guns from the premises do have legal force, meaning that carrying in violation of the owner's wishes is a crime. In most, though, it's perfectly legal to ignore the owner's wishes.
IMO "no guns" signs should have legal force, but with the understanding that the property owner is accepting responsibility for the safety of the people on the premises, since they're being denied tools of self defense.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Oh yes, there is a point of relevance: because this took place in an Uber, there is a discoverable-in-the-legal-sense record of the route taken at the time of the killing, who was driving, and where they were at the time. This is all information that is not as easy to get from a medallion cab company.
And in the much more common case of a passenger killing a driver, Uber knows the identity of the passenger too. All medallion cab companies can do when one of their drivers is found dead in an alley is commiserate with the next of kin.
Except their cars you mean? And that they can't carry guns while contracted?
Circa 2035, evening news flash, fully autonomous vehicle silently withdraws all O2 from passenger compartment, silently asphyxiating obnoxious passenger who kept telling it "where to go".
Company policy doesn't trump your legal right.
Sorry, but private property owners do very much trump your right to carry.
You make this claim, then go on to talk about brandishing, not carrying. Carry is usually concealed, and in that form guruevi is right and you're wrong -- private property does not trump the legal right to carry. In most states.
A point I was not making about concealed carry. If you are concelaed carry, you keep it damn private, and only bring it out if you intend to use it. Now tell me that is wrong. Google open carry, and then tell me the number of images you count - or is that some sort of fake news? My point is that if I see another's brandishment, they will be encouraged strongly to stop by my brandishment and my announcement that any further trespass is not allowed - that person will be the one without the legal right. People are of course, allowed to test that. Considering that people have legally shot unarmed people in the back, I suspect someone coming at another person with an openly carried piece will have even less protection if the owner believes he or his family are in imminent danger.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
uber drivers are 1099 workers so uber can't not say what tools they can or can't use.
This is correct. That's a BIG part of being an independent contractor.
There is no reason for an armed man to submit to an unarmed man.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
He's an independent contractor, not an employee. He violated his contract, perhaps, so Uber can sue him, but he did not break the law like OP stated/implied.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You're going to pull a gun on someone that's openly carrying in a store because you feel 'threatened'? Either that or you're creating a straw man.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You're going to pull a gun on someone that's openly carrying in a store because you feel 'threatened'? Either that or you're creating a straw man.
Is it a patriot exercising his god given right, or is it a domestic trst who plans on opening up on the place?
If you are carrying, will you allow this guy to have the first shot? Tell me the difference and how you can identify with 99 percent accuracy which is which.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Most news outlets are not grokking that over the weekend, the charges brought against the driver were first-degree murder, which means premeditated (lying in wait.) Either that's a mistake, or this isn't just a sensational 'Psycho Uber Driver Randomly Murders Passenger' headline.
Company policy doesn't trump your legal right.
Sorry, but private property owners do very much trump your right to carry.
You make this claim, then go on to talk about brandishing, not carrying. Carry is usually concealed, and in that form guruevi is right and you're wrong -- private property does not trump the legal right to carry. In most states.
A point I was not making about concealed carry.
Okay, so you were changing the topic from "carry" (which is most often concealed) to its narrow subset "open carry". Fair enough, but you should say that's what you're doing if you do it, and probably shouldn't use broad phrases like "absolutely does".
My point is that if I see another's brandishment, they will be encouraged strongly to stop by my brandishment
Be careful, there. You're using the word "brandish" to refer to two different things, I think. If I walk in with an openly-carried pistol on my hip (or even a slung rifle on my back), and you draw your gun in order to deter me (your phrasing seems to imply some sort of action on your part... unless you are also carrying openly so all you have to do is rotate your hip toward me, or similar?) then many states would consider you to have committed assault with a deadly weapon. I could call the police and have you arrested. States that have a statute covering "brandishing" as a separate crime might consider you to have done that, rather than assault, but most states do not have a brandishing statute and would just consider your action to be a threat, which is what "assault" means (technically, in "assault and battery", "assault" is the part where you threaten to batter and "battery" is the part where you do it. Many states don't bother with this distinction in their legal codes and just use "assault" to refer to either threats or actions).
my announcement that any further trespass is not allowed
Until you ask the person to leave, no trespass has occurred, assuming we're talking about a business that's open to the public. Once you ask them to leave, and give them a reasonable time to do so, then if they fail to leave they are trespassing.
Considering that people have legally shot unarmed people in the back, I suspect someone coming at another person with an openly carried piece will have even less protection if the owner believes he or his family are in imminent danger.
That depends on whether the belief is reasonable, unless some form of Castle Doctrine applies. It's hard to predict what a jury would find reasonable, but I doubt that most would think a holstered sidearm or slung rifle provides a basis for a reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to prevent serious injury or death. If you shot someone for walking in with an openly-carried gun, I think you'd go to prison. Perhaps even if Castle Doctrine does apply, since it only gives you a legal presumption of reasonableness, and I think that a good prosecutor could prove that your actions were unreasonable.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Generally the one pulling the gun first is the nutter, whether they are cops or a constitutional militia . 99.999% of people with guns don't use it to go out hunting for other people they don't agree with. Sadly, you seem to be one of them.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You use a double negative, so it is actually very hard to be sure of what you meant. But yes Uber can. Its perfectly nonsensical to say otherwise. A company could dictate that a contractor could not use Craftsman tools as an obvious example.
won't somebody please think of the children?!
But if something happens that requires you to draw your gun, your job is the least of your concerns.
Until the next day anyway.
IMO "no guns" signs should have legal force, but with the understanding that the property owner is accepting responsibility for the safety of the people on the premises, since they're being denied tools of self defense.
Only if they're required to be on that property. For example if they're there for a court appearance. If you see a sign outside a store that says no guns, you're free to enter or not. Since if you don't feel safe you can just leave, I don't see, legally, why the store owner should be responsible for your safety.
But if something happens that requires you to draw your gun, your job is the least of your concerns.
Until the next day anyway.
True, tomorrow is not a problem if you're dead.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
And so?
Uber policy is that they're not employees, they're independent freelance contractors. So Uber can't dictate their behaviour in their own work place.
Of course, if Uber want to accept that they are employees, then yes, they do have that power over employees. But not over independent sub-contractors.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"