SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 14:23
collapse
The hat doesn’t make it worse.
gwilikers@lemmy.ml
on 02 Oct 2024 03:01
nextcollapse
Yeah, I would say that this applies in general. That hat that we associate with a particular kind of socially maladjusted individual is not the faithful fedora but its contemptable cousin: the thrilby.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 03:45
collapse
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Oct 2024 20:51
nextcollapse
These cars need to have a panic button that allows a remote operator to talk to the passengers, assess the situation, alert police and override the auto driving to get them out of bad situations. Same as an emergency call button on an elevator basically. I dont understand these cars to have any feature like that so far, and I’m assuming this woman would have used it if one was available, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
These cars are likely going to turn into hijack machines if they’re programmed for “maximum safety” in situations where, realistically, breaking every traffic law, hitting a pedestrian or causing damage to the vehicle through dangerous terrain may be the only way out with a living passenger. The second it begins to percolate among criminals that these things are super easy to stop at the perfect location of your choosing like this, they are going to become a massive target.
Or they turn into a hearse if the passenger has a medical emergency and the car doesn’t redirect while the passenger is incapacitated. They might be coherent enough to press a button, but not to open their phone, navigate the app, call for help or redirect the car to a hospital…
But that of course requires labor so it will not happen until legally mandated after a minimum threshold of people die.
lemmyvore@feddit.nl
on 01 Oct 2024 21:03
nextcollapse
override the auto driving
I must be tired right now but I don’t see how a remote operator could have driven better in this situation.
You can’t get away from someone blocking your car in traffic without risk.of hitting them or other people or vehicles.
You probably meant they ought to drive away regardless of what they hit, if it helps the passenger escape a.dire.situation? But I have to wonder if a remote operator would agree to be put on the spot like that.
FireRetardant@lemmy.world
on 01 Oct 2024 21:13
nextcollapse
Yea I’m not too keen on giving authorization to hit pedestrians. If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person so why should a driverless car gain that right? And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.
I could defintely see a case for some extra safety features that help keep the doors locked and shut, maybe thicker windows too if needed to prevent robberies/assaults.
And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.
Think of it as a backup for the phone in the case where, say, there’s an adult and a kid in the car, the kid has no phone of their own, and the adult loses consciousness with their phone locked. Or the car is being actively jostled by a group of people (say it drove into the middle of an embryonic riot), causing the passenger to drop their phone, whereupon it slides under the seat. Or the phone just runs out of charge or doesn’t survive getting dropped into the passenger’s triple-extra-large fast-food coffee. It won’t be needed 99% of the time, but the other 1% might save someone’s life, and (presuming the car already has a cell modem it in) the cost of adding the feature should be minimal.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Oct 2024 21:42
nextcollapse
The “hitting pedestrians” is an extreme hypothetical, and not one you should particularly get hung up on. But it is one that still has to be considered. Passive security measures only go so far for the passenger.
Realistically, a car can get out of a vast majority of situations evasively without hitting hostile pedestrians, such as reversing rapidly and then turning around or driving in an opposite travel lane to bypass the blockage. Or hopping a curb and using a sidewalk if it is not occupied (or just blasting the shit out of the horn if it is occupied). These are all things that waymo’s auto mode cannot and will not do, because it doesn’t have the reasoning to understand when such measures are necessary.
If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person
You are not allowed to run people over merely because you feel threatened.
You are allowed to use deadly force, in the USA when you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully killing, causing serious physical injury, or committing a short list of violent felonies. The harassment described in the article probably does not rise to that level, though an ambitious lawyer might try to describe intentionally causing the car to stop as carjacking or kidnapping.
MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
on 01 Oct 2024 22:50
nextcollapse
Is there any law in any state that would allow you to kill a 3rd party to escape being killed yourself? (If there were, I’d probably opt for not living in that state)
NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world
on 01 Oct 2024 23:32
nextcollapse
What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?
Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?
This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.
You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.
So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.
I vaguely remember reading in my criminal law textbook, years back, that murder is one of the few exceptions to the doctrine of necessity (this would have been in the context of US law), so I don’t think that it’s ever legally-permissible to intentionally kill some random person to save yourself. IIRC the rationale was that it prevents thing like terrorist groups from coercing someone to do actions for them by threatening someone else.
That being said, there are obviously points where people are forced to take actions where either one group of people is going to die or another; in ethics, the trolley problem is a well-known example. For a maybe-less-artificial problem, closing hatches in a ship where not everyone is out of a compartment to prevent the ship from going down, say. I don’t know how law applies in the situation of weighing lives; my assumption is that it doesn’t mandate inaction.
It’s likely the harassers can be prosecuted for false imprisonment, a misdemeanor. It is illegal to use deadly force such as hitting people with cars to prevent/terminate a misdemeanor.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
on 01 Oct 2024 22:31
collapse
If you legitimately believe your life is in danger, you have the right to escape or defend yourself, even if that means running someone over. This has happened in multiple countries with similar outcomes.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Oct 2024 21:19
nextcollapse
If a man jumps out in front of my car in traffic and points a pistol at me after I stop. I am going around or thru him and there is no other option. Anyone else trying to stop me even without visible weapons is going to get evasive maneuvers to protect myself because I am not dealing with that bullshit. That includes weaving far outside my travel lane or going over a sidewalk. That is self defense and a split second decision that any driver may have to make. Waymo prioritizes all outside obstacle avoidance which means it doesn’t even want to leave it’s set travel lane, which makes them trivial to stop like this with no recourse.
The point I am making is that self driving has a really hard time interpreting traffic edge cases or passenger emergencies like this. A remote operator could make the decision to drive over curbs and other lanes, if free, to save the passenger, and realistically should avoid hitting pedestrians too… but in the case of an armed attacker - well, yknow. Like force for like force.
Calling police would only be an auxiliary function to report the video evidence. They cannot be depended on to respond in time to actually make a difference.
Would a remote operator interpret things accurately in 10 seconds or less, or be a job anyone would even want? How does the liability chain of command work? Who knows. But the current system makes no decision at all, and that is unacceptable. And the medical point still stands too, a remote operator could immediately reroute the vehicle to a hospital and alert the medical staff. A panic button is absolutely needed.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 01 Oct 2024 21:39
nextcollapse
I can’t think of a NY cab driver that couldn’t have handled this situation.
This guy isn’t doing fedoras any favors either - I’m already a bit on the skeptical side when I see a fedora.
I’m hitting them. I don’t know their intentions. But my intent would be to get away however I can.
LodeMike@lemmy.today
on 01 Oct 2024 22:01
nextcollapse
They have a button on the center-front thingy but it’s not labeled panic or anything.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
on 01 Oct 2024 22:36
nextcollapse
It sounds like Waymo were already aware of the situation, in fact they called her in the vehicle as it was happening.
Not to say this isn’t a good suggestion, but they seem to have other systems in place that worked.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Oct 2024 22:56
collapse
It worked, only because these men were only being creepy sexist pieces of shit and didn’t have worse intentions. Customer support according to this article has no control over the vehicle other than restarting the auto driving routines to make the car move again.
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
on 01 Oct 2024 22:38
nextcollapse
“The men came over to the car again and stood in front of it for a few minutes. Finally when they left, the car was still stalled but I clicked the ‘in car support’ on the screen and they seemed to be aware of the issue,” Amina said. “They asked if I was OK and the car began to drive towards my location. They asked if I needed police support and I said no.”
When she was almost to her destination, Waymo support called her again to ask if she was ok, she said. “I assured him that I was fine and he told me I would be given a free ride after,” she said. “After many hours I was called one last time by their support team. They asked if I was OK and told me that they have 24/7 support available. They also said I would get the next ride or next two rides (uncertain) free.”
"In an instance like this, our riders have 24/7 access to Rider Support agents who will help them navigate the situation in real time and coordinate closely with law enforcement officers to provide further assistance as needed," a spokesperson for Waymo told 404 Media in an email. "While these sorts of events are exceedingly rare among the 100,000 trips we serve a week across Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix, we take them very seriously. We continuously look for ways to improve rider experience and remain committed to improving road safety and mobility in the cities where we operate."
LePoisson@lemmy.world
on 01 Oct 2024 22:46
collapse
they should have [thing that already exists]
Nobody reads the article though…
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
on 01 Oct 2024 22:47
nextcollapse
Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, the support wasn't branded as such and customers could've not reported out of shame, which wouldn't happen if they knew they could do that at the beginning before it became anything substantial.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 01 Oct 2024 22:52
nextcollapse
They have customer support that provides words of platitude, an ineffective police call with a 15minute response time, and no control over the situation. She got lucky this time, but my point remains standing.
MonkeyDatabase@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 04:05
collapse
They should have a support chopper that you can call in
M0oP0o@mander.xyz
on 02 Oct 2024 07:57
nextcollapse
Well and the draw of these tiny driverless train like objects kinda goes out the window when you have to staff anything at all to monitor and control them.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
on 02 Oct 2024 08:30
nextcollapse
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 14:56
collapse
Did they stutter?
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
on 01 Oct 2024 21:50
collapse
That’s pretty stupid of her.
Without hesitation, because she is brandishing a weapon, anyone else simply watching the scene from a distance feeling even slightly any emotion is justified to shoot her to death as a form of self defense.
Never draw a weapon unless the intent is to use it, and in her case she would only intend to use it as a threat not a deterrence, and therefore deserves to die in this imaginary scenario.
Sanctus@lemmy.world
on 01 Oct 2024 23:15
nextcollapse
I’m sorry but doing creepy shit like stopping the car a stranger is in to freak them out is what actually gets you shot in America. Th3se two are lucky this woman wasn’t a red blooded american.
ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social
on 02 Oct 2024 00:19
nextcollapse
Do you have any idea how deranged this sounds to the rest of the world
Cryophilia@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 03:30
nextcollapse
It’s deranged to Americans too. This guy is nutso.
Do you think it’s normal to see a civilian draw a weapon and point it to another one? First thing I would think is that she’s gonna kill them, but I’m not American.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 15:06
collapse
Sure, but that doesn’t necessarily present a danger to you, and if it’s clear that she’s shooting as self-defense (and I think two young men accosting an elderly woman while physically preventing the car from moving qualifies), there’s no reason for you to feel threatened.
If we put it in a non-gun context, let’s say grandma pulls out a knife to defend herself from these men, and then someone sees that and immediately pulls a knife of their own and engages. Why would you do that? It’s incredibly unlikely that grandma is going on a killing spree or anything, she just wants to defend herself from these aggressive individuals.
grubbyweasel@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 05:46
nextcollapse
Wait so the people that are justified to shoot her to death, would I be justified to shoot them since they’re pulling weapons too? Is it then open season on me
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
on 03 Oct 2024 11:58
collapse
Yes. This is why brandishing a weapon is so fucking stupid, and why cops always get a wrist slap after shooting first instead of asking questions or deescalate.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 15:03
collapse
anyone else simply watching the scene from a distance feeling even slightly any emotion is justified to shoot her to death as a form of self defense
That really depends on your area and what witnesses exist to corroborate your testimony. You can’t just “say” you felt endangered just because a gun was drawn, it needs to pass the “reasonable person” standard (i.e. would a theoretical “reasonable person” feel threatened in this scenario?). I’m guessing an elderly woman pointing a firearm at an individual who is clearly harassing her doesn’t present a danger to a reasonable person who isn’t in the line of fire.
That said, if the elderly woman appears jumpy or something, maybe there’s a case. But it’s not an open-and-shut case like shooting someone who is taking hostages or something.
Source: am American in gun-friendly state who reads news articles about justified and unjustified shooting cases.
dumbass@leminal.space
on 02 Oct 2024 02:08
nextcollapse
I love how he looks like 2 different types of douchebags when he takes his hat off!
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 02 Oct 2024 04:22
nextcollapse
I’d expect the Waymo video to have captured footage of these guys. It might not be that difficult to track them, and street harassment might well qualify as assault if the DA of San Francisco were interested in prosecuting.
That said, it’s telling that they freely and openly harassed a strange woman on the street once the threat of being run over was not a factor.
ETA: One short-term workaround is to tint the windows so that passengers cannot be seen from the outside, but there might be causes to harass occupied Waymo vehicles regardless of the passenger (say, to mug them). I’m curious if this is going to lead to equipping autonomous vehicles with anti-riot ordnance.
Scolding7300@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 06:22
nextcollapse
Delamin Cabs vibe over here, hope people get the Excelsior package
Akasazh@feddit.nl
on 02 Oct 2024 08:54
nextcollapse
Maybe that could spark a nice tradition of the one sitting besides the drivers seat calling ‘shotgun’.
… O wait
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 13:55
nextcollapse
They should have little nozzles to disperse a cloud of pepper spray around the vehicle in emergencies.
JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 10:47
collapse
I had this thought too. Probably unrealistic because of all the ways that can go horribly wrong, but somehow that solution seems easier than convincing a certain subset of men to behave themselves.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 14:11
nextcollapse
SAAB tried to corner the US market in the '80s and '90s by giving away a shoulder mounted anti tank rocket with each purchase of a car, but their legal team said “that’s not an appropriate way to deal with road rage.”
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 14:54
collapse
Huh, sounds like their legal department was from Europe?
AeonFelis@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 23:35
collapse
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 06:45
nextcollapse
I have to admit, I expected a lot worse from the style of writing. This was written like some true crime stuff lol
Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
on 02 Oct 2024 09:13
collapse
404 don’t miss. Best tech journoing in the biz imho
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
on 02 Oct 2024 08:28
nextcollapse
She could have called in-car support and they could have called the police, if the harassers didn’t fuck off seeing this.
TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
on 02 Oct 2024 09:06
nextcollapse
She did, it’s in the article
MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
on 02 Oct 2024 09:10
collapse
Only after.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
on 03 Oct 2024 14:24
collapse
Police in SF aren’t available to just show up with no delay. Too much crime. Source: I live in Oakland and my partner got jacked this year. 911 said fill out an online form.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 15:12
collapse
And even if they come immediately (big doubt), it could be several minutes, just due to traffic. If doing that pisses off these men, it could put her into more danger than doing nothing.
Alpha71@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 08:40
nextcollapse
See now if she had a HUMAN driver, this would have turned out alot differently. But no, we gotta remove another career so Corporations can make more money…
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 2024 10:53
nextcollapse
Human drivers are well known for never ever harassing women.
Pshh, you need a good driver with a gun, then I’m sure everything will be resolved peacefully
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 15:15
collapse
Driving isn’t a job we should be protecting IMO. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying self-driving cars are necessarily the answer either, just that if I had to choose, I’d pick self-driving cars every time over human drivers, provided they’re on well-defined routes with ample testing (like in a city).
We should be solving personal transportation another way, such as:
mass transit
segregated bicycle/pedestrian paths
higher density so popular destinations are closer together
jack@monero.town
on 02 Oct 2024 09:13
nextcollapse
DeadNinja@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 12:10
nextcollapse
In an instance like this, our riders have 24/7 access to Rider Support agents who will help them navigate the situation in real time
Clearly that’s what a human driver would do, but I guess those Rider Support Agents work for free, so why not fire the driver? /s
IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 14:19
nextcollapse
And then when you have an emergency the response is along the lines of:
“Thank you for requesting to speak with a rider support agent. All agents are currently busy assisting other Waymo customers, but the next available agent will assist you as soon as possible. There are currently 32 other customers in front of you. Thank you for your patience.”
buddascrayon@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 15:00
collapse
True. The instant response that exists now is only because this is a pilot program and they want to prove that it works. Once it’s normalized they will lay off most of the rider support and fuck you if you have to wait on the line.
I think the idea here is more that there’s one rider support agent per like 100 riders at any time vs one driver per rider
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 2024 12:32
nextcollapse
In the past, autonomous vehicle development dwelled on the ethical hypothetical situations like “do you hit an old lady crossing the road in order to avoid crashing into a schoolbus full of children?”, but what about safety hypotheticals? Like, if you were actually driving your vehicle, there are moments when it’s in your best interest to not be at a stop, such as when people are physically surrounding your car and potentially mean to cause you harm, which is extremely common in America. When does the driverless car get you out of a tight spot and run over some carjackers if need be?
Edit: To respond to everyone saying I’m full of shit, and that carjackings aren’t common, there were more than 500 carjackings in NYC alone in 2021. New Orleans had 281 in 2021. 800 carjackings in Philly in 2021. 1800 carjackings in Chicago in 2021. Tell me, is that not enough carjackings to warrant asking my question?
Blackmist@feddit.uk
on 02 Oct 2024 12:38
nextcollapse
If an AI car ever has to make a decision on who dies, the answer should always be “whoever agreed to the terms and conditions before they got in the vehicle”.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 12:47
nextcollapse
This will never be the case. Because nobody will buy an overpriced “yo, if there’s ever any doubt about, like, anything - just put a bullet in my head” machine. So nobody will sell it.
Face it - you have the same thousands of pounds of metal today, and you’re the only one making decisions. You (drivers, as a community) have killed before, for selfish reasons: because you don’t want to die is the least selfish of them. Other hits include “didn’t wanna not get drunk with the homies”, “I really needed to answer that text” and “I have 10 minutes till home but the game starts in 5, it’s my favorite team, I can make it”. And you somehow seem to want non-drivers (passengers of AI cars) to have the same expectation that they will be a victim even when they get a car?
Drivers are so self-centered it’s goddamn ridiculous.
Blackmist@feddit.uk
on 02 Oct 2024 15:13
nextcollapse
I’m talking about pedestrians, not other drivers.
If autonomous vehicles can’t be trusted not to run people over, then they shouldn’t be allowed to go above like 20mph in a built up area where there’s likely to be people walking about. And frankly neither should human drivers, but good luck not getting them to call it a “war on motorists” if you try.
they are one of the leading causes of death, and they convinced the world their convenience is worth it
they believe that they literally know better than AI and are better suited to have power over life and death
they’re out here tryna say passengers of AI cars should sign up to die automatically, when drivers are actually the ones who are today responsible for all deaths by car
I made it easier to understand, hope it helps.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 17:02
collapse
At present most drivers do know better than most driving AIs
BluesF@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 12:53
nextcollapse
Surely you can just take over? You can’t expect the car to run people over for you lol
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 2024 16:07
collapse
Yeah I misread before I commented, I didn’t know robot taxis were a thing, Jesus…
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 12:59
nextcollapse
How the fuck do you figure that’s “extremely common”? You need to spend less time on the Internet my dude …
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 2024 16:06
collapse
I’ve provided data for you in my original comment.
prole@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Oct 2024 13:10
nextcollapse
It’s definitely not extremely common.
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 2024 16:06
nextcollapse
I’ve provided data for you in my original comment.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 16:59
collapse
You guys are talking past one another. It’s extremely common at a population level insofar as its happening literally many times per day at the population level. It is not extremely likely at the individual level because the vehicle miles driven per carjacking is massive with most people never getting car jacked.
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 14:14
collapse
Extremely common? Really?
celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 02 Oct 2024 16:06
collapse
Yes. I’ve provided data for you in my original comment.
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 16:38
nextcollapse
The only thing I’d be curious about with these numbers is car jackings vs the amount of cars/drivers on the road. That would give a percentage and let us know how common it is.
500 carjackings in NYC in a year? Oh the humanity.
There’s literally a million cars on the road on any given day just in lower Manhattan.
Get a sense of scale.
10k pedestrians get hit by cars and trucks in NYC every year and you’re worried about the health and safety of 500 carjackers (probably fewer, given potential for repeat offenders). What in the actual fuck?
I suppose they’re extremely common in comparison to other countries. I’ve never heard of them happening in mine since the 90s when we actually had violent crime.
We still have car theft, it’s just that they get stolen while parked.
Extremely common in absolute terms? Hell nah, there are a lot of unpleasant things more likely to happen to you in the US than carjackings.
DancingBear@midwest.social
on 02 Oct 2024 14:20
nextcollapse
Just last week I had to run over some mother fuckers
It do be like that sometimes
TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 14:28
nextcollapse
I can see criminals easily exploiting this default behavior to stop the car and steal from those inside.
Where’s a Johnny cab when you need it, it knows how to deal with criminals.
spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Oct 2024 14:40
nextcollapse
Pretty simple problem to solve, get a conceal carry permit.
TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com
on 02 Oct 2024 15:35
nextcollapse
I prefer to reduce demand, instead. Everyday people who feel happy and safe don’t feel the need to be violent.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:56
collapse
This is true of everyday people. But a small percentage of people are psychopaths, who are perfectly happy to be violent whenever they can get away with it.
A seriously deprived scenario will make others violent, but there is always a subset that is violent even in comfortable situations.
dubious@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 17:00
nextcollapse
lemmy is full of sissy pacifists but i upvoted you.
PolydoreSmith@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 18:19
nextcollapse
How many people have you shot?
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 19:15
nextcollapse
I once had someone get in my face and say, “Are you man enough to fight me?” I responded with “I’m man enough to find non-violent solutions to my problems.” Why should someone be proud of the problem-resolution method of choice for 3-year-olds?
dubious@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 19:30
nextcollapse
there aren’t always non-violent solutions. i accept that reality. it’s nothing to be proud of, but i would be ashamed if i couldn’t deal with that truth.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 23:39
collapse
You’re correct, there aren’t always non-violent solutions, but those are often due to people who insist on engaging in violence, whether it be invading another country or taking offense at someone pulling into their driveway.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:58
collapse
Yes. It only takes one party to initiate violence involving two parties.
This is why it is necessary to be prepared for violence even if one never initiates violence.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 02:08
collapse
I’m not sure what your point is. It is completely orthogonal to mine. In the same vein, no, you aren’t responsible for other people’s choices, and yes, rabid dogs (or people who act like them) are unlikely to listen to reason. Neither of those are good reasons to start fights, and that statement neither says that all fights are avoidable or that one mustn’t defend oneself.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:57
collapse
Violence is for situations when one’s choice of other resolution methods is gone. Such situations do exist.
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 02:03
collapse
Yes, and the vast majority of scenarios where that is the case is where one party made completely unreasonable demands or turned to violence as the first option.
pooperNickel@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 02:32
collapse
And this is why we have a term called “toxic masculinity”.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 18:22
nextcollapse
When the solution is “Vigilantism” you know the situation is fucked.
capital@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 19:21
nextcollapse
That was in response to being robbed.
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “defending yourself”.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 19:34
nextcollapse
I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
capital@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 19:50
nextcollapse
What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Oct 2024 21:01
nextcollapse
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I’ve had shit stolen. The police “handled it” to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife’s side of the family. Fuck thieves.
absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
on 02 Oct 2024 21:50
nextcollapse
Agreed thieves are terrible.
Not many better options if you are getting robbed though.
I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.
I wasn’t home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.
If it’s sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn’t have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:56
collapse
Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.
would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but… It’s just kind of dumb if you won’t allow the counterfactual to support my position.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:57
collapse
Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.
No, you don’t want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I’m describing and you really don’t want to admit it.
If “your gun didn’t save you in this one instance” means I shouldn’t have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you’re not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn’t suit your position.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 23:05
collapse
Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.
Also, please quote me saying you shouldn’t have a gun, or at the very least implying it.
Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.
That was an example of the police not getting my shit back.
In just about every response in this thread you’ve shown you’re not actually here to engage in good faith by being a sarcastic dickhead so I think I’m done with you.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 23:15
collapse
That would be one way to weasel out of your lie that I suggested you shouldn’t have a gun.
Not an especially good way to weasel out of it, but…
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 21:43
nextcollapse
Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
T156@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 05:49
nextcollapse
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 20:46
collapse
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn’t say it, so I’ll go ahead and do it: you sound like you’re out for revenge, but you don’t know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
capital@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 21:00
nextcollapse
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back
Then it isn’t exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It’s not about the monetary cost.
but neither would you being armed but not home.
Yeah…? I don’t get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there’s a human there to operate it. No shit…
You’re simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don’t solve theft.
I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
The state I live in currently wouldn’t allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I’ve lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that’s the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 04 Oct 2024 02:14
collapse
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 21:48
collapse
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
capital@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:06
nextcollapse
I’ve never been in a serious vehicle accident.
Still wear my seat belt though.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 22:40
collapse
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
You’ve had a variation on this in just about every response. It’s getting very old. We get it, US bad.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 23:18
collapse
Was my statement wrong in any way?
If it’s getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
capital@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 23:23
nextcollapse
Was my statement wrong in any way?
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
It’s like if I said “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” and you coming along and saying “omg swimming and flying are the same now???/”
I even spelled it out - it’s about preparedness.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 23:46
collapse
Was my statement wrong in any way?
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
That doesn’t answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.
You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
Just like saying “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” isn’t an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying “I’ve never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt” is not an argument for “always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house” not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.
You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
No. It doesn’t do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.
The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.
Edit: Y’all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 00:29
collapse
So completely irrelevant to the topic that “Needing to have a gun on you just to be prepared for your day is fucked up.”
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 18:51
collapse
Instead of arming civilians for vigilantism pressure should be put on the government to deal with the root causes of criminal behaviour.
As far as I was aware the legal punishment for theft wasn’t the death penalty, but here you are saying a citizen dealing out that punishment without a judge or jury isn’t only acceptable but should be actively encouraged.
Instead of arming civilians for vigilantism pressure should be put on the government to deal with the root causes of criminal behaviour.
Sure, I advocate for that too. Until then…
As far as I was aware the legal punishment for theft wasn’t…
There’s one weird trick to not being shot for stealing shit.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 23:17
collapse
There’s one weird trick to not being shot for stealing shit.
You’re just trying to deflect from my statement:
The criminal punishment for theft is not the death penalty, and you are actively encouraging vigilantism issuing death sentences without a judge or jury.
I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 04 Oct 2024 02:11
collapse
I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.
I would once again like to remind you where this conversation started:
Not only have you shown you lied with your original argument on “self defense”, you’ve also revealed that you are a monstrous person who simply wants the excuse to murder “undesirables”. Dehumanizing others is an action encouraged by terrible people to excuse abhorrent behaviour, and they should not be listened to as their words and arguments are less than worthless.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:55
collapse
Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.
A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.
A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 15:08
collapse
The dystopian attitude is “you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment’s notice every day, otherwise you’re just unprepared for day to day life.”
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:40
collapse
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 18:46
collapse
I have sympathy for someone who’s actually been a victim of violent crime, and it’s a shame therapy isn’t a more viable option. However, there’s a big difference between
“I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me” and
“This might lead to robberies.”
“That’s what guns are for.”
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 21:11
collapse
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 21:46
collapse
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 04 Oct 2024 02:18
collapse
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 04 Oct 2024 03:09
collapse
Reasonable Force
Reasonable force refers to the amount of force that is necessary for a person to defend himself or his property, without going overboard. It is especially important to prove whether or not the force a person used was reasonable in order to determine his level of liability for the crime. Hence why reasonable force is also referred to as “legal force.” For instance, a father who gets into an argument with his son’s baseball coach, shoving him with his hands, has started the conflict. If the coach, in defending himself, picks up a baseball bat and slams it into the father’s head several times, it could not reasonably be considered self defense.
If a person can prove that he used reasonable force to defend himself, he may be able to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.
If a person uses more force than what would be considered necessary to protect himself from an aggressor, then this would be considered excessive or unreasonable force. Once excessive force has been proven, then the defendant’s self defense argument is considered forfeited. For instance, a defendant is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or severe injury if someone violently enters his home, and he believes such force is necessary to prevent harm from coming to himself, or to another person in the home.
And you understand that reasonable force varies by state, right? I’ve said it multiple times.
I will use the maximum allowed for the state I reside in. I have lived in states which allowed for deadly force to protect property.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 04 Oct 2024 15:12
collapse
Yes, you’ve made it quite clear you are happy to murder “undesirables” on the flimsiest excuse you think you can get away with.
spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
on 02 Oct 2024 19:32
collapse
No, its self defense.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 19:37
collapse
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone. “You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don’t know” is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
capital@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 21:41
nextcollapse
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone.
My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I’m not getting into fist fights anymore.
If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 21:53
nextcollapse
“Property is more valuable than human lives.”
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
And my wife, and daughter. People that, without the use of arms, will always be the weaker given it’s usually men who commit these crimes.
You’re missing the point - this tool takes physical strength out of the equation for self defense purposes and you’re acting like it’s a bad thing.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:57
collapse
Ah, so what you mean is that it’s okay for the strong to take advantage of the weak when you’re the strong one.
capital@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:59
nextcollapse
Please define “take advantage of” in your comment. The entirety of my comments here have been in a self defense context. I don’t see how my owning and carrying a gun means I’m “taking advantage of” anyone.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 23:01
collapse
Interesting how you want me to define terms but haven’t defined them yourself.
You haven’t defined “the strong” or “the weak” or what you mean by “self-defense.”
Maybe start defining your terms first before you demand it of others.
In this thread where I describe my fucked up back, rating from the VA, my inability to win fistfights, my worry about my wife and daughter defending themselves from men. And you can’t figure out what I mean by “strong” and “weak”. Bullshit. But fuck it, let’s do this.
You haven’t defined “the strong” or “the weak”
Both of these are used to describe ones physical prowess in relation to the other. They’re relative. Someone “stronger” than me can overpower me through physical means and I would be helpless to defend against it, given no other tools.
or what you mean by “self-defense.”
I’ll just go with the dictionary on this one:
the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative
Now feel free to explain what you mean by “take advantage of” in the context of my using a gun to defend myself.
Edit: I just fucking knew I would go as far as to define these well-known words to get nothing in return. You can tell it was going that way this whole exchange.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 23:12
collapse
Sorry, not good enough definitions.
A starving man on death’s door manages to break into your home to steal a loaf of bread. You have a gun and see him do it.
Who is the strong one and who is the weak one there? Who is acting in self-defense there?
And I am happy to explain that if you shot and killed the man in that situation, you would be taking advantage of their weakness.
Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 01:37
nextcollapse
Wait, I’m no pro gun person, but like if some fucking random breaks into my house even to steal bread, you can bet your ass I’m threatening them back out with a knife or some shit. How would anyone know that they’re there as a poor person stealing bread and not to mess with your family? I doubt you or anyone else would act differently under that pressure short of being really well trained in conflict diffusion. This whole thing seems super disengenous.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 08:32
collapse
Let me make it clear then, if a gun was around I would threaten them out / shoot them with the gun if they wouldnt leave. Pick your tool and I would at least try to use it. The part of Your strength argument that I don’t think makes sense and isn’t real is that if a poor person breaks into your house that you would allow them to steal from you from a high moral stand point. Further, you would somehow manage some sort of completely calm demeanour because you somehow know that they are someone in need there to steal and not there to hurt you or your family.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 10:10
collapse
Okay, but you’re making a completely different argument than the person I am discussing is making. Especially since you mentioned a knife before. You can chase someone like that out of your home without a gun.
Really, most home invaders can be driven out with a baseball bat. The ones that can’t… I guess be prepared to murder them.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 02:17
collapse
If someone is strong enough to break down my door even when they’re starving, I’m gunning them down and asking questions later.
Like your logic doesn’t add up here at all. “If someone is extremely weak but also strong enough to forcibly enter your home”
Nah
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 08:32
collapse
You know there are these things called ‘windows’ that you can break easily and climb through, yes?
Also, I thought you were done talking to me. Make up your mind.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 11:56
collapse
I repeat my point: if someone is trying to break in my window- I’m shooting first and asking questions later
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 11:59
collapse
Which makes them the weak one and your claim of self-defense a spurious one. You don’t actually know if you’re in danger.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 12:04
collapse
Holy fuck you’re not thinking at all? If someone is breaking into your home, you’re in danger.
Or do you want everyone to be obligated to go over and check on the well being of the person first?
“Hey I know you’re busy breaking into my home for an unknown reason, do you need a hand? Some water? Maybe a tic tac? You know what, let me just get that window for you”
No that’s fucking stupid. You have very very obviously lived an extremely sheltered life where you don’t have to worry about your own protection
Jesus you’re pointlessly obtuse
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 12:43
collapse
See, the difference between you and me is that you can’t envision “self defense” beyond committing murder in this situation and I can. Many, many other options.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:35
collapse
No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.
Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.
I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 08:33
collapse
And yet they said they would shoot a starving person breaking into their home to steal a loaf of bread. That doesn’t sound like ‘equally strong’ to me.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 22:30
nextcollapse
Try “A government should take care of its citizens.”
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I’m quite sure none of them allow it when someone “bothers you”.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 23:21
collapse
There’s also laws governing what constitutes theft. Your entire argument about needing a gun is dependent on people not following the law.
But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They’re quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 02 Oct 2024 23:49
collapse
But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They’re quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.
I agree with you completely.
TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 02:20
collapse
I mean yeah. The thing about carrying a gun gun is that if you use it, you’re going to get arrested, probably. Even if it’s self defense.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 15:10
collapse
Oh no, I meant the consequences for other people when he misuses his gun are much more severe than the consequences for other people if someone steals from them.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 02 Oct 2024 23:43
nextcollapse
Well he has a VA rating. Turning human bodies into rotting meat piles is his way of life.
There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I’ll just go on explaining as if you actually don’t understand.
The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 03 Oct 2024 08:37
collapse
What I mean is you participated in the military, therefore more likely to have skewed values in favour of “extended” srlf defense. Because the whole military justifies its endless butchery on rights of self defense and their ceaseless expansion.
pooperNickel@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 02:24
collapse
You’re talking about things like it’s obvious they are just important as lives. Fucking disgusting
I was referring to summary execution of a thief being a good thing.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:32
nextcollapse
No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 15:13
collapse
I have no problems with people carrying mace for self defense. There are highly effective less lethal options.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they’re ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they’re being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you’re basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
on 03 Oct 2024 18:47
collapse
If citizens have a “Constitutional Right” to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
ben_dover@lemmy.ml
on 02 Oct 2024 18:29
nextcollapse
ah, the American solution
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 21:13
collapse
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 23:05
nextcollapse
Would you rather be reading a story about how this woman was arrested for murder? Just because these men were being pigs doesn’t mean you get to kill them…
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:31
collapse
Well not if you aren’t armed. If you are armed, you do get to kill people.
An armed society is a polite society.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 03 Oct 2024 02:17
nextcollapse
Polite society my ass. I’ve owned guns for over 15 years and never has a gun de-escalated a situation. People who carry in public are way more likely to kill someone and to get themselves killed. Guns cause aggressiveness far more often.
The woman was never in danger, if she pulled a gun, her, the harrassers, and all other bystanders would have been in danger.
immutable@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 02:19
nextcollapse
I suppose you might get to kill people but that doesn’t mean that the law is going to be ok with that. Proportionality of force is a thing. Stand your ground states are doing their best to change that, but that’s a very mixed bag.
If you shoot and kill someone for blocking your waymo and being a creep, in most places you are going to have to convince a district attorney and a jury that you were justified in ending their life. Even if you do that and escape criminal liability, you’ll then have to convince more people not to hold you liable in civil court.
Sounds pretty cool to go “I got a shooty bang bang so if I feel threatened in any way I can come out blasting.” It is true in the moment, but if you place any value on your future liberty, money, and time you might want to consider the ramifications of killing another human being.
Finally, even if society decides you shouldn’t face any criminal or civil penalty for killing someone, you will have to face yourself. Sitting behind a keyboard it sounds badass to shoot someone that’s pissing you off. In the moment you will probably feel justified. Many a young man sent to war or employed as a police officer didn’t think that taking a life would change them, only to find the reality of taking a life is not what the action movies promised. Self doubt, self loathing, ptsd, depression, these are all common reactions to reckoning with the fact that you are the cause of another persons death.
It is hard to feel like a righteous badass as you watch a grieving widow mourn someone that may have even done something stupid or wrong, knowing that their child has no father now and their wife no partner. Are these people jerks and creeps, sure, is the punishment for being a jerk or creep death, rarely. It is a heavy burden to carry to end another.
pooperNickel@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 02:22
collapse
What a disgusting falsehood
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 02 Oct 2024 23:41
collapse
Oops now everyone got guns and you get killed by some random. I’m sure judge dredd will save you. Try being more violent, violence solves all problem. It’s self defense that mean it’s right. Always remember, dead bodies tell no tales. Aim for the center of mass and always empty the mag to make sure there is only your side of the story left.
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:30
nextcollapse
Actually increasing the level of possible violence (and also the uncertainty of violent outcomes) does lead to a reduction in aggression. You have to be willing to think it through though.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 03 Oct 2024 08:31
collapse
“What if he has a gun”
Thieves in your area are now packing, enjoy the upgrade on unpredictable violence
Try faster violence escalation next for extra spicy neighborhoods
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 02:36
collapse
Guns are for pussies carry a Dane axe like a respectable person.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 07:14
collapse
She did have 3 boobs.
roguetrick@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 17:11
nextcollapse
I doubt choosing to stick up a vehicle covered in cameras with someone who likely isn’t even carrying cash is anyone’s idea of a good payoff.
Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub
on 02 Oct 2024 20:58
collapse
idk i think plenty of people carry expensive stuff on them
what a thief could actually get for them is another matter but clearly that doesnt stop them from trying
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 03 Oct 2024 02:11
nextcollapse
The doors aren’t going to open from the outside, and authorities would be alerted immediately. Breaking the glass on a car window or holding people up at gun point… Yeah. Easier in the parking lot of any gas station, grocery store, neighborhood, Walmart, Mall, Jewelry store, movie theater. Wherever really. The people can get out of the car in an emergency just like any other car. Running someone down with a car is not the answer to many situations.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 11:56
collapse
Affluent people taking a driverless car from the shopping district would absolutely be targets.
Put yourself in a drug addicts shoes, or just a thief’s shoes. How would you make this work?
It doesnt take much creativity, and the people who would do this type of thing are not known to be short on creativity.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 03 Oct 2024 14:31
collapse
So you think they were in life threatenng danger?
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
on 04 Oct 2024 22:41
collapse
In this example? We know they weren’t, but not until they left.
allidoislietomyself@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 10:49
collapse
Only if you upgrade to the Excelsior package
intensely_human@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 01:29
nextcollapse
My car isn’t driverless, but I as the driver have less control than ever before.
It’s an EV, and it will not shift to drive or reverse if the charging cable is attached.
Great for preventing me from destroying a charger. Terrible for getting away from someone trying to mug me.
Far too much of the safety features these days assume an environment in which all harm is accidental. This comes at the cost of safety in environments where someone is trying to harm another person.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 07:13
nextcollapse
You don’t complain about having to open your door or start the engine when escaping a threat.
Having to unplug a cable during a very specific, imagined threat seems like a niche problem.
Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
on 03 Oct 2024 12:43
nextcollapse
The difference being that not being able to start the motor with the door open is only a problem if the driver was being attacked in a parking lot.
It’s not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in. Now the car is immobilized. Smash the driver side window and they’re in business.
Sure, there are some safeguards that can be added like requiring a current to immobilize the vehicle, but it’s far from the simplest or safest answer. Car manufacturers need to stop putting in hard limits and just use alarms instead. I bought a new Subaru that has collision detection standard. The hedge next to my driveway was overgrown, but I drove right through it. The car sounded an alarm and flashed a bunch of lights, but it didn’t engage the brakes, I was able to blast through an obstacle that I knew was minor even though the car thought it was a threat. If a manufacturer feels compelled to add a safety system, it’s possible to do so without taking control away from the driver.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 13:02
nextcollapse
It’s not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in.
Sounds like a lot of hassle. If they want to immoblise a self driving car they just stand in front of it.
Why carry a plug cut off from a public charger when you can just stab the tyres?
Use the pry bar to smash the window and open the door. Not open the charging port.
Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
on 03 Oct 2024 13:32
collapse
It’s about hitting electric cars, self driving or otherwise.
Cars can still move with punctured tires, at least far enough that a would-be robber or carjacker could get dragged a good distance.
You smash the window and open the door. Now the panicked driver is speeding away, leaving you high and dry or dragging you along.
Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal’s wet dream. It’s incumbent on car manufacturers to consider that while implementing safety features.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 14:18
collapse
Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal’s wet dream.
My point is that plugging in a charging cable is way down the list of attacker tools.
Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
on 03 Oct 2024 14:44
collapse
Sure, but it’s on the list.
If it saves even one human life it’s worth switching to an alarm instead of immobilization, even if that means hundreds of breakaway cables get snapped by morons driving away from chargers.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 15:35
collapse
What if hundreds of lives are lost due to broken cables snapped by morons driving away from chargers?
Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
on 03 Oct 2024 16:22
collapse
How the fuck do you think gas pumps work?
I’m done feeding the trolls.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 18:58
nextcollapse
So we are agreed. Immobilize vehicles both when they are charging and refuelling.
Gas pumps are something you’re doing “right now”, so you ought to remember. Vs a charging cable s something you plugged in last night and left that way. Much easier to forget.
You’re very unlikely to change drivers at a gas pump so you probably won’t forget. Vs a charging cable is something your spouse may or may not have plugged in last night, and they’re not necessarily there to remember.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a gas pump with trigger lock. You have to be actively involved with pumping gas, holding it the whole time, so unlikely to forget
AA5B@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 13:16
nextcollapse
How would they open the charge port door? I can still imagine it because I have a good imagination but it’s just not going to happen.
Is someone really going to go through the trouble of carrying a cut off cable and a piece of electronics to open the charge port, and have time to walk up to the car click to open, wait for the door to open and insert the cable? There are faster and easier ways to immobilize a car, why would anyone make it so complicated?
And that assumes that safety feature is still engaged when you’re already driving
Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
on 03 Oct 2024 13:29
collapse
Pry bar to open the hatch, like I said.
And yes, today people are walking around with angle grinders to chop off catalytic converters.
Not at a stop light, nor as a way to immobilize you. While they can steal your catalytic converter surprisingly quickly, they’ll look for a minute or two of quiet time to slide under your car.
I think it is. I’d like to see at least one documented case of this happening before people start demanding that cars be able to move while plugged in. Plus, in the very scenario you describe, the car would still be able to move, no? Attaching a charger does nothing unless you’re changing to parked at every red light.
The only time you’d need to drive away while charging is if the attacker walks up while you’re sitting in your parked car, or kindly decides to let you get in before doing anything.
I can’t find a single instance of someone being unable to escape because of their charger, so maybe let’s worry about it if it ever becomes a problem.
jaemo@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 15:44
collapse
Additionally: if you’re at a gas station filling an ICE vehicle and you get mugged, and you panic and peel out, there’s gas going everywhere, plenty of potential ignition sources etc.
The argument “I have more control and agency therefore I am quantifiably safer” can fuck alllllll the way off. Safety regulations are written in blood.
This is the seatbelt argument all over again. The safety features protect people in the majority of scenarios. While there may be scenarios where it does more harm than good, they are rare. You’re much safer with the safety feature.
jacksilver@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 14:58
collapse
I don’t think there is a car where the seat belt is tied to anything besides a little notification beep. Seems like a different situation if the “safety” feature dictates how the car is used.
Seatbelts are legally mandated. When that was going through, some people argued against that requirement on the grounds that there edge cases where it dies more harm than good.
Just like the case here, those edge cases are vanishingly rare.
Note: my car won’t move without a seatbelt, but it’s an EV so furthers the argument that EVs are taking control from the driver.
jacksilver@lemmy.world
on 04 Oct 2024 01:36
collapse
Fair point then about the arguement around safety. For me the bigger issue is control. Cars with kill switches and conditions to use is a slippery slope. Just look at what’s happened with software and media. Don’t want to have to pirate my car or load custom firmware so I can use it as I want.
grandkaiser@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 04:18
collapse
Thank God for cars. Imagine riding public transport and getting felt up/robbed/harassed. Glad we can all agree on this Lemmy 👍
Obviously this is the worst of both worlds, but it’s a weird flex to support cars.
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 11:58
collapse
In public the group of people watching and in close proximity prevents a lot of crime. Criminals feel shame too and at the very least want to prolong their ability to continue to make money how they do.
A single person in a car is vulnerable simply because they are alone. They think the car protects them but its trivial to smash a window and pull someone out.
sirico@feddit.uk
on 02 Oct 2024 14:31
nextcollapse
Give it a couple of years they’ll legalise running down pedestrians for self drive cars. Can’t have these jackalopes affecting the bottom line
Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 14:34
nextcollapse
This made me wonder though…the car obviously has cameras on the outside, and there’s also a way to communicate with the support team from inside…so is it a stretch to think that these cars could be auto-recording everything that’s happening inside the car?
Should we - as riders - have any expectation of privacy in a car with no driver?
buddascrayon@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 14:56
nextcollapse
No, but then the same is true of taxis and Ubers. They all have some kind of recording equipment in them for ensuring safety and cover in case someone claims something.
You should never expect privacy in someone else’s car.
FJW@discuss.tchncs.de
on 02 Oct 2024 14:34
nextcollapse
Okay, this really seems more like a case of sexual harassment, rather than harassment of Waymo customers, which was my first suspicion. Had it been the latter as part of a politically motivated action against the company I might have had a lot more sympathy, but this is disgusting…
MenacingPerson@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 17:58
nextcollapse
You saw the fedora and thought it was anything but sexual harassment? LMAO
FJW@discuss.tchncs.de
on 02 Oct 2024 19:49
collapse
I saw “driverless waymo” in the title.
Also: Prejudice against people wearing fedoras is still prejudice and thus not really a great thing to have. One of my best friends also likes to wear a hat at times (not sure if it counts as a fedora, I know very little about heads) and is one of the sweetest people I know.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:17
nextcollapse
I hate the reputation fedoras have because I happen to look damn good in a fedora.
iamdefinitelyoverthirteen@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:35
collapse
Wear one then. Fuck all the haters.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 22:38
collapse
You’re right. These days, I dress too sloppily for one, but back when I didn’t, I was self-conscious about it. I probably wouldn’t be now, but that’s also the reason I don’t really care that I wear T-shirts all the time.
I still hate it that it has that reputation.
MenacingPerson@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 12:58
collapse
That’s gotta be the cyberpunkiest thing I’ve read in a while.
Snapz@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 14:52
nextcollapse
The victim’s statement here ends with an oddly volunteered tangent and specific praise of driverless vehicles, before it finally takes an eerie turn in the last sentence…
"…With that said, I think the Human Factor in this issue is going to be a lot harder to solve than anything else.” …FREEZE CITIZEN!
I do hope she’s okay, and those two folks seem to be clowns, but this thing also all reads as likely guerilla marketing for Waymo - who the article informs me, in a very capitalism-friendly turn of events, that they now have their service open to the public in 3 cities, cars have a safety feature that checked in with her multiple times and they “rewarded” her with an extra ride. It’s a light enough “crime”, with a very engineered feeling and enough to feel “real” while providing ready fodder for morning radio talk shows, Jimmy Fallon and good morning America talking heads to drone on about this morning across America as time filler that quietly advertises waymo “saving” a person from the scary outside world.
Note: Also, was very funny that throughout drafting my comment here “waymo” was constantly being autocorrected to “say no” :)
yamanii@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 15:38
nextcollapse
The fedora tipping is too funny, seeing it from outside the situation, but she certainly was very scared because it’s such a bizarre event.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 07:15
collapse
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 14:52
collapse
Sure, but preventing the car from moving by standing in front of it could be considered aggressive, especially when they knew she had pretty much no other option (I guess aside from getting out?).
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 15:33
collapse
I can certainly understand why a passenger in an autonomous vehicle may feel threatened whatever the man was doing.
CondensedPossum@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 16:47
nextcollapse
Some guys were annoying/sexist to her while she participated in a public menace and I guess this is supposed to mean something to me beyond “stay away from California”
blarth@thelemmy.club
on 02 Oct 2024 17:19
nextcollapse
California is awesome.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 03 Oct 2024 15:10
collapse
Nah, California sucks, there’s way too much traffic, and too many NIMBYs to solve the traffic problems.
Weather is nice, but that’s not enough to get me to move there. I have family there, so I visit fairly often, but I honestly don’t really enjoy being there. They have some gorgeous national parks though, so it’s worth a visit for that.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 23:09
nextcollapse
Riding in a self-driving car isn’t illegal in California.
Says a lot about you that you think riding in a Waymo means you’re fair game for sexual harasment. You’re just looking for excuses for it, huh?
CondensedPossum@lemmy.world
on 04 Oct 2024 04:05
collapse
thanks for your contributions to artless rhetoric
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
on 03 Oct 2024 14:18
collapse
Wtf is that even supposed to mean? Fuck off.
CondensedPossum@lemmy.world
on 04 Oct 2024 04:03
collapse
Sorry, here’s plainer language. Driverless cars are a public menace. People who hail them contribute to the acceptance of that public menace. As a reader, I do not find myself compelled to sympathy for your article’s protagonist. I stay away from places like California’s metro areas, because I do not want to participate in social experiments about me being run over by driverless vehicles.
I hope this has clarified my meaning for you and a lighthearted fuck you right back for posting this propaganda, you corpo-brained parrot.
dubious@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 17:01
nextcollapse
we need more men willing to stand up for women.
AbaixoDeCao@lemm.ee
on 02 Oct 2024 18:34
nextcollapse
Sign up for free access to this post…
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 20:57
nextcollapse
roofuskit@lemmy.world
on 02 Oct 2024 21:16
nextcollapse
And they probably got upset when women chose the bear.
BambiDiego@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 00:21
collapse
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, I had the same thought
CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 11:46
collapse
Because that question was/is blatantly sexist.
Or also put forth the idea that all men, and all would be men, are dangerous predators, for no other reason than being a man. And that’s dangerous thinking.
BambiDiego@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 12:11
collapse
The question isn’t sexist, it’s emotionally driven, and dismissing it outright is narrow minded. That is what I think is dangerous.
The truth is the question reveals that to most women asked the question, men are unpredictable, and women have to navigate the world that way.
A bear is a bear, it’s always going to do what it does, and you can work around that. Leave it alone and it will leave you alone, even if you have to work hard to avoid it. If you disturb it, it will kill you. It’s predictable.
Men on the other hand are very likely to respect women, maybe even work together. However, there is the small, small, SMALL chance that they will be a terrible person. They could attack, abuse, sexually assault, straight up rape, or even kill the woman; or they could do a disgusting combination of those.
The true root of the question isn’t “do you think a random man is more dangerous than a wild animal?” Of course not.
The real question being put on a social scale is “what’s more predictably dangerous, a random man, or a wild animal?” And the fact that women almost unanimously have the same answer should be commentary enough on how they have to live their lives.
eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 03 Oct 2024 16:34
nextcollapse
Best description of this I’ve read, thank you. It’s not a question about men directly, it’s a question about how women have to navigate a world with a small percentage of men that will hurt them given the opportunity.
BambiDiego@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 16:46
collapse
Tbf a friend had to explain it to me, when the debate went viral at first I was mainly confused. I’m sure when I was younger I would have been one of the men with delicate egos that would find it irrational to not choose a man. It’s actually more thought out and rational when women say bear.
CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 18:21
collapse
Here’s a bear, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G1aHkLHQ2I just leave it alone and it’ll leave you alone is incorrect. And dangerous advice. Bears are unpredictable wild animals.
men are unpredictable
So women, are exempt, women are absolutely predictable? Cool. Totally NOT sexist. Also, hot take, but what’s your stand on trans-men/women?.. Are they predicable or not?
You also seem to imply that women aren’t likely to abuse, sexually assault, straight up rape, or even kill ? Shit, i must have had bad luck, because I’ve been physically assaulted by most of the women I’ve dated, raped by one, and I’ve known countless women who’d joke directly to me “if he gets hard, he wants it… can’t rape the willing”. Cool, good to know I’ve just had bad luck…
And sorry, but people asked a question on the internet, where people chase trends and fades like mad… that’s the data source. Unreliable.
It’s sexist. I’ve proven, right there it’s sexist. Potentially, transphobic. It’s wrapped in false information, a false narrative. And then twisted at the end to try to sound like it’s not, and it comes very much across like far-right PR spin.
BambiDiego@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 19:13
collapse
That bear didn’t do anything that was unpredictable, it did what a bear does. I never said a bear wouldn’t maul you, treat it as a bear.
I didn’t say women aren’t unpredictable, that’s a weird take at best, and an argument on a logical fallacy at worst.
I didn’t imply that women can’t be just as evil as men, they absolutely can, because they’re human beings. Same for anybody who’s non-binary, they’re just humans.
I’m sorry that happened to you, nobody deserves abuse.
I don’t understand what you mean by data source. It was an internet trend and some men, not all, got really pissy that some women, not all, chose bear instead of man. A friend explained to me why they might do that and it makes sense, at the end of the day it’s people sharing their opinions, and sometimes trying to understand others opinions helps us understand them better.
I don’t see how it’s sexist, I see no proof, only your opinion based on talking points. Same goes for it being transphobic, it doesn’t make sense to me, please clarify.
If anything this is just a conversation, not proof, your word is worth just as much as mine. We’re just two people sharing our opinions, that’s it.
Nope they’re boys with pubes. Pubes don’t make you a man, strength of character does.
eatthecake@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 07:39
collapse
JFC, they don’t cease to be men because they’re assholes. Stop pretending that ‘men’ can’t do anything wrong. There is no man card and men are a diverse group of people.
eatthecake@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 17:04
collapse
Why the need to stop seeing them as men? Why the need to redefine men behaving badly as boys? It seems like you can’t accept that some men behave this way so you want to pretend they’re not really men.
Depending on where this happened this could be tried as sexual assault.
Not something you want on your criminal record.
HawlSera@lemm.ee
on 03 Oct 2024 07:28
nextcollapse
This is why driverless cars are a bad idea, they assume that everything will work as intended and everyone will play by the rules.
You need a human to make a snap decision in cases like these.
I hope these men are arrested for sexual solicitation via coercion (could be tried as attempted rape in the right state), disrupting traffic, sexual harassment, public disturbance. Fuck em, or better yet, don’t fuck em, they’re unfuck worthy.
What were these morons thinking? I’m sex positive as hell, I’m all for bringing back the free love of the 70’s and the LSD of the 60’s, but not like this, never anything like this… Hypothetically bro say you do get her number this way?
The fuck happens next?
“Hey remember me, I’m the dipshit who pressured you into giving me this number by trapping you in your car via exploitation of its safety features? So I’ll pick you up at 7 for a romantic candlelit dinner and afterwards we could go see a movi…” click “Hello? Damn, friendzoned again.”
AA5B@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 13:07
nextcollapse
Let’s not go too far overboard. These guys are assholes who deserve some consequences. However the article didn’t include anything that looked like attempted rape, nothing violent, no direct threat of harm (indirect, maybe). Let’s try to be proportional here
Raiderkev@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 18:02
collapse
Definitely a false imprisonment charge though
gallopingsnail@lemmy.sdf.org
on 03 Oct 2024 19:03
collapse
I guess I missed the part where you’re not free to literally get out of the car and leave?
Edit: the two guys definitely deserve harassment and disturbing the peace charges.
Raiderkev@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 22:29
collapse
If you’re a female, you are going to get out of the car to get in the street and hang out with these 2 males harassing you on the street? She’s definitely safer in the car. The 2 males are keeping her prisoner in the car against her will. the car cannot leave, and she cannot get out.
Zetta@mander.xyz
on 03 Oct 2024 18:20
nextcollapse
Na driverless cars are the future and tens of thousands of people will be saved from car accident deaths per year once most cars are automated. And this may happen in my lifetime which is cool.
I’m just telling you how it is, people’s feelings on this won’t stop the march of progress. Machines will take over most driving tasks, it’s inevitable.
“A man can notice a mistake and correct it, a machine will continue as if everything is fine.” Even if this is 100% true you already say yourself that machine driving will still be safer “user error to fuck it up for every body.”
User error will 100% be why autonomous vehicles will be overall significantly safer to use and be around vs manual driving vehicles.
Arguably incorrect statement from you, and either way humans already make more mistakes, fatal mistakes, compared to a full self driving car system like Waymo.
Getting a ride in an autonomous Waymo is safer than an Uber.
Driverless cars can work if enough vehicles are replaced with them. I agree that a few driverless cars in a sea of regular drivers is not optimal though.
A few years back at the height of driverless car mania, I was feeling cynical toward my fellow human beings ……
It’ll be a bonanza for the assholes of the world when we’re mostly self-driving vehicles. Imagine being able to cut anyone off in safety and with no consequences. Imagine driving as aggressively as you want as other cars get out of your way. Imagine being able to drive like in an action movie with the confidence that everyone will just get out of your way. Imagine that feeling of power and importance as you own the road , in your sad pathetic life
jpreston2005@lemmy.world
on 03 Oct 2024 15:55
collapse
“The men came over to the car again and stood in front of it for a few minutes. Finally when they left, the car was still stalled but I clicked the ‘in car support’ on the screen and they seemed to be aware of the issue,” Amina said. “They asked if I was OK and the car began to drive towards my location. They asked if I needed police support and I said no.”
When she was almost to her destination, Waymo support called her again to ask if she was ok, she said. “I assured him that I was fine and he told me I would be given a free ride after,” she said. “After many hours I was called one last time by their support team. They asked if I was OK and told me that they have 24/7 support available. They also said I would get the next ride or next two rides (uncertain) free.”
While scary, I’m left kinda impressed by Waymo’s support.
threaded - newest
That’s a trilby, not a fedora. Narrow brim.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilby
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora
Unless you want people to like you!
This is the internet, let’s be real here, nobody expects anyone to like them.
The official hat of “females always pick the chads, even though I dress better than all these normies!”
Ackshully, that’s a jackdaw. Wait, where am I?
They are both super fucking cool and appropriate to wear with any outfit, so it doesn’t matter.
Ehhhh…
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/ac461a69-722a-4cae-a47c-b4d8be8a63b5.png">
The hat doesn’t make it worse.
Yeah, I would say that this applies in general. That hat that we associate with a particular kind of socially maladjusted individual is not the faithful fedora but its contemptable cousin: the thrilby.
Ultraviolence anyone?
.
Cruise was testing that feature.
Some nasty jerks they are. Well now internationally famous nasty jerks.
It’s assholes like this that make dudes in fedoras look bad. This and -you know- the hats themselves.
Fedoras are cool. That’s a trilby, the classic neckbeard topper.
ItsTheSamePicture.jpg
Lmao
These cars need to have a panic button that allows a remote operator to talk to the passengers, assess the situation, alert police and override the auto driving to get them out of bad situations. Same as an emergency call button on an elevator basically. I dont understand these cars to have any feature like that so far, and I’m assuming this woman would have used it if one was available, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
These cars are likely going to turn into hijack machines if they’re programmed for “maximum safety” in situations where, realistically, breaking every traffic law, hitting a pedestrian or causing damage to the vehicle through dangerous terrain may be the only way out with a living passenger. The second it begins to percolate among criminals that these things are super easy to stop at the perfect location of your choosing like this, they are going to become a massive target.
Or they turn into a hearse if the passenger has a medical emergency and the car doesn’t redirect while the passenger is incapacitated. They might be coherent enough to press a button, but not to open their phone, navigate the app, call for help or redirect the car to a hospital…
But that of course requires labor so it will not happen until legally mandated after a minimum threshold of people die.
I must be tired right now but I don’t see how a remote operator could have driven better in this situation.
You can’t get away from someone blocking your car in traffic without risk.of hitting them or other people or vehicles.
You probably meant they ought to drive away regardless of what they hit, if it helps the passenger escape a.dire.situation? But I have to wonder if a remote operator would agree to be put on the spot like that.
Yea I’m not too keen on giving authorization to hit pedestrians. If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person so why should a driverless car gain that right? And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.
I could defintely see a case for some extra safety features that help keep the doors locked and shut, maybe thicker windows too if needed to prevent robberies/assaults.
Think of it as a backup for the phone in the case where, say, there’s an adult and a kid in the car, the kid has no phone of their own, and the adult loses consciousness with their phone locked. Or the car is being actively jostled by a group of people (say it drove into the middle of an embryonic riot), causing the passenger to drop their phone, whereupon it slides under the seat. Or the phone just runs out of charge or doesn’t survive getting dropped into the passenger’s triple-extra-large fast-food coffee. It won’t be needed 99% of the time, but the other 1% might save someone’s life, and (presuming the car already has a cell modem it in) the cost of adding the feature should be minimal.
The “hitting pedestrians” is an extreme hypothetical, and not one you should particularly get hung up on. But it is one that still has to be considered. Passive security measures only go so far for the passenger.
Realistically, a car can get out of a vast majority of situations evasively without hitting hostile pedestrians, such as reversing rapidly and then turning around or driving in an opposite travel lane to bypass the blockage. Or hopping a curb and using a sidewalk if it is not occupied (or just blasting the shit out of the horn if it is occupied). These are all things that waymo’s auto mode cannot and will not do, because it doesn’t have the reasoning to understand when such measures are necessary.
If you are in literal, actual mortal danger you are generally allowed to escape with the goal of escape. Especially relevant where waymo operates.
You are not allowed to run people over merely because you feel threatened.
You are allowed to use deadly force, in the USA when you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully killing, causing serious physical injury, or committing a short list of violent felonies. The harassment described in the article probably does not rise to that level, though an ambitious lawyer might try to describe intentionally causing the car to stop as carjacking or kidnapping.
Is there any law in any state that would allow you to kill a 3rd party to escape being killed yourself? (If there were, I’d probably opt for not living in that state)
What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?
Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?
This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.
You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.
So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.
reuters.com/…/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-ri…
I vaguely remember reading in my criminal law textbook, years back, that murder is one of the few exceptions to the doctrine of necessity (this would have been in the context of US law), so I don’t think that it’s ever legally-permissible to intentionally kill some random person to save yourself. IIRC the rationale was that it prevents thing like terrorist groups from coercing someone to do actions for them by threatening someone else.
That being said, there are obviously points where people are forced to take actions where either one group of people is going to die or another; in ethics, the trolley problem is a well-known example. For a maybe-less-artificial problem, closing hatches in a ship where not everyone is out of a compartment to prevent the ship from going down, say. I don’t know how law applies in the situation of weighing lives; my assumption is that it doesn’t mandate inaction.
Sure, there are some states that let you mag dump through your front door if someone rings the doorbell
Yeah somehow I don’t think tipping a fedora counts lol
It’s likely the harassers can be prosecuted for false imprisonment, a misdemeanor. It is illegal to use deadly force such as hitting people with cars to prevent/terminate a misdemeanor.
If you legitimately believe your life is in danger, you have the right to escape or defend yourself, even if that means running someone over. This has happened in multiple countries with similar outcomes.
If a man jumps out in front of my car in traffic and points a pistol at me after I stop. I am going around or thru him and there is no other option. Anyone else trying to stop me even without visible weapons is going to get evasive maneuvers to protect myself because I am not dealing with that bullshit. That includes weaving far outside my travel lane or going over a sidewalk. That is self defense and a split second decision that any driver may have to make. Waymo prioritizes all outside obstacle avoidance which means it doesn’t even want to leave it’s set travel lane, which makes them trivial to stop like this with no recourse.
The point I am making is that self driving has a really hard time interpreting traffic edge cases or passenger emergencies like this. A remote operator could make the decision to drive over curbs and other lanes, if free, to save the passenger, and realistically should avoid hitting pedestrians too… but in the case of an armed attacker - well, yknow. Like force for like force.
Calling police would only be an auxiliary function to report the video evidence. They cannot be depended on to respond in time to actually make a difference.
Would a remote operator interpret things accurately in 10 seconds or less, or be a job anyone would even want? How does the liability chain of command work? Who knows. But the current system makes no decision at all, and that is unacceptable. And the medical point still stands too, a remote operator could immediately reroute the vehicle to a hospital and alert the medical staff. A panic button is absolutely needed.
I can’t think of a NY cab driver that couldn’t have handled this situation.
This guy isn’t doing fedoras any favors either - I’m already a bit on the skeptical side when I see a fedora.
Fedoras haven’t done anyone any favors ever.
I’m hitting them. I don’t know their intentions. But my intent would be to get away however I can.
They have a button on the center-front thingy but it’s not labeled panic or anything.
It sounds like Waymo were already aware of the situation, in fact they called her in the vehicle as it was happening.
Not to say this isn’t a good suggestion, but they seem to have other systems in place that worked.
It worked, only because these men were only being creepy sexist pieces of shit and didn’t have worse intentions. Customer support according to this article has no control over the vehicle other than restarting the auto driving routines to make the car move again.
Nobody reads the article though…
Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, the support wasn't branded as such and customers could've not reported out of shame, which wouldn't happen if they knew they could do that at the beginning before it became anything substantial.
They have customer support that provides words of platitude, an ineffective police call with a 15minute response time, and no control over the situation. She got lucky this time, but my point remains standing.
They should have a support chopper that you can call in
Hello, customer support?..Yes, air strike on my location, thank you
Honestly a proper panic button would have an alarm go off and speed dial 911. But I’m sure people would abuse it.
She talked to an operator who asked if he should call the police and she said no. It’s in the article.
Not sure what a button would have changed…
It’s blocked for me unless i want to sign up. And I don’t for one article.
What are you going on about? Have you ever ridden in one of these?
They do have these buttons…
support.google.com/waymo/answer/9172373?hl=en
Well and the draw of these tiny driverless train like objects kinda goes out the window when you have to staff anything at all to monitor and control them.
They do, she only used it after they were gone.
Considering the length of your comment, you could have started by reading the article.
Doing things like this when you’re certainly being recorded is a great idea. Wait, hold on…
waiting for the name & shame. what an absolute tosser
.
They are quite lucky that woman was not my mother because she’d have pulled out her gun and been like, I told you to move, damnit.
This is how you get shot for the silliest of reasons.
What part of Texas is she from?
The texas part
The not-Austin part?
Did they stutter?
That’s pretty stupid of her.
Without hesitation, because she is brandishing a weapon, anyone else simply watching the scene from a distance feeling even slightly any emotion is justified to shoot her to death as a form of self defense.
Never draw a weapon unless the intent is to use it, and in her case she would only intend to use it as a threat not a deterrence, and therefore deserves to die in this imaginary scenario.
I’m sorry but doing creepy shit like stopping the car a stranger is in to freak them out is what actually gets you shot in America. Th3se two are lucky this woman wasn’t a red blooded american.
Do you have any idea how deranged this sounds to the rest of the world
It’s deranged to Americans too. This guy is nutso.
Do you think it’s normal to see a civilian draw a weapon and point it to another one? First thing I would think is that she’s gonna kill them, but I’m not American.
Sure, but that doesn’t necessarily present a danger to you, and if it’s clear that she’s shooting as self-defense (and I think two young men accosting an elderly woman while physically preventing the car from moving qualifies), there’s no reason for you to feel threatened.
If we put it in a non-gun context, let’s say grandma pulls out a knife to defend herself from these men, and then someone sees that and immediately pulls a knife of their own and engages. Why would you do that? It’s incredibly unlikely that grandma is going on a killing spree or anything, she just wants to defend herself from these aggressive individuals.
Wait so the people that are justified to shoot her to death, would I be justified to shoot them since they’re pulling weapons too? Is it then open season on me
Yes. This is why brandishing a weapon is so fucking stupid, and why cops always get a wrist slap after shooting first instead of asking questions or deescalate.
That really depends on your area and what witnesses exist to corroborate your testimony. You can’t just “say” you felt endangered just because a gun was drawn, it needs to pass the “reasonable person” standard (i.e. would a theoretical “reasonable person” feel threatened in this scenario?). I’m guessing an elderly woman pointing a firearm at an individual who is clearly harassing her doesn’t present a danger to a reasonable person who isn’t in the line of fire.
That said, if the elderly woman appears jumpy or something, maybe there’s a case. But it’s not an open-and-shut case like shooting someone who is taking hostages or something.
Source: am American in gun-friendly state who reads news articles about justified and unjustified shooting cases.
I love how he looks like 2 different types of douchebags when he takes his hat off!
.
I’d expect the Waymo video to have captured footage of these guys. It might not be that difficult to track them, and street harassment might well qualify as assault if the DA of San Francisco were interested in prosecuting.
That said, it’s telling that they freely and openly harassed a strange woman on the street once the threat of being run over was not a factor.
ETA: One short-term workaround is to tint the windows so that passengers cannot be seen from the outside, but there might be causes to harass occupied Waymo vehicles regardless of the passenger (say, to mug them). I’m curious if this is going to lead to equipping autonomous vehicles with anti-riot ordnance.
Delamin Cabs vibe over here, hope people get the Excelsior package
Waymo offering human remains delivery services should death occur on your journey
It seems like Waymo would have a profit interest to pursue this type of issue vigorously.
Waymo should provide a loaded shotgun in every car. It’s America, after all.
/s
Make it AI controlled for good measure
Russian roulette cab ride
Maybe that could spark a nice tradition of the one sitting besides the drivers seat calling ‘shotgun’.
… O wait
They should have little nozzles to disperse a cloud of pepper spray around the vehicle in emergencies.
I had this thought too. Probably unrealistic because of all the ways that can go horribly wrong, but somehow that solution seems easier than convincing a certain subset of men to behave themselves.
SAAB tried to corner the US market in the '80s and '90s by giving away a shoulder mounted anti tank rocket with each purchase of a car, but their legal team said “that’s not an appropriate way to deal with road rage.”
Huh, sounds like their legal department was from Europe?
<img alt="" src="https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-01-2015/1xVZ9v.gif">
I have to admit, I expected a lot worse from the style of writing. This was written like some true crime stuff lol
404 don’t miss. Best tech journoing in the biz imho
She could have called in-car support and they could have called the police, if the harassers didn’t fuck off seeing this.
She did, it’s in the article
Only after.
Police in SF aren’t available to just show up with no delay. Too much crime. Source: I live in Oakland and my partner got jacked this year. 911 said fill out an online form.
And even if they come immediately (big doubt), it could be several minutes, just due to traffic. If doing that pisses off these men, it could put her into more danger than doing nothing.
See now if she had a HUMAN driver, this would have turned out alot differently. But no, we gotta remove another career so Corporations can make more money…
Human drivers are well known for never ever harassing women.
Pshh, you need a good driver with a gun, then I’m sure everything will be resolved peacefully
Driving isn’t a job we should be protecting IMO. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying self-driving cars are necessarily the answer either, just that if I had to choose, I’d pick self-driving cars every time over human drivers, provided they’re on well-defined routes with ample testing (like in a city).
We should be solving personal transportation another way, such as:
I guess there was no way to honk?
Waymo honking is only enabled after 10 pm.
Clearly that’s what a human driver would do, but I guess those Rider Support Agents work for free, so why not fire the driver? /s
And then when you have an emergency the response is along the lines of:
“Thank you for requesting to speak with a rider support agent. All agents are currently busy assisting other Waymo customers, but the next available agent will assist you as soon as possible. There are currently 32 other customers in front of you. Thank you for your patience.”
True. The instant response that exists now is only because this is a pilot program and they want to prove that it works. Once it’s normalized they will lay off most of the rider support and fuck you if you have to wait on the line.
I think the idea here is more that there’s one rider support agent per like 100 riders at any time vs one driver per rider
In the past, autonomous vehicle development dwelled on the ethical hypothetical situations like “do you hit an old lady crossing the road in order to avoid crashing into a schoolbus full of children?”, but what about safety hypotheticals? Like, if you were actually driving your vehicle, there are moments when it’s in your best interest to not be at a stop, such as when people are physically surrounding your car and potentially mean to cause you harm, which is extremely common in America. When does the driverless car get you out of a tight spot and run over some carjackers if need be?
Edit: To respond to everyone saying I’m full of shit, and that carjackings aren’t common, there were more than 500 carjackings in NYC alone in 2021. New Orleans had 281 in 2021. 800 carjackings in Philly in 2021. 1800 carjackings in Chicago in 2021. Tell me, is that not enough carjackings to warrant asking my question?
If an AI car ever has to make a decision on who dies, the answer should always be “whoever agreed to the terms and conditions before they got in the vehicle”.
And there it is
This will never be the case. Because nobody will buy an overpriced “yo, if there’s ever any doubt about, like, anything - just put a bullet in my head” machine. So nobody will sell it.
Face it - you have the same thousands of pounds of metal today, and you’re the only one making decisions. You (drivers, as a community) have killed before, for selfish reasons: because you don’t want to die is the least selfish of them. Other hits include “didn’t wanna not get drunk with the homies”, “I really needed to answer that text” and “I have 10 minutes till home but the game starts in 5, it’s my favorite team, I can make it”. And you somehow seem to want non-drivers (passengers of AI cars) to have the same expectation that they will be a victim even when they get a car?
Drivers are so self-centered it’s goddamn ridiculous.
I’m talking about pedestrians, not other drivers.
If autonomous vehicles can’t be trusted not to run people over, then they shouldn’t be allowed to go above like 20mph in a built up area where there’s likely to be people walking about. And frankly neither should human drivers, but good luck not getting them to call it a “war on motorists” if you try.
Ah yes, drivers are self-centered for checks notes not wanting pedestrians to be hit by self-driving cars
Nah man. I’ll rephrase:
Drivers are self-centered because:
I made it easier to understand, hope it helps.
At present most drivers do know better than most driving AIs
Surely you can just take over? You can’t expect the car to run people over for you lol
The Waymo car wouldn’t let the woman take over.
Yeah I misread before I commented, I didn’t know robot taxis were a thing, Jesus…
How the fuck do you figure that’s “extremely common”? You need to spend less time on the Internet my dude …
I’ve provided data for you in my original comment.
It’s definitely not extremely common.
I’ve provided data for you in my original comment.
You guys are talking past one another. It’s extremely common at a population level insofar as its happening literally many times per day at the population level. It is not extremely likely at the individual level because the vehicle miles driven per carjacking is massive with most people never getting car jacked.
Extremely common? Really?
Yes. I’ve provided data for you in my original comment.
The only thing I’d be curious about with these numbers is car jackings vs the amount of cars/drivers on the road. That would give a percentage and let us know how common it is.
And how many of the carjackings were high-value targets like delivery vans, or in sketchy high-crime parts of the city.
500 carjackings in NYC in a year? Oh the humanity.
There’s literally a million cars on the road on any given day just in lower Manhattan.
Get a sense of scale.
10k pedestrians get hit by cars and trucks in NYC every year and you’re worried about the health and safety of 500 carjackers (probably fewer, given potential for repeat offenders). What in the actual fuck?
I suppose they’re extremely common in comparison to other countries. I’ve never heard of them happening in mine since the 90s when we actually had violent crime.
We still have car theft, it’s just that they get stolen while parked.
Extremely common in absolute terms? Hell nah, there are a lot of unpleasant things more likely to happen to you in the US than carjackings.
Just last week I had to run over some mother fuckers
It do be like that sometimes
I can see criminals easily exploiting this default behavior to stop the car and steal from those inside.
Where’s a Johnny cab when you need it, it knows how to deal with criminals.
Pretty simple problem to solve, get a conceal carry permit.
I prefer to reduce demand, instead. Everyday people who feel happy and safe don’t feel the need to be violent.
This is true of everyday people. But a small percentage of people are psychopaths, who are perfectly happy to be violent whenever they can get away with it.
A seriously deprived scenario will make others violent, but there is always a subset that is violent even in comfortable situations.
lemmy is full of sissy pacifists but i upvoted you.
.
.
.
.
How many people have you shot?
I once had someone get in my face and say, “Are you man enough to fight me?” I responded with “I’m man enough to find non-violent solutions to my problems.” Why should someone be proud of the problem-resolution method of choice for 3-year-olds?
there aren’t always non-violent solutions. i accept that reality. it’s nothing to be proud of, but i would be ashamed if i couldn’t deal with that truth.
You’re correct, there aren’t always non-violent solutions, but those are often due to people who insist on engaging in violence, whether it be invading another country or taking offense at someone pulling into their driveway.
Yes. It only takes one party to initiate violence involving two parties.
This is why it is necessary to be prepared for violence even if one never initiates violence.
I’m not sure what your point is. It is completely orthogonal to mine. In the same vein, no, you aren’t responsible for other people’s choices, and yes, rabid dogs (or people who act like them) are unlikely to listen to reason. Neither of those are good reasons to start fights, and that statement neither says that all fights are avoidable or that one mustn’t defend oneself.
Violence is for situations when one’s choice of other resolution methods is gone. Such situations do exist.
Yes, and the vast majority of scenarios where that is the case is where one party made completely unreasonable demands or turned to violence as the first option.
And this is why we have a term called “toxic masculinity”.
When the solution is “Vigilantism” you know the situation is fucked.
That was in response to being robbed.
I think the phrase you’re looking for is “defending yourself”.
I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.
What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.
Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.
Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.
I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?
Pretty much; then get the police to deal with it.
Yeah, not here.
I’ve had shit stolen. The police “handled it” to an extent but we will never get back priceless family heirlooms given to us from my wife’s side of the family. Fuck thieves.
Agreed thieves are terrible.
Not many better options if you are getting robbed though.
I’ll opt for stopping it, given the chance.
So vigilantism then.
If stopping someone in the act of stealing my shit or trying to harm me is vigilantism, then sure.
I’d just like to take a moment to remind you of how this conversation started:
lemmy.ca/comment/11978138
You would kill a person for a thing. Sounds like the mindset of an armed violent thug, only you wait for the excuse to unleash your violence.
You sound like a thief who’s mad.
You sound like a killer awaiting an excuse
By that logic we all are. Your line is just somewhere else.
Actually most people aren’t waiting for an excuse to murder another human. That would undoubtedly be a psychological disorder
You want me to believe there’s no situation in which you would use deadly force?
You’re lying or lack imagination.
Never said that. I’m just not here expressing enthusiasm about being ready at any moment to murder someone over my phone/wallet.
The fucked up part is you honestly seem to see no difference in doing that and killing someone in actual self defense.
Did you not have a gun at the time? Or did your ownership of a gun not prevent the theft?
I wasn’t home…
Well then aren’t you lucky you had a gun to prevent that theft?
I honestly can’t tell if this is sarcasm or if you have reading comprehension problems.
I wasn’t home. There was no possibility for me to prevent this theft, gun or no gun.
If it’s sarcasm meant to show that things can happen even when armed, no shit. If that is meant to show I shouldn’t have one at all, would the counterfactual (situations in which a theft or assault were stopped or prevented) be sufficient to show one should carry?
Dude, you’re the one talking about how guns can stop theft and your example was a theft that you were not able to stop with a gun. That’s not my fault.
If not, what was even the point of the question? I get you thought it was pithy but… It’s just kind of dumb if you won’t allow the counterfactual to support my position.
Yeah, I wouldn’t want to answer that question if I were you either.
Sorry, you being unable to come up with a good example is not my problem, so your question is moot.
No, you don’t want to answer it because you know how easy it is for me to find hundreds of videos online showing exactly what I’m describing and you really don’t want to admit it.
If “your gun didn’t save you in this one instance” means I shouldn’t have one, then the counterfactual should just as easily mean I should. But you’re not interested in applying your logic in both directions because that wouldn’t suit your position.
Then I guess you should have used one of those videos rather than an example where your gun wouldn’t have helped you.
Also, please quote me saying you shouldn’t have a gun, or at the very least implying it.
That was an example of the police not getting my shit back.
In just about every response in this thread you’ve shown you’re not actually here to engage in good faith by being a sarcastic dickhead so I think I’m done with you.
That would be one way to weasel out of your lie that I suggested you shouldn’t have a gun.
Not an especially good way to weasel out of it, but…
Call the police. Are you in physical danger? If not why are you putting yourself in physical danger?
I don’t think I understand your question.
What scenario are you imagining with these questions?
You do what the police do, and provide a proportionate response.
A gun is only to be used if you are in imminent danger of your life. A robbery is arguably not that, unless they’re trying to steal your organs or prostheses.
There’s a reason your average supermarket security guard doesn’t immediately whip out the Mini-Nuke the moment they see a shoplifter.
There’s also something to be said about the place you’re living in, where you’re to be terrified of stabbists and robberers the moment you step out-of-doors. Do you live in a hive of scum and villainy?
There is a solution, it’s called insurance. I know that you wouldn’t get your family heirlooms back, but neither would you being armed but not home.
I know the other guy wouldn’t say it, so I’ll go ahead and do it: you sound like you’re out for revenge, but you don’t know on whom to exact it. I fear that you could end up shooting a porch pirate in the back while claiming self defense.
Then it isn’t exactly a solution, is it? The jewelry probably only would appraise for <$1000 (probably far less). It’s not about the monetary cost.
Yeah…? I don’t get this line of argument. This just in - guns only effective when there’s a human there to operate it. No shit…
You’re simultaneously arguing that guns are overkill to solve theft and that guns don’t solve theft.
The state I live in currently wouldn’t allow for me to use deadly force to protect property. But states I’ve lived in in the past sure would. As of now, I would have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death in order to employ deadly force and that’s the standard I will follow. Just keep in mind that many robberies involve a deadly weapon on the perpetrators side which is an immediate green light on my end.
They’ve taken the mask off and said the quiet part out loud: They’re just out to kill people they think of as less than human.
There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”
I’ve never been in a serious vehicle accident.
Still wear my seat belt though.
“Wearing a seatbelt is the same as walking around with a device that can near instantly kill people.” Is something said by someone living in a dystopia.
It was a preparedness analogy which seems to have gone over your head.
You’ve had a variation on this in just about every response. It’s getting very old. We get it, US bad.
Was my statement wrong in any way?
If it’s getting old stop trying to argue against it by saying the dystopian attitude is necessary.
Do you know how analogies work? Of course the two things I compared are different.
It’s like if I said “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” and you coming along and saying “omg swimming and flying are the same now???/”
I even spelled it out - it’s about preparedness.
That doesn’t answer my question as to if my statement was incorrect.
You’ve made an analogy about preparedness and let the assumption hang that that makes both things equal.
Just like saying “a fish swimming is like a bird flying” isn’t an argument that a bird would be able to fly underwater, saying “I’ve never been in an accident and still wear a seatbelt” is not an argument for “always have a deadly weapon on you when you leave the house” not being evidence of a completely fucked up situation.
No. It doesn’t do that at all. Nothing in my comment should be construed as to equate the wearing of seat belts and the carrying of firearms. They are different things, meant for different purposes, with different consequences for their misuse.
The analogy demonstrated ways in which they are the same - having it and not needing it is usually what happens and needing it and not having it can be very bad.
Edit: Y’all think Eliza Fletcher would have been better off carrying that day?
So completely irrelevant to the topic that “Needing to have a gun on you just to be prepared for your day is fucked up.”
Okay, sure. I wish people didn’t steal, kill, and rape too but it happens. Just the reality.
“murder and rape are a fact of life.”
Sorry, are you implying it isn’t?
Just say what you mean.
Instead of arming civilians for vigilantism pressure should be put on the government to deal with the root causes of criminal behaviour.
As far as I was aware the legal punishment for theft wasn’t the death penalty, but here you are saying a citizen dealing out that punishment without a judge or jury isn’t only acceptable but should be actively encouraged.
Sure, I advocate for that too. Until then…
There’s one weird trick to not being shot for stealing shit.
You’re just trying to deflect from my statement:
The criminal punishment for theft is not the death penalty, and you are actively encouraging vigilantism issuing death sentences without a judge or jury.
I don’t care. Like I said, in some states you can employ deadly force to keep someone from making off with your shit. I do not value those people more than my property. Straight up. I’m not deflecting or side stepping or mincing words. They’re trash and I do not morn them should they be shot and killed during the course of taking things that aren’t theirs.
I would once again like to remind you where this conversation started:
Not only have you shown you lied with your original argument on “self defense”, you’ve also revealed that you are a monstrous person who simply wants the excuse to murder “undesirables”. Dehumanizing others is an action encouraged by terrible people to excuse abhorrent behaviour, and they should not be listened to as their words and arguments are less than worthless.
Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.
A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.
A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.
The dystopian attitude is “you better be ready to severely harm someone at a moment’s notice every day, otherwise you’re just unprepared for day to day life.”
Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.
I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.
I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.
I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.
Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.
I have sympathy for someone who’s actually been a victim of violent crime, and it’s a shame therapy isn’t a more viable option. However, there’s a big difference between
“I was a victim of violent crime and feel more comfortable having a means of protection on me” and
“This might lead to robberies.”
“That’s what guns are for.”
lol the US has the highest death rate from gun violence - it’s literally the #1 killer of children.
which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.
In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.
As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.
If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.
None of that is “defending yourself”.
the act of defending oneself, one’s property, or a close relative
legaldictionary.net/self-defense/
And you understand that reasonable force varies by state, right? I’ve said it multiple times.
I will use the maximum allowed for the state I reside in. I have lived in states which allowed for deadly force to protect property.
Yes, you’ve made it quite clear you are happy to murder “undesirables” on the flimsiest excuse you think you can get away with.
No, its self defense.
In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone. “You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don’t know” is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.
My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I’m not getting into fist fights anymore.
If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.
“Property is more valuable than human lives.”
A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
“The strong should be allowed to do whatever they want to the weak” A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…
You’re the one touting strength through arms here…
And without one, the stronger will always prevail over the weak. I can’t believe I need to spell this out.
Who is “the stronger” in a situation where you have a gun and someone else does not?
Me.
And my wife, and daughter. People that, without the use of arms, will always be the weaker given it’s usually men who commit these crimes.
You’re missing the point - this tool takes physical strength out of the equation for self defense purposes and you’re acting like it’s a bad thing.
Ah, so what you mean is that it’s okay for the strong to take advantage of the weak when you’re the strong one.
Please define “take advantage of” in your comment. The entirety of my comments here have been in a self defense context. I don’t see how my owning and carrying a gun means I’m “taking advantage of” anyone.
Interesting how you want me to define terms but haven’t defined them yourself.
You haven’t defined “the strong” or “the weak” or what you mean by “self-defense.”
Maybe start defining your terms first before you demand it of others.
You’re shitting me, right?
In this thread where I describe my fucked up back, rating from the VA, my inability to win fistfights, my worry about my wife and daughter defending themselves from men. And you can’t figure out what I mean by “strong” and “weak”. Bullshit. But fuck it, let’s do this.
Both of these are used to describe ones physical prowess in relation to the other. They’re relative. Someone “stronger” than me can overpower me through physical means and I would be helpless to defend against it, given no other tools.
I’ll just go with the dictionary on this one:
Now feel free to explain what you mean by “take advantage of” in the context of my using a gun to defend myself.
Edit: I just fucking knew I would go as far as to define these well-known words to get nothing in return. You can tell it was going that way this whole exchange.
Sorry, not good enough definitions.
A starving man on death’s door manages to break into your home to steal a loaf of bread. You have a gun and see him do it.
Who is the strong one and who is the weak one there? Who is acting in self-defense there?
And I am happy to explain that if you shot and killed the man in that situation, you would be taking advantage of their weakness.
Wait, I’m no pro gun person, but like if some fucking random breaks into my house even to steal bread, you can bet your ass I’m threatening them back out with a knife or some shit. How would anyone know that they’re there as a poor person stealing bread and not to mess with your family? I doubt you or anyone else would act differently under that pressure short of being really well trained in conflict diffusion. This whole thing seems super disengenous.
I thought this was about shooting people?
Let me make it clear then, if a gun was around I would threaten them out / shoot them with the gun if they wouldnt leave. Pick your tool and I would at least try to use it. The part of Your strength argument that I don’t think makes sense and isn’t real is that if a poor person breaks into your house that you would allow them to steal from you from a high moral stand point. Further, you would somehow manage some sort of completely calm demeanour because you somehow know that they are someone in need there to steal and not there to hurt you or your family.
Okay, but you’re making a completely different argument than the person I am discussing is making. Especially since you mentioned a knife before. You can chase someone like that out of your home without a gun.
Really, most home invaders can be driven out with a baseball bat. The ones that can’t… I guess be prepared to murder them.
Also, with a bat, you’re less likely to kill a family member you think is a criminal you’re defending yourself from.
If someone is strong enough to break down my door even when they’re starving, I’m gunning them down and asking questions later.
Like your logic doesn’t add up here at all. “If someone is extremely weak but also strong enough to forcibly enter your home”
Nah
You know there are these things called ‘windows’ that you can break easily and climb through, yes?
Also, I thought you were done talking to me. Make up your mind.
I repeat my point: if someone is trying to break in my window- I’m shooting first and asking questions later
Which makes them the weak one and your claim of self-defense a spurious one. You don’t actually know if you’re in danger.
Holy fuck you’re not thinking at all? If someone is breaking into your home, you’re in danger.
Or do you want everyone to be obligated to go over and check on the well being of the person first?
“Hey I know you’re busy breaking into my home for an unknown reason, do you need a hand? Some water? Maybe a tic tac? You know what, let me just get that window for you”
No that’s fucking stupid. You have very very obviously lived an extremely sheltered life where you don’t have to worry about your own protection
Jesus you’re pointlessly obtuse
See, the difference between you and me is that you can’t envision “self defense” beyond committing murder in this situation and I can. Many, many other options.
No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.
Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.
I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.
And yet they said they would shoot a starving person breaking into their home to steal a loaf of bread. That doesn’t sound like ‘equally strong’ to me.
Try “A government should take care of its citizens.”
I truly hope the police reach you in time, every time.
People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.
Uh, that’s your attitude Mr. “Carry a gun so you can kill whoever bothers you”.
Uh, no. There are quite a lot of laws governing when deadly force is allowed which vary by country and state. I’m quite sure none of them allow it when someone “bothers you”.
There’s also laws governing what constitutes theft. Your entire argument about needing a gun is dependent on people not following the law.
Yeah the people stealing shit are… different people and not me?
What is your point?
The people with guns are different people and not me. Why should I trust them?
I mean, I don’t require your trust.
But consider the consequences if I misuse my gun. They’re quite a lot more serious than those caught stealing.
I agree with you completely.
I mean yeah. The thing about carrying a gun gun is that if you use it, you’re going to get arrested, probably. Even if it’s self defense.
Oh no, I meant the consequences for other people when he misuses his gun are much more severe than the consequences for other people if someone steals from them.
Well he has a VA rating. Turning human bodies into rotting meat piles is his way of life.
There are a lot of disingenuous replies in this comment section but I’ll just go on explaining as if you actually don’t understand.
The rating comment was meant to demonstrate that I am not at my peak physical condition and am more vulnerable than my outward appearance portrays.
What I mean is you participated in the military, therefore more likely to have skewed values in favour of “extended” srlf defense. Because the whole military justifies its endless butchery on rights of self defense and their ceaseless expansion.
You’re talking about things like it’s obvious they are just important as lives. Fucking disgusting
You’re expecting me to value people who steal shit.
And before this goes in a disingenuous direction, no, I don’t mean stealing bread from a damn grocery store.
I’m expecting you to not be a fucking enraged ape
Fascism is so normalized :(
Fascism is when you don’t let people steal your stuff.
The word has been devalued on Lemmy but this is a new low.
I was referring to summary execution of a thief being a good thing.
No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.
I have no problems with people carrying mace for self defense. There are highly effective less lethal options.
Especially when it causes law enforcement to become so paranoid of the citizens they’re ostensibly meant to protect, that a mere hailstone landing on the car roof immediately causes them to believe they’re being fired upon.
That just sounds like a terrible time for everyone involved.
At that point, you’re basically turning the constabulary into soldiers.
If citizens have a “Constitutional Right” to have a gun, why does exercising the right so often result in law enforcement killing them without a trial?
ah, the American solution
in a country that has more firearms than people, certainly adding MORE firearms will resolve these issues!
Would you rather be reading a story about how this woman was arrested for murder? Just because these men were being pigs doesn’t mean you get to kill them…
Well not if you aren’t armed. If you are armed, you do get to kill people.
An armed society is a polite society.
Polite society my ass. I’ve owned guns for over 15 years and never has a gun de-escalated a situation. People who carry in public are way more likely to kill someone and to get themselves killed. Guns cause aggressiveness far more often.
The woman was never in danger, if she pulled a gun, her, the harrassers, and all other bystanders would have been in danger.
I suppose you might get to kill people but that doesn’t mean that the law is going to be ok with that. Proportionality of force is a thing. Stand your ground states are doing their best to change that, but that’s a very mixed bag.
If you shoot and kill someone for blocking your waymo and being a creep, in most places you are going to have to convince a district attorney and a jury that you were justified in ending their life. Even if you do that and escape criminal liability, you’ll then have to convince more people not to hold you liable in civil court.
Sounds pretty cool to go “I got a shooty bang bang so if I feel threatened in any way I can come out blasting.” It is true in the moment, but if you place any value on your future liberty, money, and time you might want to consider the ramifications of killing another human being.
Finally, even if society decides you shouldn’t face any criminal or civil penalty for killing someone, you will have to face yourself. Sitting behind a keyboard it sounds badass to shoot someone that’s pissing you off. In the moment you will probably feel justified. Many a young man sent to war or employed as a police officer didn’t think that taking a life would change them, only to find the reality of taking a life is not what the action movies promised. Self doubt, self loathing, ptsd, depression, these are all common reactions to reckoning with the fact that you are the cause of another persons death.
It is hard to feel like a righteous badass as you watch a grieving widow mourn someone that may have even done something stupid or wrong, knowing that their child has no father now and their wife no partner. Are these people jerks and creeps, sure, is the punishment for being a jerk or creep death, rarely. It is a heavy burden to carry to end another.
What a disgusting falsehood
Oops now everyone got guns and you get killed by some random. I’m sure judge dredd will save you. Try being more violent, violence solves all problem. It’s self defense that mean it’s right. Always remember, dead bodies tell no tales. Aim for the center of mass and always empty the mag to make sure there is only your side of the story left.
Actually increasing the level of possible violence (and also the uncertainty of violent outcomes) does lead to a reduction in aggression. You have to be willing to think it through though.
“What if he has a gun”
Thieves in your area are now packing, enjoy the upgrade on unpredictable violence
Try faster violence escalation next for extra spicy neighborhoods
Guns are for pussies carry a Dane axe like a respectable person.
I dont know if this is even a joke on my part.
Carry a large warhammer, like Thor.
I wouldnt call Mjölnir large, girthy is a better term. But you could be mixing it up with Sigmar and Gahl maraz.
Larger than your average claw hammer or ball peen, at least.
It was relatively average for its time, sadly the evolution of the hammer is heavily influenced by neoteny.
Did the lady have 5 kids to feed?
She did have 3 boobs.
I doubt choosing to stick up a vehicle covered in cameras with someone who likely isn’t even carrying cash is anyone’s idea of a good payoff.
idk i think plenty of people carry expensive stuff on them
what a thief could actually get for them is another matter but clearly that doesnt stop them from trying
The doors aren’t going to open from the outside, and authorities would be alerted immediately. Breaking the glass on a car window or holding people up at gun point… Yeah. Easier in the parking lot of any gas station, grocery store, neighborhood, Walmart, Mall, Jewelry store, movie theater. Wherever really. The people can get out of the car in an emergency just like any other car. Running someone down with a car is not the answer to many situations.
Affluent people taking a driverless car from the shopping district would absolutely be targets.
Put yourself in a drug addicts shoes, or just a thief’s shoes. How would you make this work?
It doesnt take much creativity, and the people who would do this type of thing are not known to be short on creativity.
So you think they were in life threatenng danger?
In this example? We know they weren’t, but not until they left.
This is where you carry a window spike and smash and grab. Why make it so much more complicated?
Everyone is a criminal
Or a Delamain.
Or MagnaVolt.
Only if you upgrade to the Excelsior package
My car isn’t driverless, but I as the driver have less control than ever before.
It’s an EV, and it will not shift to drive or reverse if the charging cable is attached.
Great for preventing me from destroying a charger. Terrible for getting away from someone trying to mug me.
Far too much of the safety features these days assume an environment in which all harm is accidental. This comes at the cost of safety in environments where someone is trying to harm another person.
You don’t complain about having to open your door or start the engine when escaping a threat.
Having to unplug a cable during a very specific, imagined threat seems like a niche problem.
The difference being that not being able to start the motor with the door open is only a problem if the driver was being attacked in a parking lot.
It’s not too big of a leap to imagine a world where a person could immobilize a car at a red light with the plug cut off from a public charger. Wall up to a stopped car, open the hatch (maybe it needs a pry bar) and put the dummy plug in. Now the car is immobilized. Smash the driver side window and they’re in business.
Sure, there are some safeguards that can be added like requiring a current to immobilize the vehicle, but it’s far from the simplest or safest answer. Car manufacturers need to stop putting in hard limits and just use alarms instead. I bought a new Subaru that has collision detection standard. The hedge next to my driveway was overgrown, but I drove right through it. The car sounded an alarm and flashed a bunch of lights, but it didn’t engage the brakes, I was able to blast through an obstacle that I knew was minor even though the car thought it was a threat. If a manufacturer feels compelled to add a safety system, it’s possible to do so without taking control away from the driver.
Sounds like a lot of hassle. If they want to immoblise a self driving car they just stand in front of it.
Why carry a plug cut off from a public charger when you can just stab the tyres?
Use the pry bar to smash the window and open the door. Not open the charging port.
It’s about hitting electric cars, self driving or otherwise.
Cars can still move with punctured tires, at least far enough that a would-be robber or carjacker could get dragged a good distance.
You smash the window and open the door. Now the panicked driver is speeding away, leaving you high and dry or dragging you along.
Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal’s wet dream. It’s incumbent on car manufacturers to consider that while implementing safety features.
It’s been a reality for over a decade.
wired.com/…/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
My point is that plugging in a charging cable is way down the list of attacker tools.
Sure, but it’s on the list.
If it saves even one human life it’s worth switching to an alarm instead of immobilization, even if that means hundreds of breakaway cables get snapped by morons driving away from chargers.
What if hundreds of lives are lost due to broken cables snapped by morons driving away from chargers?
How the fuck do you think gas pumps work?
I’m done feeding the trolls.
So we are agreed. Immobilize vehicles both when they are charging and refuelling.
Gas pumps are something you’re doing “right now”, so you ought to remember. Vs a charging cable s something you plugged in last night and left that way. Much easier to forget.
You’re very unlikely to change drivers at a gas pump so you probably won’t forget. Vs a charging cable is something your spouse may or may not have plugged in last night, and they’re not necessarily there to remember.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a gas pump with trigger lock. You have to be actively involved with pumping gas, holding it the whole time, so unlikely to forget
How would they open the charge port door? I can still imagine it because I have a good imagination but it’s just not going to happen.
Is someone really going to go through the trouble of carrying a cut off cable and a piece of electronics to open the charge port, and have time to walk up to the car click to open, wait for the door to open and insert the cable? There are faster and easier ways to immobilize a car, why would anyone make it so complicated?
And that assumes that safety feature is still engaged when you’re already driving
Pry bar to open the hatch, like I said.
And yes, today people are walking around with angle grinders to chop off catalytic converters.
Not at a stop light, nor as a way to immobilize you. While they can steal your catalytic converter surprisingly quickly, they’ll look for a minute or two of quiet time to slide under your car.
I think it is. I’d like to see at least one documented case of this happening before people start demanding that cars be able to move while plugged in. Plus, in the very scenario you describe, the car would still be able to move, no? Attaching a charger does nothing unless you’re changing to parked at every red light.
The only time you’d need to drive away while charging is if the attacker walks up while you’re sitting in your parked car, or kindly decides to let you get in before doing anything.
I can’t find a single instance of someone being unable to escape because of their charger, so maybe let’s worry about it if it ever becomes a problem.
Additionally: if you’re at a gas station filling an ICE vehicle and you get mugged, and you panic and peel out, there’s gas going everywhere, plenty of potential ignition sources etc.
The argument “I have more control and agency therefore I am quantifiably safer” can fuck alllllll the way off. Safety regulations are written in blood.
This is the seatbelt argument all over again. The safety features protect people in the majority of scenarios. While there may be scenarios where it does more harm than good, they are rare. You’re much safer with the safety feature.
I don’t think there is a car where the seat belt is tied to anything besides a little notification beep. Seems like a different situation if the “safety” feature dictates how the car is used.
Seatbelts are legally mandated. When that was going through, some people argued against that requirement on the grounds that there edge cases where it dies more harm than good.
Just like the case here, those edge cases are vanishingly rare.
Note: my car won’t move without a seatbelt, but it’s an EV so furthers the argument that EVs are taking control from the driver.
Fair point then about the arguement around safety. For me the bigger issue is control. Cars with kill switches and conditions to use is a slippery slope. Just look at what’s happened with software and media. Don’t want to have to pirate my car or load custom firmware so I can use it as I want.
Thank God for cars. Imagine riding public transport and getting felt up/robbed/harassed. Glad we can all agree on this Lemmy 👍
Obviously this is the worst of both worlds, but it’s a weird flex to support cars.
In public the group of people watching and in close proximity prevents a lot of crime. Criminals feel shame too and at the very least want to prolong their ability to continue to make money how they do.
A single person in a car is vulnerable simply because they are alone. They think the car protects them but its trivial to smash a window and pull someone out.
Give it a couple of years they’ll legalise running down pedestrians for self drive cars. Can’t have these jackalopes affecting the bottom line
This made me wonder though…the car obviously has cameras on the outside, and there’s also a way to communicate with the support team from inside…so is it a stretch to think that these cars could be auto-recording everything that’s happening inside the car?
Should we - as riders - have any expectation of privacy in a car with no driver?
No, but then the same is true of taxis and Ubers. They all have some kind of recording equipment in them for ensuring safety and cover in case someone claims something.
You should never expect privacy in someone else’s car.
Okay, this really seems more like a case of sexual harassment, rather than harassment of Waymo customers, which was my first suspicion. Had it been the latter as part of a politically motivated action against the company I might have had a lot more sympathy, but this is disgusting…
You saw the fedora and thought it was anything but sexual harassment? LMAO
I saw “driverless waymo” in the title.
Also: Prejudice against people wearing fedoras is still prejudice and thus not really a great thing to have. One of my best friends also likes to wear a hat at times (not sure if it counts as a fedora, I know very little about heads) and is one of the sweetest people I know.
I hate the reputation fedoras have because I happen to look damn good in a fedora.
Wear one then. Fuck all the haters.
You’re right. These days, I dress too sloppily for one, but back when I didn’t, I was self-conscious about it. I probably wouldn’t be now, but that’s also the reason I don’t really care that I wear T-shirts all the time.
I still hate it that it has that reputation.
It was a joke. Sorry.
Yeah, I’m sure the asshole thought he was being funny ….
I’d put it somewhere north of harassment since they physically restricted her, but less than the direct threat that some people think
That’s gotta be the cyberpunkiest thing I’ve read in a while.
The victim’s statement here ends with an oddly volunteered tangent and specific praise of driverless vehicles, before it finally takes an eerie turn in the last sentence…
"…With that said, I think the Human Factor in this issue is going to be a lot harder to solve than anything else.” …FREEZE CITIZEN!
I do hope she’s okay, and those two folks seem to be clowns, but this thing also all reads as likely guerilla marketing for Waymo - who the article informs me, in a very capitalism-friendly turn of events, that they now have their service open to the public in 3 cities, cars have a safety feature that checked in with her multiple times and they “rewarded” her with an extra ride. It’s a light enough “crime”, with a very engineered feeling and enough to feel “real” while providing ready fodder for morning radio talk shows, Jimmy Fallon and good morning America talking heads to drone on about this morning across America as time filler that quietly advertises waymo “saving” a person from the scary outside world.
Note: Also, was very funny that throughout drafting my comment here “waymo” was constantly being autocorrected to “say no” :)
The fedora tipping is too funny, seeing it from outside the situation, but she certainly was very scared because it’s such a bizarre event.
Fedora tipping doesn’t seem particularly aggressive.
Sure, but preventing the car from moving by standing in front of it could be considered aggressive, especially when they knew she had pretty much no other option (I guess aside from getting out?).
I can certainly understand why a passenger in an autonomous vehicle may feel threatened whatever the man was doing.
Some guys were annoying/sexist to her while she participated in a public menace and I guess this is supposed to mean something to me beyond “stay away from California”
California is awesome.
Nah, California sucks, there’s way too much traffic, and too many NIMBYs to solve the traffic problems.
Weather is nice, but that’s not enough to get me to move there. I have family there, so I visit fairly often, but I honestly don’t really enjoy being there. They have some gorgeous national parks though, so it’s worth a visit for that.
Riding in a self-driving car isn’t illegal in California.
Street Harassment is: stopstreetharassment.org/…/SSH-KYR-California.pdf
Says a lot about you that you think riding in a Waymo means you’re fair game for sexual harasment. You’re just looking for excuses for it, huh?
thanks for your contributions to artless rhetoric
Wtf is that even supposed to mean? Fuck off.
Sorry, here’s plainer language. Driverless cars are a public menace. People who hail them contribute to the acceptance of that public menace. As a reader, I do not find myself compelled to sympathy for your article’s protagonist. I stay away from places like California’s metro areas, because I do not want to participate in social experiments about me being run over by driverless vehicles.
I hope this has clarified my meaning for you and a lighthearted fuck you right back for posting this propaganda, you corpo-brained parrot.
we need more men willing to stand up for women.
archive.is/XOxY2
I love how 404 Media call out other bad practices on the web, but at the end of the day they still want you to sign up and give them your metadata.
How are they getting my metadata?
The whole article is just a description of these tweets: nitter.privacydev.net/…/1840759345354809414
And they probably got upset when women chose the bear.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, I had the same thought
Because that question was/is blatantly sexist.
Or also put forth the idea that all men, and all would be men, are dangerous predators, for no other reason than being a man. And that’s dangerous thinking.
The question isn’t sexist, it’s emotionally driven, and dismissing it outright is narrow minded. That is what I think is dangerous.
The truth is the question reveals that to most women asked the question, men are unpredictable, and women have to navigate the world that way.
A bear is a bear, it’s always going to do what it does, and you can work around that. Leave it alone and it will leave you alone, even if you have to work hard to avoid it. If you disturb it, it will kill you. It’s predictable.
Men on the other hand are very likely to respect women, maybe even work together. However, there is the small, small, SMALL chance that they will be a terrible person. They could attack, abuse, sexually assault, straight up rape, or even kill the woman; or they could do a disgusting combination of those.
The true root of the question isn’t “do you think a random man is more dangerous than a wild animal?” Of course not.
The real question being put on a social scale is “what’s more predictably dangerous, a random man, or a wild animal?” And the fact that women almost unanimously have the same answer should be commentary enough on how they have to live their lives.
Best description of this I’ve read, thank you. It’s not a question about men directly, it’s a question about how women have to navigate a world with a small percentage of men that will hurt them given the opportunity.
Tbf a friend had to explain it to me, when the debate went viral at first I was mainly confused. I’m sure when I was younger I would have been one of the men with delicate egos that would find it irrational to not choose a man. It’s actually more thought out and rational when women say bear.
Here’s a bear, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G1aHkLHQ2I just leave it alone and it’ll leave you alone is incorrect. And dangerous advice. Bears are unpredictable wild animals.
So women, are exempt, women are absolutely predictable? Cool. Totally NOT sexist. Also, hot take, but what’s your stand on trans-men/women?.. Are they predicable or not?
You also seem to imply that women aren’t likely to abuse, sexually assault, straight up rape, or even kill ? Shit, i must have had bad luck, because I’ve been physically assaulted by most of the women I’ve dated, raped by one, and I’ve known countless women who’d joke directly to me “if he gets hard, he wants it… can’t rape the willing”. Cool, good to know I’ve just had bad luck…
And sorry, but people asked a question on the internet, where people chase trends and fades like mad… that’s the data source. Unreliable.
It’s sexist. I’ve proven, right there it’s sexist. Potentially, transphobic. It’s wrapped in false information, a false narrative. And then twisted at the end to try to sound like it’s not, and it comes very much across like far-right PR spin.
That bear didn’t do anything that was unpredictable, it did what a bear does. I never said a bear wouldn’t maul you, treat it as a bear.
I didn’t say women aren’t unpredictable, that’s a weird take at best, and an argument on a logical fallacy at worst.
I didn’t imply that women can’t be just as evil as men, they absolutely can, because they’re human beings. Same for anybody who’s non-binary, they’re just humans.
I’m sorry that happened to you, nobody deserves abuse.
I don’t understand what you mean by data source. It was an internet trend and some men, not all, got really pissy that some women, not all, chose bear instead of man. A friend explained to me why they might do that and it makes sense, at the end of the day it’s people sharing their opinions, and sometimes trying to understand others opinions helps us understand them better.
I don’t see how it’s sexist, I see no proof, only your opinion based on talking points. Same goes for it being transphobic, it doesn’t make sense to me, please clarify.
If anything this is just a conversation, not proof, your word is worth just as much as mine. We’re just two people sharing our opinions, that’s it.
.
No, these are men, and the men are not alright…
I think you missed the point
Nope they’re boys with pubes. Pubes don’t make you a man, strength of character does.
JFC, they don’t cease to be men because they’re assholes. Stop pretending that ‘men’ can’t do anything wrong. There is no man card and men are a diverse group of people.
.
Bollocks. Plenty of men do these things, it doesn’t make them boys.
.
Grown adults behave this way all the time, and plenty of them know better, they just dont care. You are being absurd.
.
Why the need to stop seeing them as men? Why the need to redefine men behaving badly as boys? It seems like you can’t accept that some men behave this way so you want to pretend they’re not really men.
.
I cannot understand what you are saying. Goodnight.
.
There’s enough footage etc I guess for them to be identified and arrested, wonder if that’s happening
Depending on where this happened this could be tried as sexual assault.
Not something you want on your criminal record.
This is why driverless cars are a bad idea, they assume that everything will work as intended and everyone will play by the rules.
You need a human to make a snap decision in cases like these.
I hope these men are arrested for sexual solicitation via coercion (could be tried as attempted rape in the right state), disrupting traffic, sexual harassment, public disturbance. Fuck em, or better yet, don’t fuck em, they’re unfuck worthy.
What were these morons thinking? I’m sex positive as hell, I’m all for bringing back the free love of the 70’s and the LSD of the 60’s, but not like this, never anything like this… Hypothetically bro say you do get her number this way?
The fuck happens next?
“Hey remember me, I’m the dipshit who pressured you into giving me this number by trapping you in your car via exploitation of its safety features? So I’ll pick you up at 7 for a romantic candlelit dinner and afterwards we could go see a movi…” click “Hello? Damn, friendzoned again.”
Let’s not go too far overboard. These guys are assholes who deserve some consequences. However the article didn’t include anything that looked like attempted rape, nothing violent, no direct threat of harm (indirect, maybe). Let’s try to be proportional here
Definitely a false imprisonment charge though
I guess I missed the part where you’re not free to literally get out of the car and leave?
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.sdf.org/pictrs/image/1129e476-a692-453a-9337-515ff78c9d77.png">
Edit: the two guys definitely deserve harassment and disturbing the peace charges.
If you’re a female, you are going to get out of the car to get in the street and hang out with these 2 males harassing you on the street? She’s definitely safer in the car. The 2 males are keeping her prisoner in the car against her will. the car cannot leave, and she cannot get out.
Na driverless cars are the future and tens of thousands of people will be saved from car accident deaths per year once most cars are automated. And this may happen in my lifetime which is cool.
You have a bad take imo.
And it only takes one driverless car having a bug or some kind of user error to fuck it up for every body.
A man can notice a mistake and correct it, a machine will continue as if everything is fine.
I’m just telling you how it is, people’s feelings on this won’t stop the march of progress. Machines will take over most driving tasks, it’s inevitable.
“A man can notice a mistake and correct it, a machine will continue as if everything is fine.” Even if this is 100% true you already say yourself that machine driving will still be safer “user error to fuck it up for every body.” User error will 100% be why autonomous vehicles will be overall significantly safer to use and be around vs manual driving vehicles.
Again, machines don’t realize a mistake has been made, people do
Arguably incorrect statement from you, and either way humans already make more mistakes, fatal mistakes, compared to a full self driving car system like Waymo.
Getting a ride in an autonomous Waymo is safer than an Uber.
Driverless cars can work if enough vehicles are replaced with them. I agree that a few driverless cars in a sea of regular drivers is not optimal though.
A few years back at the height of driverless car mania, I was feeling cynical toward my fellow human beings ……
It’ll be a bonanza for the assholes of the world when we’re mostly self-driving vehicles. Imagine being able to cut anyone off in safety and with no consequences. Imagine driving as aggressively as you want as other cars get out of your way. Imagine being able to drive like in an action movie with the confidence that everyone will just get out of your way. Imagine that feeling of power and importance as you own the road , in your sad pathetic life
While scary, I’m left kinda impressed by Waymo’s support.
100% that is brilliant levels of support.