Alleged Kalamazoo Shooter Picked Up Uber Fares During, After Killing Spree 312
theodp writes: Police allege that Uber driver Jason Dalton shot 8 people in three different locations, killing six people. But the story gets even crazier, Gizmodo reports, as Dalton allegedly not only picked up Uber passengers between shootings, he continued to drive people around after his last shooting at 10:24pm at a Cracker Barrel restaurant. One of his last passengers before Dalton was arrested even joked, "You're not the shooter, are you?" Uber Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan issued the following Statement on Kalamazoo: "We are horrified and heartbroken at the senseless violence in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Our hearts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this devastating crime and those recovering from injuries. We have reached out to the police to help with their investigation in any way that we can."
how is that relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: how is that relevant? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's relevant because Uber maintains they need not abide by any regulations to keep their customers safe. They flout laws, and if it should be found out that this person had something in his past that would have disqualified him from a regular taxi job it's going to be VERY relevant.
Granted, some people can snap without warning and without history, but basically Uber opened itself up to this based on public corporate behavior. Nobody would care if they didn't constantly make a spectacle of themselves ignoring laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with that stance, but currently the tone of the coverage is more 'curiosity' than 'he could've shot people'.
Maybe things will change if they investigate and uncover something that would have been a red flag in a background check, but for now no one's really doing anything but 'oh look, uber!'.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say they couldn't be blamed, by any stretch in this scenario. This scenario might uncover something troubling or not (if this guy had any red flags before). More broadly, I'd like to see a study of Uber driver background checks to see if they would have been somehow excluded from being a taxi driver by a 'traditional' cab company for non-BS reasons (e.g. scarity of medallions being an example of BS reason)
Re: (Score:2)
Geez, if we'd had this same type of support as we see for taxi cabs (outdated) vs the new kid on the block (Uber)....we'd still have a thriving, protected buggy whip consortium.
Uber is great...a ne
Re: how is that relevant? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the company who bragged about how their revenue spiked during the Sydney shooting - all the people calling Uber because they are desperate to get the hell out of the crossfire...
I get the feelingthat "giving a shit about people's lives" is even lower on their priority list than most corporations - which takes some doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Best. Comment. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who have 'mental issues' do not like background checks. They don't like others having information on them.
To be fair, a lot of completely sane people don't like others having information on them either.
Re: (Score:2)
What exact regulations would 'a driver snapped' have covered?
And don't worry, Uber is working as fast as they can to replace the drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
If he had been a regular cab driver, he might have done the same, and an official taxi would have been even better camouflage. If he had been a stock trader, he might have continued to do trades. If he was selling crap on Ebay, he might have continued doing that too. How is his driving for Uber at all relevant?
At the very least it's a counter-example to all the Uber-shill stories about how they always get raped/murdered/ripped off when using conventional taxi services.
Re:how is that relevant? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, it's not jush shilling. I myself have personally been murdered 3 or 4 times riding in a conventional taxi.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wish I had moderation points for boosting the parent here. The guy worked somewhere, and committed heinous crimes. One fact has nothing to do with the other.
Re:how is that relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They went to FB for attention. Once they realized this was a news story, he figured it was time for their 15 minutes. A normal bad driver you would use the ratings system. Something criminal, you call the police. If you're banking on getting some cash for a TV Movie or something, you go on FB.
Same as if he had encountered a killer in any other profession on the day of the killings.
I have no idea why people defend cab companies. This would have happened just as easily there. The guy had no record, he would h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is something to be said for using an industry where people know who the others are.
Uber has cab companies beat all to hell on that. I can look up the ratings on my Uber driver before I get in their car. When I call a cab company, I have no clue who's going to show up. In fact, I have no real clue who the company is. I once thought I'd be responsible and call around to different companies from the yellow pages get the best rate. I tried three different companies, and the same person picked up the phone for all off them.
There's far, far more accountability with an Uber driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: how is that relevant? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For anything important, I usually see several doctors. Guess what: they frequently disagree with one another, both on the diagnosis and on the treatments.
You didn't ask me whether you should trust your doctors; you seem to be enough of a fool that you don't have a choice. You asked me whether I trust my doctors, and I told you: I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Traditional cabs smell funny, are late, are impolite, don't know how to efficiently get you places, are more dangerous, are inconvenient , and cost more
The cabbie "community" is an outright failure in policing itself, imho most of these self policing communities are outright failures.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing a "psychotic killer" with a "rational individual". So stop being delusional and making things up like "far less likely".
cause he couldn't get a job (Score:2)
driving for the post office?
Re: (Score:2)
If he had been a regular cab driver, he might have done the same, and an official taxi would have been even better camouflage. If he had been a stock trader, he might have continued to do trades. If he was selling crap on Ebay, he might have continued doing that too. How is his driving for Uber at all relevant?
It sounds like he was trying to fashion an alibi. It'll be interesting, should this come to trial, whether this attempt is what damned him. The police may be able to show that he wasn't taking rides when the various people were killed. Such gaps would be very suspicious.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not relevant that he was an Uber driver, it's relevant that he continued to work in the middle of the shooting spree. It's at the very least unusual behaviour that is worth noting.
Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok they keep mentioning the Uber thing as if it is somehow relevant. The guy killed some people then did some unrelated stuff and then was caught. Why do I give a shit that the unrelated stuff happened to be driving for Uber? I'm pretty sure some regular taxi drivers do some nefarious shit too sometimes. If he used Uber to find victims then that is relevant but I've heard no indication that is the case here. If Uber did background checks on this person then all it indicates is the general futility of most background checks. I know Uber is all the watercooler talk these days but this is just bad journalism.
I have no stance on Uber. Never used them and I have no firm opinion (positive or negative) regarding their company, products or services. I just don't see how they are relevant to this story.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot has a strange obsession with Uber. They post literally everything Uber related. I just don't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk has nothing to do with Uber.
Re:Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:5, Funny)
Does Uber uses systemd in their technological infrastructure? That might explain it.
Re:Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Freedom includes freedom to enter a profession of your choosing. Medallion systems and uselessly onerous regulations step on this.
Some prefer government carve up markets at the behest of entrenched business interests...because they hate businesses controlling government for its own benefit.
Wait. That can't be right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot has a strange obsession with Uber. They post literally everything Uber related. I just don't get it.
People who travel for business a lot seem to really be into Uber. I therefore postulate that the editors of Slashdot must travel a lot for business.
This is very relevant subject to most Slashdot users, in fact. I myself am a frequent business traveler. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to "catch a flight" and travel upstairs to see what kind of progress my colleague "Mom" has made with the We Need More Pizza Rolls project.
Re: (Score:2)
If they paid with bitcoin /. would have lost their shit.
Re:Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask Tracy Morgan if Walmart was involved.
Re:Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to the famous documentary starring Robert Deniro and Jody Foster, I can also attest that a taxi driver in Austin, TX killed two of my coworkers in the year 2000. They had gone to a nearby bar after work to see a boxing match on PPV and took a taxi back to pick up their cars at the office. Midway back to the office, the driver got into an argument with his two passengers and pulled to the side of the road.They attempted to flee and he shot them in the back. He told police they had tried to rob him.
He worked for an independent, local cab company at the time of the murders.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw these kinds of comments coming, and I googled on 'taxi driver shooters'. I found many Taxi drivers getting shot in the US but none actually doing any shootings.
Yep because people who go on mass shooting sprees are concerned about the likelyhood of getting caught. Makes a lot of sense.
I have another take on your data: Maybe you couldn't find any information about taxi driver shooters because taxi driving is just a profession but unlike Uber it's not a controversial click attracting company which you can tag your story to for more drama!
The taxi industry knows who they are, so it is far less likely someone who is on the edge will engage in an industry that takes their fingerprints before they can participate.
Not sure about you but if I were going on shootings I'd put the effort into using a nondescript taxi rather than my personal car wi
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, this serves as an example that Uber is not particularly risky for passengers. I mean, if someone who has already been out killing people has no interest in killing random passengers, then chances are nobody else will either unless there's another reason behind it (rape, robbery, resemblance to someone they hate, whatever).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Uber does not seem to be involved... (Score:5, Funny)
Rating (Score:5, Funny)
Irony (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun? Not so much. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad those drivers licenses stop cars from running into people.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
There's no explicitly enumerated Constitutional right to drive a car. The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly.
But here's something to think about:. What problems were solved by requiring him to have a license to drive a car?
What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone? Do they ensure that all licensed drivers are good drivers? Do they keep unlicensed drivers off the roads? Do criminals and other lawless people obey drivers license laws? If you lost your drivers license would you drive without one if a dire emergency required it?
We would be better off without the licensing requirement for drivers over 21. A court could still issue an order to prohibit a bad driver, or a drunk driver, or whomever else from driving. The only difference would be that courts provide a person with due process.
Licensing requirements for driving mostly provide the government with an excuse and a mechanism to bully and control and tax ordinary citizens.
And also note: there would be a lot fewer "driving while black" police stops without this excuse to bully people.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no explicitly enumerated Constitutional right to drive a car. The right to bear arms is enumerated clearly.
Yes and that is stupid. Just like if it was a constitutional right to drive a car it would be stupid.
But here's something to think about:. What problems were solved by requiring him to have a license to drive a car?
It solves two problems. First it requires all cars to have identifications that the can be checked at any time. Second it means that the person has gone through the required training and background checks.
What problems do drivers licenses solve for anyone? Do they ensure that all licensed drivers are good drivers?
Not all but most. Just like a strict license for guns would do. And that is the point.
Do they keep unlicensed drivers off the roads? Do criminals and other lawless people obey drivers license laws? If you lost your drivers license would you drive without one if a dire emergency required it?
Yes it keeps unlicensed driver off the road to an extend. Yes criminals mostly obey drivers licence law because being ca
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an American so I'll have to profess my ignorance of the details of your constitution, but I'm intrigued, does the constitution state the right to bear all or any arms? if it doesn't then the constitution could legally satisfied by defining a pillow as the only type of arms legally allowed - i.e. you have the right to bear arms, just not necessarily very good ones.
In general, legal protections don't work that way. If courts allow every trick anyone can think of to circumvent an enumerated right, then you effectively have no rights, all laws are essentially meaningless, and government power is absolute. Courts and lawyers have a professional interest in all laws not being essentially meaningless.
If it does then doesn't that mean American citizens (including the crazies and terrorists) can and should be given access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as well?
Courts have ruled that the right extends to arms in "common use", based partly on the idea that the guys who wrote the Constitution probably meant that when they said "bear
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that he had to have a license to drive his car, but to buy the handgun?
Licensed drivers kill far more people than do murderers who use guns (whether obtained and possessed legally OR illegally). The irony here is that you think you're making some sort of constructive point, when you're actually undermining what appears to be your agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Licensed drivers kill far more people than do murderers who use guns (whether obtained and possessed legally OR illegally). The irony here is that you think you're making some sort of constructive point, when you're actually undermining what appears to be your agenda.
This has to be the stupidest thing I've read in a very long time, even on /.
Overall death rates involving motor vehicles and firearms are roughly equal, somewhat in excess of 30,000 per year in the U.S. (The motor vehicle death rate is comparable to other developed nations, while the firearm death rate is far higher.) If you want to talk only about "muderers who use guns", then the relevant comparison is firearm homicides (more than 8,000 in 2011according to the FBI [fbi.gov]), to vehicular homicides, which are so ra
Re: (Score:2)
Cue Rockstar Games in 3..2...1 (Score:3)
GTA: Uber
Drive a cab through realistic cities! Shoot people between rides!
Based on a true story!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a separate DLC.
Proposed K-12 CS Standards: Uber Driver Safety (Score:3)
Wonder if the Computer Science Teachers Association will modify their just-released proposed standards, which suggests teaching kids that tech has eliminated the need to worry about one's Uber Driver. From the 2016 CSTA K-12 CS Standards [acm.org]: "Compare the positive and negative impacts of computing on behavior and culture (e.g., Evolution to Uber: in 1970s OK to hitch-hike; 1980s dangerous to hitch-hike; 2015 OK to share ride with person met few minutes ago on app; airbnb - worldwide accommodation searches in homes, apts., etc.),"
I dislike Uber as much as anybody (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I think the going postal thing is more about the tedium and crap pay than stress.
Elon, please help (Score:3)
This story demonstrates why we need self-driving cars and self-shooting guns,.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...and self-shooting guns,.
For decades, we've heard the mantra that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," but that all changes today! Thanks to a new alliance with Tesla and Google, we introduce the new HK-01 autonomous murder engine! This stylish chassis will eagerly accept any HK model firearm, has an array of high-capacity lithium ion batteries for mobility and to operate the target selection firmware provided by Google. Now let's turn it on and greet our first production grade HK-01 self-driven shooter.
"Meatbag detecte
Re: (Score:3)
I had a slightly different idea for the self-shooting gun. I figure the best way to minimize gun violence is to design guns so that if you pick one up and point it at someone, the barrel swivels around and shoots you in the face.
Thus, the "self-shooting gun".
Subject for a new Scorcese film: Uber Driver (Score:3)
A new take on his classic, Taxi Driver.
Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure we need to ban anything, but it would be wise for Uber to implement a "No Shooting People While Working For Us" policy.
Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, he didn't shoot any Uber riders, did he? Just as safe as any other transportation service.
slashdot mangled the heavy metal umlat (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
High-rent city like Kalamazoo? The Kalamazoo that you can easily rent a nice 800 ft^2 apartment for $400/month? It's the same city where the median house sells for $65,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're a googleclipper.
Re: (Score:3)
It's someone who does a google search on a few key words without understanding the context or tone of the post they're replying to and pastes the first thing that comes up in a vain attempt to appear knowledgeable.
Like this flid: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Re:Here we go! (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure we need to ban anything, but it would be wise for Uber to implement a "No Shooting People While Working For Us" policy.
I'm sure Lyft already has this policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure we need to ban anything, but it would be wise for Uber to implement a "No Shooting People While Working For Us" policy.
Uber's new slogan: "Ride with us. It will literally save your life!"
Re:Here we go! (Score:5, Funny)
If that doesn't work, how about: "Uber: Ride Shotgun"
Too soon?
or be like pizza * no defending your self / no C&a (Score:2)
or be like pizza * no defending your self / no C&C.
Even on a small order change for a $100 run.
Re: (Score:2)
With the WE NEED TO BAN (guns) (Uber) (???) speech
Here we go with the:
With the WE NEED TO BAN (guns) (Uber) (???) speech
Re: (Score:2)
An improvement from several days later. Remember they're not a primary new source writing their own articles, so they have to wait until other articles are posted before they have something to link to.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether a given story is "mainstream" or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's topical for Slashdot.
*This* story is actually fairly topical for Slashdot.
If you don't understand why it might be... well, there's other sites.
Not that I mean anything by that, just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
> If you don't understand why it might be
It's not news for nerds. It's not stuff that matters.
> *This* story is actually fairly topical for Slashdot.
Nope.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is not actually true. Google is your friend. It happens with surprising frequency, I was kind of surprised too. While I do carry, I have no intent to run in and save you in an active shooter situation. Not a chance. I am not Rambo and I don't like you that much.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the movies do the good guys with guns do the right thing in the right place at the right time.
Firearms are used hundreds of thousands of times per year more often in the prevention of harm and interruption of crime and violence than they are used by criminals in the committing of murder. Your willful ignorance on the subject doesn't change the basic facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:where were you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Here are 10 cases where armed citizens took down active shooters:
http://www.personaldefenseworl... [personaldefenseworld.com]
Google will find more.
Re: (Score:2)
The NRA has never said they think "everyone" should have/carry. They think non-criminals should have that choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If there weren't so many guns around you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself against them. You know, like pretty much the rest of the developed world.