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.
They have a button on the center-front thingy but it’s not labeled panic or anything.
They do, she only used it after they were gone.
“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.”
they should have [thing that already exists]
Nobody reads the article though…
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…
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.
It’s blocked for me unless i want to sign up. And I don’t for one article.
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
What are you going on about? Have you ever ridden in one of these?
They do have these buttons…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Sure, there are some states that let you mag dump through your front door if someone rings the doorbell
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.
probably
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 are in literal, actual mortal danger you are generally allowed to escape with the goal of escape. Especially relevant where waymo operates.
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.
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.
I’m hitting them. I don’t know their intentions. But my intent would be to get away however I can.
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.
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.
Considering the length of your comment, you could have started by reading the article.
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.
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.
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…
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
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
“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.
100% that is brilliant levels of support.
Waymo should provide a loaded shotgun in every car. It’s America, after all.
/s
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?
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.
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.
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
This is where you carry a window spike and smash and grab. Why make it so much more complicated?
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.
Where’s a Johnny cab when you need it
Or a Delamain.
Only if you upgrade to the Excelsior package
Or MagnaVolt.
Did the lady have 5 kids to feed?
She did have 3 boobs.
Everyone is a criminal
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
Being able to completely immobilize a vehicle while keeping it intact is a criminal’s wet dream.
It’s been a reality for over a decade.
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/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.
-
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.
It’s not too big of a leap
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.
Pretty simple problem to solve, get a conceal carry permit.
ah, the American solution
in a country that has more firearms than people, certainly adding MORE firearms will resolve these issues!
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
How many people have you shot?
And this is why we have a term called “toxic masculinity”.
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.
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.
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.
What a disgusting falsehood
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I don’t live in a 3rd world country
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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…
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.
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.
we need more men willing to stand up for women.
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.
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.
Riding in a self-driving car isn’t illegal in California.
Street Harassment is: https://stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/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
literally tipped a fedora
That’s a trilby, not a fedora. Narrow brim.
Ultraviolence anyone?
Ackshully, that’s a jackdaw. Wait, where am I?
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.
The official hat of “females always pick the chads, even though I dress better than all these normies!”
They are both super fucking cool and appropriate to wear with any outfit, so it doesn’t matter.
Ehhhh…
The hat doesn’t make it worse.
Technically correct, the best kind of correct!
Unless you want people to like you!
This is the internet, let’s be real here, nobody expects anyone to like them.
That’s gotta be the cyberpunkiest thing I’ve read in a while.
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.
Here’s a bear, https://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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
