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."
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
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
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.
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.
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.
If we treated house fires they eat some people seem to want to treat school shootings firemen would be showing up with flamethrower instead of hoses
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Funny.
Not as funny as "We value your privacy - the folks we sell your privacy to value it even more."
That sentence deserves a Pulitzer or something.
3 of 5 stars! (Minus 1 for not being a news headline, minus another for not linking to your newsletter.)
First of all, those 200 killed in bear attacks are since 1900. That's 118 years. Those "141 deaths from school shootings" you have referenced all happened since 1999. You must be from the John Lott school of bogus statistical analysis in support of well-regulated murderers of school children.
Why don't you compare those numbers again, but this time, since 1995? You will be surprised at the answer.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Furthermore. What should you do? Every other first world country has more then 10 times less the school shootings you do. You have all these examples and you can't figure out what to do. Incredible.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Except the numbers don't bear that out.
Go to your link. Count the number of fatal bear attacks since 1999. Compare that number to the schoolchildren who have been slaughtered by the well-regulated militia since 1999. Then go fuck yourself.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
According to the NRA, you are wrong. Here is a quote from NRA spokesghoul Dana Loesch, who is quoting the father of the Second Amendment, slaveowner George Mason:
I'm not sure if you got that, so I'll summarize for you: Every American citizen who can operate and service their firearm is the well-regulated militia. Every single school-shooter qualifies.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.