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
Eh, it is legally and interesting issue, which if you are a legal nerd is kinda neat. Within that, the rules about employees vs independent contractors, how much power companies have over the behavior of such people, and what legal protections they have, is of significant interest to tech nerds since so many of us operate in that space.
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.
Well, I guess you have a point. But that still seems awfully generic and not technologically related.
Because there isn't one database where they can find that data. Each state (and sometimes each City/Jurisdiction) has their own records, not all electronic. You have to run a background check in each location to get a full report.
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.
There's more than one kind of nerd.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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 drivers are 1099 workers so uber can't not say what tools they can or can't use.
Single action revolver? An automatic pistol? Both exist. Also, semiautomatic usually denotes a magazine fed pistol as opposed to a revolver.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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"