Uber Driver Kills His Passenger (washingtonpost.com) 231
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."
First? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was this the first Uberfall for Uber?
Only if you don't consider the running down of the woman in AZ a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you don't consider the running down of the woman in AZ a failure.
That was überfahren.
Re: (Score:3)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you mistook your wife for the bear and now the 5 year-old has lost his mother.
Also, I'm pretty sure that no school shooting in the US has involved a bear.
Re:First? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:First? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you acknowledge that school shooters are part of a well-regulated militia, then sure.
Re: First? (Score:2)
Re: First? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you're right, the shootings will continue because America isn't willing to address the problem like all other first world nations have. It's not even a matter of needing a solution. It has been proven again and again that increased gun control works.
Re: (Score:2)
Your manager is not a classroom full of children.
Right, and most school shooters are students at the school. So by arming teachers you're asking them to teach (and if they're good teachers care for, encourage, mentor) the students, and also be ready to shoot them. I don't see how so many people think this is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, how effective is a gun against a bear?
Well since a gun traditionally refers to cannons then pretty damn effective; assuming your aim is true. .577 Nitro Express :)
If you mean a rifle, then I think you'd be okay with a
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone not very familiar with firearms, that is a HUGE gun.
http://www.rifleshootermag.com... [rifleshootermag.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What does firearm competency have to do with teaching kids?
Re: First? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So show compassion. At least people with that job title are doing their best to earn a living.
A problem with an easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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"!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You just described... "Yellow Cab"
Re: A problem with an easy solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You just described... "Yellow Cab"
Nope. First, there is no single company called "Yellow Cab". That name is used by many different companies, in difference cities, with a wide range of policies. Their drivers are not "known safe", and some of the "Yellow Cab" companies do not own or maintain the cabs (the drivers own and maintain them and pay a cut to the dispatcher). Some use internal cameras, others do not. A centralized dispatcher is not a "safely feature", but the lack of customer feedback may be.
The bottom line: There is no data
Re:A problem with an easy solution (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll be more costly than Uber or Lyft, but it'll avoid a lot of the problems they have.
You think? Because as much as the Taxi industry likes push the idea that they are a safer option, there's still plenty of crooks, thieves, rapists and murders driving taxis.
So it ill cost more but offer no real benefit. The actual solution is robot vehicles. Once this nut is cracked a *LOT* of problems go away.
Re:A problem with an easy solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Also let's think for a minute outside the USA.
Here in my country taxi drivers are generally scum. I've had multiple issues with them over the years, from refused fares to cheating, modified fare counters, fake licenses, etc.
I have never taken a cab since Uber started being an option. My score after a few hundred trips is 4.96 and I am generally satisfied with the service. The drivers are mostly much better than cabs any given day. Found a couple exceptions though but way less than I ever rexpected.
Remember, Uber, Lyft and the like appeared because there was demand, demand created by shit taxi services as primary cause.
Re:A problem with an easy solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, it was less about 'demand' and more about 'lower cost'
Not true. Only about a third of American Uber riders use them as an alternative to taxis. Most take them as an alternative to renting a car, using a bus, walking, or staying home.
I don't use Uber, but I use Lyft mostly when traveling to cities where I would have otherwise rented a car.
Re: A problem with an easy solution (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most people are using them to avoid parking. In any sufficiently populated city that's going to be the majority of the use.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a very infrequent Uber user, but for me it's about convivence, cost, and cleanliness. With Uber I pull out my phone and can get a ride from just about anywhere to just about anywhere within minutes. I also know my cost before I get in. They're also better cared for vehicles. I'm sure some taxis are clean, but the few I've been in have been terrifyingly dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, here it was never about the cost. For short distances it clearly costs more, for longer distances it costs the same.
Re: A problem with an easy solution (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Blog: http://cachorrando.com/ [cachorrando.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Also let's think for a minute outside the USA. Here in my country taxi drivers are generally scum.
It's the same everywhere. I travel fair bit (Asia, America, Europe, Middle East). Everywhere I go it's the same story, Taxi monopolies have created a corrupt industry that is designed to rip off the customer. There's no security, auditing, customer service, or review process. Uber recognised those gaps and filled it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard of a taxi driver murding anyone.
Well you have an opportunity to learn something.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The one who needs to learn something is you. The thing is the English language.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. I've never heard of a taxi driver murding anyone.
Ok so because you've never heard of it never happened? [ranker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Did your wife leave you because of your philanding?
Re: (Score:2)
Did your wife leave you because of your philanding?
Is that English?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, we need to add in some other elements to make it really work:
1) Make it crazy expensive.
2) Add in a direct incentive for the drivers to run up your bill as high as possible, maybe by charging by the mile and not defining the mileage at the start of the ride.
3) Remove any incentive for the driver to keep their vehicle clean or to treat customers well.
4) Make it very slow and cumbersome to order one of these "Takesys," by requiring a phone call where you have to speak to a rude and ill-informed dispatche
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because a "Tekesy" driver would never shoot a passenger in self-defense [stltoday.com].
From previous articles (Score:4, Insightful)
"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 [wikipedia.org] is not really all that new.
Re: (Score:2)
Could this possibly be (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Could this possibly be (Score:5, Informative)
A) This is why you'd be crazy to be an Uber driver without installing an interior camera.
B) The dead guy can't testify in his defense but the physical evidence can, and possible guilt can be determined by prior police incidents surrounding dead guy (like has he attacked taxi drivers before).
I tend to believe the driver who had way more to lose by attacking a passenger. I can't see any other motive than self-defense being likely.
Re:Could this possibly be (Score:5, Interesting)
I do find it hard to believe that a driver with no criminal background would just get it in his head to start shooting up his own car over something minor. Either the driver is batshit crazy or the passenger likely did something pretty threatening to elicit that kind of response. But how about we wait for the actual facts of the case come out before we jump to any conclusions?
Re: Could this possibly be (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep lying, snowflake
/.s for nerds (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only idiotic language nerds. Intelligent ones would realise that a real noun is not the same as a foreign language preposition and doesn't need the same spelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No shit. That doesn't mean it has to share the same spelling.
So Uber doesn't let drivers defend themselves? (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: So Uber doesn't let drivers defend themselves? (Score:2)
Of course, that's why "concealed" is in the name of the document.
Re: So Uber doesn't let drivers defend themselves (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to your boss if you live in a right-to-work state.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But if something happens that requires you to draw your gun, your job is the least of your concerns.
Until the next day anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. Peopl
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't Uber itself argued that its drivers aren't employees?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber driver sits in his own car though. He should have a right to defend himself in his own car.
Re: So Uber doesn't let drivers defend themselves (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And conversely, no policy by Uber stops passengers from legally carrying. So long as there are no problems, Uber will never know. There is a saying, "An armed society is a polite society."
Re: (Score:2)
And conversely, no policy by Uber stops passengers from legally carrying.
That's not what TFS says.
Uber problem or gun problem? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. I don't use Uber, but if I did, it would be nice knowing my driver has a CCW permit. This means that he/she has undergone a true background investigation, with finger prints run, etc. Did you know that here in the US CCW permit holders tend to be more law abiding than even police officers?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. I don't use Uber, but if I did, it would be nice knowing my driver has a CCW permit. This means that he/she has undergone a true background investigation, with finger prints run, etc. Did you know that here in the US CCW permit holders tend to be more law abiding than even police officers?
I'd believe it, mainly because American cops seem to be such cowboys. Don't read my post as anti-gun, if I lived there I get one too.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you are happy that people can kill taxi drivers in your country does not really impress me.
That doesn't happen either.
but here in the U.S. we don't like to slaughter innocents for fun nor allow them to be slaughtered the way you do..
Haha...
Your murder rate is 6 times higher than ours you fucking crackpot loony. "we don't like to slaughter innocents for fun". Yes you do. You are the capital of shooting people for fun in the entire western world. How many days since the last school shooting? We've never had one ever. Not once. I can feel the cognitive dissonance burn from here.
.
Let me guess, you also support taking guns away from women so they can be raped more frequently too.
We have much less guns and much less rapes and murders. Cognitive dissonance much?
What country was that you are from again? I live traveling but am pretty sure I want to avoid whatever shithole you live in.
Brains aren't your strong point are they champ? Pi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the passenger did really go psycho and tried to grab the wheel or harm the driver and driver hadn't had a gun, maybe we would be seeing the alternate headline "Two killed in Mysterious Uber Crash." Just some food for thought there.
Either way, might I make the radical suggestion that we wait for the actual facts of the case to come out before we all jump to conclusions that fit our various pre-defined narratives?
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to grab the wheel is not a reason to kill someone. It's a reason to halt the car, switch off the engine and call the police.
At no point is 'shoot the other person' the optimal response to that action, let alone fucking justified.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might have meant to say "if it wasn't self defense". Otherwise, it's obviously not "senseless" nor a murder.
So they're employees (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So they're employees (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like EULAs can do pretty much anything these days. The idea that an app that runs on your phone can state that you can or cannot carry a firearm seems a bit of an overreach. Now, I suppose a company can put whatever they want in their terms of service, but in this world with overreaching EULAs this seems like a questionable one. If someone gets a concealed carry license, I'm not sure that a contract should be able to take that right away. I wonder what would happen if a lot of apps started putting things in their EULAs like "You can only use this app while Salsa dancing" or "You must vote for the XXX party to use this app."
Re: (Score:2)
The precise underlying reason for ANY contract is to voluntarily waive rights in return for something.
Certainly that is true.
Its nonsense to think that your "right to arms" is on some holy pedestal, it is a generic right that can be traded away as freely as you trade a popsicle.
This might be the kind of right that we should consider putting contract restrictions on. There are limitations on the legal scope of a contract, especially since we are really talking about a EULA not a "real" contract. Fortunately, US law has plenty of examples where contract terms are illegal so there is precedent for doing this.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are independant contractor and in YOUR own office, then the client can not dictate how you perform the job. In the long run I see the rideshare companies loosing on this one.
If they want the cars to be gun free and meet their california standards, then they have to acknowledge that their worker is an employee and have all of the responsibilities as such.
A Pattern Is Emerging (Score:2)
Uber cars kill people. Uber drivers kill people. Best to just stay away from Uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Best to just stay away from people.
Re: (Score:2)
Also non-Uber cars and non-Uber drivers. The pattern may be bigger than you think.
uber drivers are 1099 workers so uber can't not sa (Score:2)
uber drivers are 1099 workers so uber can't not say what tools they can or can't use.
The gauntlet has been thrown (Score:2)
This Uber driver's really upstaged the recent headlines. Let's see Tesla's autopilot match *these* results!
And this has exactly what to do with Uber? (Score:2)
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 commiser
Machiavelli wrote (Score:2)
There is no reason for an armed man to submit to an unarmed man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess you have a point. But that still seems awfully generic and not technologically related.
Re: (Score:2)
There's more than one kind of nerd.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: semiautomatic pistol? (Score:2)