# Dispute over vomit led to shooting by Uber driver



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

https://www.abqjournal.com/1321601/dispute-over-vomit-led-to-shooting-by-uber-driver.html
*BY ELISE KAPLAN / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER

Published: Wednesday, May 29th, 2019 at 7:12pm
Updated: Wednesday, May 29th, 2019 at 9:39pm*









Police say Uber driver Clayton Benedict shot and killed a passenger on the side of Interstate 25 near Montaño after an argument on March 17. Benedict has not been charged.( Adolphe Pierre-Louis/Journal)
_Copyright © 2019 Albuquerque Journal_

"A large amount of vomit" in the back seat of an Uber vehicle and an argument over a "clean-up fee."
This is what court documents indicate led to a ride-share driver shooting and killing a passenger by the side of Interstate 25 on St. Patrick's Day.
https://www.abqjournal.com/1321601/link
James Porter, a 27-year-old who worked for Hewlett-Packard in Rio Rancho, died at the scene.








James Porter, 27

The driver, Clayton Benedict, has not been charged. He declined to comment for this story.
Michael Patrick, a spokesman for the District Attorney's Office, said the case was submitted to the DA late last week.
"Prosecutors are currently going over hundreds of documents and videos," Patrick said. "A charging decision could come sometime in the next few weeks."
Gilbert Gallegos, a spokesman for the Albuquerque Police Department, said it's still considered an open investigation and police are working with the DA's office.
APD's homicide detectives have served a search warrant on Uber asking for Benedict's account information, including his trips for the day, pickup times and information that indicated a ride request was accepted. The warrant was executed Tuesday.
According to the search warrant affidavit, on the evening of March 17 Benedict picked up Porter and his friend from the Salt Yard bar on Osuna near San Mateo NE.
The friend, Jonathan Reyes, later told police the two had been at the bar since 2 p.m. and although he typically doesn't drink, that day he had six or seven drinks.
ADV

Benedict - who had been driving for Uber for the past year and a half - told detectives they were traveling south on I-25 when Reyes vomited in the back seat.
"At this point the other passenger and Clayton start to go back and forth about a potential 'clean-up fee,'" the detective wrote in the affidavit. "James is the male arguing/pleading with Clayton not to charge him for a 'clean-up fee.'"
That's when Benedict said he pulled over just south of the Montaño exit and asked the men to get out of the car. He said he ended the ride and gave Porter a review of "one star."
He said Porter slammed the door.
"Clayton opens his driver door and steps out stating 'hey man, don't slam my door,'" the detective wrote in the affidavit. "James walks around the car and starts to yell at Clayton; he flips his shoes off, throws his hat down and hurls his sunglasses at Clayton. At this time Clayton pulls his handgun from his holster and tells James 'to stop, back up.'"
Benedict said Porter continued to yell at him, saying, "You're not going to shoot me," and began running toward traffic.
He said he backed away from Porter and then Porter walked toward the open driver's side door and said something like "well if you're not going to shoot me, I (am) going to run you over with your own car."
Benedict said he fired "an unknown amount of rounds" toward Porter's "center mass" and Porter fell to the ground.

Shortly after that, a little before 6 p.m., police arrived.
Six casings were found scattered on the ground near the driver's side door and a black handgun lay several feet away.
Porter was dead - with two gunshot wounds under his left armpit - and Reyes was kneeling next to him.
Reyes told detectives he didn't remember anything after getting into the car and had only vague memories of the officers taking his clothes and driving him to police headquarters. Reyes could not be reached for comment.
"Jonathan had no recollection of the incident involving James," a detective wrote in the affidavit. "Jonathan did not know that there had been an altercation. Jonathan was in complete shock when he was informed of the news that James had been killed."
Following his interview, Benedict was released from police custody while detectives continued the investigation.
Two and a half weeks later, in early April, Porter's estate filed a civil lawsuit against Uber and Benedict alleging the company was negligent in the hiring, retaining and supervising of the driver. The lawsuit is pending.
In response to questions about whether Benedict still works for the company, an Uber spokesman said, "He does not have access to the app."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

wait for uber to hit em with the arbitration clause and then just sit on it for years like they do for driver requests for arbitration


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

Yeah $150 is a little steep for a minor cleanup.


----------



## easyrider2020 (May 21, 2019)

1.5xorbust said:


> Yeah $150 is a little steep for a minor cleanup.


and at least an entire shift off. stay home if you cant handle your liquor in public

if someone threw up in my car id charge 500

hes where he belongs & left the fee to his relatives


----------



## jlong105 (Sep 15, 2017)

Two and a half weeks later, in early April, Porter’s estate filed a civil lawsuit against Uber and Benedict alleging the company was negligent in the hiring, retaining and supervising of the driver. The lawsuit is pending.
In response to questions about whether Benedict still works for the company, an Uber spokesman said, “He does not have access to the app.” 

So much ignorance in the last few lines. Uber does not hire nor supervise the independent contractors they do business with. They have removed his access which equals the same as firing. But they do not have authority to fire him.


----------



## Don'tchasethesurge (Dec 27, 2016)

Well with Uber new receipt policy for clean up... this is how we gonna have to handle clean up fee.


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

If a drunk said they were going to run me over with my own car, as they're getting into my car, wouldn't that become self defense?

I wonder if there's a dashcam.


----------



## TampaGuy (Feb 18, 2019)

I’ll deduct the cost of my handgun now. Seems that it needed when driving rideshare.


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

This should be the standard penalty for pukers.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

The family is gonna sue for a settlement no matter what happened.

The driver was within the law to shoot if his story is true however his main concern is that he got out the car in the first place to argue about a slammed door.

Gun holders should do their upmost to deescalate a situation before resorting to gun violence.


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

> Porter slammed the door.
> "Clayton opens his driver door and steps out stating 'hey man, don't slam my door,'"


This is where Clayton screwed up. He should have just drove off.

Never argue with drunks.


----------



## Don'tchasethesurge (Dec 27, 2016)

VanGuy said:


> If a drunk said they were going to run me over with my own car, as they're getting into my car, wouldn't that become self defense?
> 
> I wonder if there's a dashcam.


Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?


----------



## losiglow (Dec 4, 2018)

Good thing he shot the pax. Otherwise the pax would have given him a 1 star. And probably not tipped.


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?





> Six casings were found scattered on the ground near the driver's side door and a black handgun lay several feet away.
> Porter was dead - with two gunshot wounds under his left armpit - and Reyes was kneeling next to him.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?


Whenever you fire a gun at someone it is to kill.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Carry a gun and automatically deactivated, TOS agreement.


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

Not a very good shot if he's close enough that the casings were near the driver's side door, which the passenger was trying to enter, and only 2/6 center mass attempts hit and just barely.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> The family is gonna sue for a settlement no matter what happened.
> 
> The driver was within the law to shoot if his story is true however his main concern is that he got out the car in the first place to argue about a slammed door.
> 
> Gun holders should do their upmost to deescalate a situation before resorting to gun violence.


This. If the events unfolded as described here, the driver definitely escalated the situation by exiting the vehicle and drawing his firearm. However, once the passenger attempted to hijack the vehicle with expressed intent to commit manslaughter the driver had every right to eliminate the threat with deadly force. In either case I'm not familiar with Colorado law so I don't know exactly what he could possibly be charged with and how likely he could he convicted.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

RDWRER said:


> This. If the events unfolded as described here, the driver definitely escalated the situation by exiting the vehicle and drawing his firearm. However, once the passenger attempted to hijack the vehicle with expressed intent to commit manslaughter the driver had every right to eliminate the threat with deadly force. In either case I'm not familiar with Colorado law so I don't know exactly what he could possibly be charged with and how likely he could he convicted.


Yes state and local law will dictate this. Too much gray area here. Hell this may boil down to the active DA or judge.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

Let this be a lesson to all you pukers out there. You puke, you pay. Simple as that.


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?


There is no such thing as shooting to incapacitate. A good shooter aims for 3 things.

Head. Instant death.

Spine. Instant death, permanent paralysis at best.

Heart. Instant death. Except for this heartless sob's


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

KevinH said:


> https://www.abqjournal.com/1321601/dispute-over-vomit-led-to-shooting-by-uber-driver.html
> *BY ELISE KAPLAN / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
> 
> Published: Wednesday, May 29th, 2019 at 7:12pm
> ...


Drivers - do _not_ shoot your pax to death. Chances of getting a tip are slim enough as it is.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

VanGuy said:


> If a drunk said they were going to run me over with my own car, as they're getting into my car, wouldn't that become self defense?
> 
> I wonder if there's a dashcam.


I'm guessing that's why charges have not been filed. If the story is as told then that would be self defense.

However the driver should never have got out of the car. Of course the door will be slammed if you kick someone out. At that point just leave. He escalated. Then he pulled a gun over sunglasses thrown at him?

Idiots all around in this story. And the friend was obviously VERY drunk as he remembers nothing. Or is lying.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

U/L guy said:


> Carry a gun and automatically deactivated, TOS agreement.


Only if you get caught.

I'd rather risk deactivation for protecting myself than end up dead because I was complying with Uber rules.


----------



## TampaGuy (Feb 18, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Drivers - do _not_ shoot your pax to death. Chances of getting a tip are slim enough as it is.


I heard you can shoot pax if your are Diamond!


----------



## wicked (Sep 24, 2017)

jlong105 said:


> (...) alleging the company was negligent in the hiring, retaining and supervising of the driver.


The public doesn't even understand how unsecure Rideshare is. If the driver can prove that the deceased was walking toward the car AND made that specific threat he has a case for self defense.

He is done with Rideshare and probably any gainful employment for the rest of his life. He demonstrated an extreme lack of ability to control the situation. It would have been simple to finish the ride, drop the pax off and deal with the cleaning fee with Uber.

No one deserves to be killed and the driver obviously escalated the situation. I have never informed a passenger that a cleaning fee would be assessed.

I usually just say it's okay it's okay, let's just get you home. Then I 1 star and start the cleaning fee process.

The driver is so ****ed. Imagine how long the vomit was sitting in the car for a homicide investigation. He lost his job, ruined his car and now is faced with legal challenges to be represented by a public defender.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Fozzie said:


> Only if you get caught.
> 
> I'd rather risk deactivation for protecting myself than end up dead because I was complying with Uber rules.


The problem with carrying a firearm is that someone gets false courage, no different then a drunk that's normally docile get false courage. In this instance the pax's were leaving and the driver escalated the situation when his car door was slammed, he got out of his car because he had a gun in his possession. The driver no longer was defending himself, he was now being hostile with a drunk. This is clearly manslaughter at the very least.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

wicked said:


> The public doesn't even understand how unsecure Rideshare is. If the driver can prove that the deceased was walking toward the car AND made that specific threat he has a case for self defense.
> 
> He is done with Rideshare and probably any gainful employment for the rest of his life. He demonstrated an extreme lack of ability to control the situation. It would have been simple to finish the ride, drop the pax off and deal with the cleaning fee with Uber.
> 
> ...


No you have this backwards. Innocent until proven guilty. The DA will have to prove that the drunk pax wasn't going to harm driver with his own car.

However if and it is a "if" the DA decides to prosecute, more than like charge the driver with a lesser crime than murder or man slaughter so it stands any chance in front of a jury. Next they will give him an even lesser plea deal to be done with this mess. Again that's if they decide to prosecute.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> No you have this backwards. Innocent until proven guilty. The DA will have to prove that the drunk pax wasn't going to harm driver with his own car.
> 
> However if and it is a "if" the DA decides to prosecute, more than like charge the driver with a lesser crime than murder or man slaughter so it stands any chance in front of a jury. Next they will give him an even lesser plea deal to be done with this mess. Again that's if they decide to prosecute.


The problem here is the driver admitted that the passengers had already left the vehicle and when one of them slammed the car door the driver exited his vehicle to confront the DRUNK passenger, the driver escalated the situation at this point and he became the aggressor.
This was manslaughter plain and simple.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> The problem here is the driver admitted that the passengers had already left the vehicle and when one of them slammed the car door the driver exited his vehicle to confront the DRUNK passenger, the driver escalated the situation at this point and he became the aggressor.
> This was manslaughter plain and simple.


It's not plain and simple. The driver indeed escalated the situation casting grey area over the matter. That doesn't mean the matter is clear cut.

However if taken to trial the burden of proof will fall onto the prosecution. On that note I'm very curious about what kind of story will ballistics tell.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> It's not plain and simple. The driver indeed escalated the situation casting grey area over the matter. That doesn't mean the matter is clear cut.
> 
> However if taken to trial the burden of proof will fall onto the prosecution. On that note I'm very curious about what kind of story will ballistics tell.


If this driver is dependent on a public defender he is really screwed.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> If this driver is dependent on a public defender he is really screwed.


Well they have to press charges and arraign him before that bridge is crossed.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

*Driver Will be charged with murder*

_"A charging decision may come in the next few weeks, district attorney spokesman Michael Patrick said."_

Passenger Porter's family sued Uber and Driver Benedict last month.
The San Francisco-based Uber told the newspaper in a statement that Driver Benedict NO longer has access to the Uber app as a driver.

https://www.wral.com/fatal-new-mexico-uber-shooting-stemmed-from-vomit-in-car/18420193/


U/L guy said:


> If this driver is dependent on a public defender he is really screwed.


Public defenders don't "Defend" they Plea-bargain.
And brag they got u 20 years in jail instead of 21.

But that's the reality of the working poor and the legal system.

?this former Uber Driver did NOT have a proportional response to the threat ? effectively his life is Over


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Dude would be alive if he had just been apologetic about vomiting in someones car.

James Porter was a 1st class ahole


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> wait for uber to hit em with the arbitration clause and then just sit on it for years like they do for driver requests for arbitration


That was be4 Uber was a Public Company. Today, it's harder for them to hide



Cableguynoe said:


> Dude would be alive if he had just been apologetic about vomiting in someones car.
> 
> James Porter was a 1st class ahole


..........And hothead Clayton Benedict is the walking dead
Unemployable social outcast. Hope he Does the right thing to end his family's humiliation and save taxpayer ? money


----------



## Uberyouber (Jan 16, 2017)

how much is cleaning fee for blood ?


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Uber is the responsible party of this case. Did Uber train their driver to handle vomit situations and potential paxhole arguments? No. Uber hired a random guy with a gun, gave him 0 job training and sent him to pick up drunk people from bars on St. Patrick’s Day. Did Uber they warn their riders about vomit cleaning fee policy? No.


----------



## getawaycar (Jul 10, 2017)

Vomits in someone's car and doesn't want to pay for it? WTF?

Didn't deserve to die, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for this cheap idiot.

Did the driver provide barf bags in the car?


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Five stars for this driver if he submitted for cleaning fee even after killing him.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

I bet the driver is not eve deactivated though you are not supposed to have a gun.

and it's senseless on both sides, the dead guy died for no reason and the killer should spend the rest of his life in jail over stupidity.



getawaycar said:


> Vomits in someone's car and doesn't want to pay for it? WTF?
> 
> Didn't deserve to die, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for this cheap idiot.
> 
> Did the driver provide barf bags in the car?


First of all the pax does not have to pay ASAP, the driver can get the money from Uber you don't have to kill for it. Shaking someone down is a crime too. I hope this killer rots in jail.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

Uberyouber said:


> how much is cleaning fee for blood ?





Cableguynoe said:


> Five stars for this driver if he submitted for cleaning fee even after killing him.


u can't rate a deactivated knucklehead



Lee239 said:


> I bet the driver is not eve deactivated though you are not supposed to have a gun.
> 
> and it's senseless on both sides, the dead guy died for no reason and the killer should spend the rest of his life in jail over stupidity.
> 
> ...


A. Driver was deactivated.
B. The Deceased's family filed suit against Uber & Barney Fife driver
C. DA office is reviewing evidence to determine if a murder charge should be filed against shooter


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

If I was on the jury I would vote to convict, he could have left and just had the car cleaned, but since he was armed ha thought he was Wyatt Earp.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Take your keys out of the ignition when you leave the vehicle, always!


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

The driver screwed up. Use a firearm to save your life, not to get back at an idiot pax for puking in your car. Dead is forever. You kill one person and you kill every single one of their potential descendants. Like Clint Eastwood's character in "Unforgiven" said: "Its a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away everything he's got and everything he's ever gonna have."


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I'm guessing that's why charges have not been filed. If the story is as told then that would be self defense.
> 
> However the driver should never have got out of the car. Of course the door will be slammed if you kick someone out. At that point just leave. He escalated. Then he pulled a gun over sunglasses thrown at him?
> 
> Idiots all around in this story. And the friend was obviously VERY drunk as he remembers nothing. Or is lying.


Charges may or may not be filed.

Getting out of car: No duty to retreat. This is individual choice. Not chargeable.

Throwing sunglasses: minor misdemeanor crime if they hit the driver.

Drawing gun over sunglasses: the law clearly states you must not use more force in an altercation than a reasonable person would use to defend themselves. In addition, the law also states you can not use greater force than the attacker is using. Meaning if you get punched you can't beat them with a baseball bat or shoot them. If they throw sunglasses at you grab a bullet and throw it at them. But you can not shoot for throwing sunglasses. Drawing the gun is escalating the situation from minor assault to deadly force, this is known as brandishing a weapon and is a chargeable offense.

Use of deadly force to prevent attacker from entering car: attacker allegedly stated they would use car to run over driver. Attacker is now responding to the brandishing of the gun with an equally deadly weapon. Shooter shoots attacker for threat and movement towards vehicle. This is a very ****ed up gray area.

If attacked/passenger was responding to the gun and looking for an equally deadly weapon then the attacker becomes the victim and is attempting to use the car to defend themselves from the gun that has been and is currently pointed at them.

However driver of vehicle is claiming self defense based upon what the dead man allegedly said.

I see this getting charged and a jury sorting it out. More than likely DA will seek an indictment prior to charging. Get a feel for how the public sees it.

As a driver and someone who carries 2 firearms, multiple knives and an air ratchet there was no reason for a weapon to be drawn here.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

I like how the dude in the photo just stands there chilling with the cops, doesn't seem to be phased by it at all. Maybe he will get double the cleaning fee, 1 for puke and 1 for all the blood stain. I "hear" it's a pain to get of blood stain from upholstery lol.


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds (Jan 21, 2018)

KevinH said:


> https://www.abqjournal.com/1321601/dispute-over-vomit-led-to-shooting-by-uber-driver.html
> *BY ELISE KAPLAN / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
> 
> Published: Wednesday, May 29th, 2019 at 7:12pm
> ...


This is why picking up drunks can be risky.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> This is why picking up drunks can be risky.


I've learned a long time ago it's pointless and risky to argue with a drunk, best course of action is to humor them. When many people get drunk it brings out all sorts demons in them.


----------



## Declineathon (Feb 12, 2019)

Should have turned off car. Called police. Guns not the answer.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> It's not plain and simple. The driver indeed escalated the situation casting grey area over the matter. That doesn't mean the matter is clear cut.
> 
> However if taken to trial the burden of proof will fall onto the prosecution. On that note I'm very curious about what kind of story will ballistics tell.


If the ballistics evidence winds up supporting the claim that the idiot pax really was attempting to get into the car when he was shot, there's a good chance that the shooter will walk based on a reasonable self-defense claim. The other rider has already given a statement to police that he can't remember anything, so he can't contradict the shooter's claim that the shootee made an explicit threat to run him over with his own car (which would have been, in effect, stolen). Obviously, two complete imbeciles, one gun, and no one wins.


----------



## Roadmasta (Aug 4, 2017)

Blood stains cost more to clean.


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> If the ballistics evidence winds up supporting the claim that the idiot pax really was attempting to get into the car when he was shot, there's a good chance that the shooter will walk based on a reasonable self-defense claim. The other rider has already given a statement to police that he can't remember anything, so he can't contradict the shooter's claim that the shootee made an explicit threat to run him over with his own car (which would have been, in effect, stolen). Obviously, two complete imbeciles, one gun, and no one wins.


I disagree. New Mexico is a stand your ground state. However the incident was over when the passengers got out of the car. Slamming a door is not a cause for what happened here.

Once the pax was out incident over, stand your ground was good until that point. Once the driver got out of the car and approached the pax the driver became the aggressor. Now pax has right to stand their ground. Driver pulling the gun escalated the situation to deadly force.

Pax taking or attempting to take vehicle can be taken as them attempting to defend themselves from the driver pointing a gun at them.

Driver ya no defense that I see. Police are being nice but in the end he's going to jail.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)




----------



## wicked (Sep 24, 2017)

BlueNOX said:


> Charges may or may not be filed.
> 
> Getting out of car: No duty to retreat. This is individual choice. Not chargeable.
> 
> ...


Does the law in NM state this, though?


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

wicked said:


> Does the law in NM state this, though?


The basic theory of castle doctrine. If you have a legal right to be somewhere you have no obligation to leave just because some one is an idiot.

But if you note, after further review I realized the driver became the aggressor once he exited his vehicle as the incident over the vomit ended when the pax left the car.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

Paid the ultimate price.


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

If you take everything that the driver says as truth though, he said that the drunk said, "Since you're not going to shoot me I'm going to run you over with your own car." So if the drunk believes he isn't going to be shot, then it's no longer his self defense and back to self defense of the original driver.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Honestly with my 20/15 hindsight I would say the best way to deescalate the situation is tell them your not going to charge them a cleaning fee.

Then after they get out of the car charge them anyway.

Aka always take your keys with you when you exit the driver seat and engine off if you have push button ignition with a transponder key 


Also I would have some good old fashion mace in addition to my gun.


This unicorn is getting too worm out for physical altercations so I started carrying pepper spray in addition to a 38 revolver.


The pepper spray I have is magical and tags them with a UV reactive dye that the cops can use to easily identify who got sprayed.


But me?

I wouldn’t have kicked them out of the car and I would tell them I’m not charging a cleaning fee. Until they are out the door safely anyways...


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

getawaycar said:


> Vomits in someone's car and doesn't want to pay for it? WTF?


 No it's not WTF. I find rider's reaction very normal. The puke fee does not fit with the idea of "cheap rides with slavery-model worthless drivers", who are afraid at all times for being 1-starred, deactivated etc etc. Uber built this platform, where rider is the king, driver is a slave, and vehicles are worthless. Since Uber built this system, rider's behavior is normal. I hope Uber will be sued properly and pay millions of dollars to the victim's familiy. Money won't bring their loved-one back, but at least help a little. I still can't believe how a simple puke story ended up like this. Why are you arguing the fee with the rider. You try to be a taxi driver and drive around bars without preparing yourself for puker situation, that's your fault. Stop the car, help rider to throw up outside, get back driving, no arguments needed, finish the ride, give your 1-star take your pictures, submit your cleaning fee document. End of the story.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

This forum is the first I’ve heard about this. It is a sad story for all involved. While some may make jokes in this thread, lets not forget a man still died. Did both the deceased and the driver make mistakes? It appears so. They let their ego’s take over. Ego and excessive alcohol don’t mix. 

I concur with XPG, Uber created pax self-entitlement, as did our society. However, being entitled shouldn’t equate to being killed. 
We have a rage problem in our society. This story is proof of that.


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

wicked said:


> Does the law in NM state this, though?


Have you ever taken a CCW course? N.M. is a castle doctrine state. Stand your ground. It's also an open carry state. Meaning you can carry a firearm no problem.

Stand your ground means if your sitting on a bench you have a legal right to sit on and I come up and start an issue, you have no responsibility to leave. If I am yelling you can not physically touch me. However if I say I'm going to punch you and raise my fist to punch you then I've demonstrated and stated my intent and you can reasonably defend yourself. The law calls reasonable defense equal force. So no, you can't shoot me for punching you. That's not equal force. But, if I raise a baseball bat to hit you then yes, you can shoot me. A baseball bat can be construed as deadly to a reasonable person.

Now, let's say your on the same bench, you come up and start a verbal issue and raise a baseball bat causing you to leave, and I do NOT follow, then you return 30 seconds later and start punching me or shooting me stand your ground does not apply.

Why? You have no obligation to retreat/leave, however if you do you do NOT have the right to return and claim self defense. Reasonable people would not return, rather your seen under the law as an aggressor once you return.

Check it out, it's how self defense works in all 50 states.

When the pax left the car and slammed the door they were no longer the aggressor. When the driver got out of the car to start a verbal argument over a slammed door the driver became the aggressor and the pax the victim. Doesn't matter the pax threw the sunglasses or threatened to take the car. Pax had voluntarily and peacefully left the scene by exiting the car. Driver pursued them after an aggressive argument that the pax had left to start an another argument. This by a reasonable
Person is seen as being aggressive which makes everything the pax did self defense.

Slamming a door is not in and of itself a violation of he law. No damage appears to have been done so no reason for the driver to confront the pax about it outside of stupid aggression.

Driver murdered the pax in my opinion.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

KevinH said:


> https://www.abqjournal.com/1321601/dispute-over-vomit-led-to-shooting-by-uber-driver.html
> *BY ELISE KAPLAN / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
> 
> Published: Wednesday, May 29th, 2019 at 7:12pm
> ...


He typically does not drink , but that day he had 6 or 7?
He typically drinks is the truth.


----------



## dens (Apr 25, 2018)

Did foober deactivate his driver account? ..lol


----------



## EphLux (Aug 10, 2018)

My Fellow Uber Drivers: Do Not Carry while driving passengers. The chances are 1000x more likely you will use your weapon inappropriately than use it to save your life with it. Two lives destroyed over puke because some cowardly driver decided he "needed" to pack? Stupid.

I once defended myself from an assaulting passenger by squirting shampoo on him. He thought it was acid and freaked the ***** out. lol


----------



## wicked (Sep 24, 2017)

I should have been more specific. I am referring to your statement on the minimum necessary force. That wouldn't necessarily apply to a stand your ground case would it?


----------



## RideShareJUNKIE (Jun 23, 2017)

The fact that someone puked and is arguing over what has happened, and knows the outcome. Stupid F look at you know 6 feet under, handsome asshole too. Oh well. Petty. He is lucky to be dead, then alive and in a wheelchair.


----------



## Alantc (Jun 15, 2018)

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Well with Uber new receipt policy for clean up... this is how we gonna have to handle clean up fee.


When did uber start asking for a receipt


----------



## Ubermcbc (Sep 25, 2016)

losiglow said:


> Good thing he shot the pax. Otherwise the pax would have given him a 1 star. And probably not tipped.


Print this story and laminate it, then place it on both side of your back seat. Atleast the pax will be on their toes for the whole trip.


----------



## TBone (Jan 19, 2015)

EphLux said:


> My Fellow Uber Drivers: Do Not Carry while driving passengers. The chances are 1000x more likely you will use your weapon inappropriately than use it to save your life with it. Two lives destroyed over puke because some cowardly driver decided he "needed" to pack? Stupid.
> 
> I once defended myself from an assaulting passenger by squirting shampoo on him. He thought it was acid and freaked the ***** out. lol


Not carrying a weapon or pepper spray while driving at night is stupid. Drunks are highly unpredictable and it could save your life. Wtf cares if you get deactivated after defending yourself. Uber has made it a policy to break real actual laws and we are only breaking a company policy. 
Sad for the driver though. He should have just drove off but this is what happens when you have riders that believe rideshare drivers are peons and think were typical employees that will stand there and take their crap like a typical burger king employee.


----------



## Adfcalifornian (Feb 8, 2019)

Sorry where I’m from if you puke in public and ruin some one else’s day while doing it you get ****ed with...


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> If the ballistics evidence winds up supporting the claim that the idiot pax really was attempting to get into the car when he was shot, there's a good chance that the shooter will walk based on a reasonable self-defense claim. The other rider has already given a statement to police that he can't remember anything, so he can't contradict the shooter's claim that the shootee made an explicit threat to run him over with his own car (which would have been, in effect, stolen). Obviously, two complete imbeciles, one gun, and no one wins.


Right on the money. That's what I believe the DA is waiting on to see if they prosecute.


----------



## BuckleUp (Jan 18, 2018)

HP engineer too cheap to pay a clean up fee? Aha...
Guess HP pays their engineers less than uber drivers.
Hewlett and Packard would be turning over in their grave under the garage.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Right on the money. That's what I believe the DA is waiting on to see if they prosecute.


The car was at a stand still, the shooter had already escalated the confrontation by getting out of his car and challenging the drunk for slamming the car door, this made the driver the aggressor at this point. Ballistics will most likely refute the drivers claim of self defense depending where the drunk was at the moment of the shooting.
This driver has already shown total disregard for the law by having a gun when it's clear that the TOS forbids possession of one while driving.
This is the problem with CCW, too many people get emboldened when armed and create problems where none would have existed.
If you're that scared that you have to carry a gun when driving ride share then you shouldn't be in this business. I would find this driver guilty of murder if I was on the jury by the way it appears from his own statements.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> The car was at a stand still, the shooter had already escalated the confrontation by getting out of his car and challenging the drunk for slamming the car door, this made the driver the aggressor at this point. Ballistics will most likely refute the drivers claim of self defense depending where the drunk was at the moment of the shooting.
> This driver has already shown total disregard for the law by having a gun when it's clear that the TOS forbids possession of one while driving.
> This is the problem with CCW, too many people get emboldened when armed and create problems where none would have existed.
> If you're that scared that you have to carry a gun when driving ride share then you shouldn't be in this business. I would find this driver guilty of murder if I was on the jury by the way it appears from his own statements.


? ?? The TOS for Uber isn't the law.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

I have a mag light and pepper spray for your typical drunken paxhole assaults.

The gun is strictly for when the fit hits the Shan.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Always shoot first and ask questions later! First rule of driving.


----------



## Don'tchasethesurge (Dec 27, 2016)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Whenever you fire a gun at someone it is to kill.


 Someone posted that changes to the policy are coming. Not in my market yet. 
https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-updates-cleaning-fee-poliicy.331140/#post-5051418


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

UberAdrian said:


> Always shoot first and ask questions later! First rule of driving.


That statement clearly demonstrates my previous comment.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> ? ?? The TOS for Uber isn't the law.


Actually it is, violating the terms of agreement that you agreed to can and will be used against you by the prosecution.


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?


If you choose to shoot, you shoot to kill.

Nobody, including police, are taught to shoot to incapacitate.


----------



## Mtbsrfun (May 25, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> That statement clearly demonstrates my previous comment.
> 
> 
> Actually it is, violating the terms of agreement that you agreed to can and will be used against you by the prosecution.


Not in my state lol stand your ground and open carry law has already won in court; state law trumps Uber's TOS :biggrin:


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> That statement clearly demonstrates my previous comment.
> 
> 
> Actually it is, violating the terms of agreement that you agreed to can and will be used against you by the prosecution.


:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao: Uber's TOS is violated oh no


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

BlueNOX said:


> The basic theory of castle doctrine. If you have a legal right to be somewhere you have no obligation to leave just because some one is an idiot.
> 
> But if you note, after further review I realized the driver became the aggressor once he exited his vehicle as the incident over the vomit ended when the pax left the car.


You didn't read the article.


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

U/L guy said:


> The car was at a stand still, the shooter had already escalated the confrontation by getting out of his car and challenging the drunk for slamming the car door, this made the driver the aggressor at this point. Ballistics will most likely refute the drivers claim of self defense depending where the drunk was at the moment of the shooting.
> This driver has already shown total disregard for the law by having a gun when it's clear that the TOS forbids possession of one while driving.
> This is the problem with CCW, too many people get emboldened when armed and create problems where none would have existed.
> If you're that scared that you have to carry a gun when driving ride share then you shouldn't be in this business. I would find this driver guilty of murder if I was on the jury by the way it appears from his own statements.


You'd convicted him based on _his own _statements? He's obviously an idiot, but he may very well be able to make out a justifiable homicide defense at trial.

If the evidence winds up clearly establishing that the pax was attempting to enter the vehicle via the driver's door when he was shot, I wouldn't be surprised if the DA ultimately declines to prosecute altogether. If they _do_ prosecute, the defense is going to have lots to work with in making out a justifiable homicide defense. They can argue that not only was the driver attempting to prevent an extremely drunk person from stealing his car, according to the driver the drunk has made an explicit threat to run him over, and his imbecile pal can't contradict that because he's already told police that he can't remember a damned thing. He can't credibly contradict that at trial by suddenly "remembering" what "really happened". He can try, but is highly unlikely to be believed.

The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case makes it clear that trying to predict what a jury will decide in any given self-defense case is very, very difficult. The police explicitly tell him _not_ to follow the kid, he ignores them and does so anyway, gets into a confrontation with kid, and when he starts losing a fistfight with the unarmed kid, he shoots him. Nonetheless, he was acquitted. You really never know for sure what a jury will do.


----------



## Senzo (Sep 26, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Whenever you fire a gun at someone it is to kill.


No, by law it is meant to stop your assailant. Not to kill, that is murder no matter. If they die because you shot them center mass, well, your intention was to stop them not kill.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

JohnnyBravo836 said:


> You'd convicted him based on _his own _statements? He's obviously an idiot, but he may very well be able to make out a justifiable homicide defense at trial.
> 
> If the evidence winds up clearly establishing that the pax was attempting to enter the vehicle via the driver's door when he was shot, I wouldn't be surprised if the DA ultimately declines to prosecute altogether. If they _do_ prosecute, the defense is going to have lots to work with in making out a justifiable homicide defense. They can argue that not only was the driver attempting to prevent an extremely drunk person from stealing his car, according to the driver the drunk has made an explicit threat to run him over, and his imbecile pal can't contradict that because he's already told police that he can't remember a damned thing. He can't credibly contradict that at trial by suddenly "remembering" what "really happened". He can try, but is highly unlikely to be believed.
> 
> The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case makes it clear that trying to predict what a jury will decide in any given self-defense case is very, very difficult. The police explicitly tell him _not_ to follow the kid, he ignores them and does so anyway, gets into a confrontation with kid, and when he starts losing a fistfight with the unarmed kid, he shoots him. Nonetheless, he was acquitted. You really never know for sure what a jury will do.


Honestly after that verdict you would think people would realize if a gun holder has any credible self defense story chances are their getting off.



Senzo said:


> No, by law it is meant to stop your assailant. Not to kill, that is murder no matter. If they die because you shot them center mass, well, your intention was to stop them not kill.


You are trained to put bullets into their center mass until assailant falls to ground...

This isn't some action flick, firearms are fatal weapons. No ifs ands or buts

I see your from Boston, people in the south are exposed at an early age to animals larger than humans being brought down with a single shot.


----------



## Senzo (Sep 26, 2018)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Honestly after that verdict you would think people would realize if a gun holder has any credible self defense story chances are their getting off.
> 
> 
> You are trained to put bullets into their center mass until assailant falls to ground...
> ...


It's the intention that matters not the outcome, for legal reasons.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Senzo said:


> It's the intention that matters not the outcome, for legal reasons.


Forget legal reasons there is a giant piece of the population ignorant enough to think if someone pulls a gun on you that they will only graze you or shoot you in the foot.

On a side note welcome to the forum bro


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

You keep firing until the threat to your life or the life of others stops.


----------



## WAHN (May 6, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Forget legal reasons there is a giant piece of the population ignorant enough to think if someone pulls a gun on you that they will only graze you or shoot you in the foot.
> 
> On a side note welcome to the forum bro


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

wicked said:


> The driver is so @@@@ed. Imagine how long the vomit was sitting in the car for a homicide investigation. He lost his job, ruined his car and now is faced with legal challenges to be represented by a public defender.


Not only that, he has probably forfeited his badges!

.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

"This driver has already shown total disregard for the law by having a gun when it’s clear that the TOS forbids possession of one while driving."

TOS isn't the law. It's Uber's wishful thinking.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Honestly with my 20/15 hindsight I would say the best way to deescalate the situation is tell them your not going to charge them a cleaning fee.


 Why why why are you talking about the fee with the mentally messed up drunk rider? Is it your business to take the fee from rider? Do you have to get some sort of verbal approval from the rider to request a fee from Uber. Just finish the ride and start your claiming fee process. Driver is plain stupid;

- for not preparing for such extraordinary cases.

- carrying a gun.

- killing a drunk person over $150


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Bubsie said:


> "This driver has already shown total disregard for the law by having a gun when it's clear that the TOS forbids possession of one while driving."
> 
> TOS isn't the law. It's Uber's wishful thinking.


When you signed an agreement that forbid you from carrying a gun while driving for Uber you violated the terms of that agreement, a prosecutor can and will use this against you because you are a public conveyance.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

KevinH said:


> He said he backed away from Porter and then Porter walked toward the open driver's side door and said something like "well if you're not going to shoot me, I (am) going to run you over with your own car."


If there was one aspect in this entire, highly volotile situation which tipped it over the edge, this seems to be it.

It appears the pax is about to get into the driver's seat, engage drive and set off on a path of mayhem and murder by auto.

However, it wasn't the murderous intent that was the issue; by refusing to change the destination, the pax has pushed our poor underpaid, overstressed Über driver to the absolute level of human endurance and so he just had to respond!

.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Who is John Galt? said:


> If there was one aspect in this entire, highly volotile situation which tipped it over the edge, this seems to be it.
> 
> It appears the pax is about to get into the driver's seat, engage drive and set off on a path of mayhem and murder by auto.
> 
> ...


If this driver didn't have a gun he most likely wouldn't have escalated the situation once the passenger left the car.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

U/L guy said:


> When you signed an agreement that forbid you from carrying a gun while driving for Uber you violated the terms of that agreement, a prosecutor can and will use this against you because you are a public conveyance.


Interesting.... So Über's TOS is now a substitute for the law of the land?

I suppose this might be a little like the Catholic Church's cannon law, which seems to have a life of its own.

What is Über's law referred to? Cannon fodder law?

.


----------



## Don'tchasethesurge (Dec 27, 2016)

Maybe he can trade his badges for lower prison sentence?


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Honestly it’s about time for pax to learn that taking a ride is not a game and they could be shot or otherwise killed at any moment if they are not on their best behaviour. Far too many pax act like wild dogs and drivers have been overly courteous not killing them as needed.

I am calling for new legislation mandating that all drivers must carry a side arm!


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Who is John Galt? said:


> Interesting.... So Über's TOS is now a substitute for the law of the land?
> 
> I suppose this might be a little like the Catholic Church's cannon law, which seems to have a life of its own.
> 
> ...


The TOS was violated, a competent prosecutor would use this to show that the driver had no regard for the terms
that he agreed to when he accepted to contract with Uber's policy. This driver created a situation by escalating it and then using deadly force unnecessarily.
Remember the drunk passenger had already vacated the vehicle, it was the driver who went after the drunk because he slammed the door.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

U/L guy said:


> The TOS was violated, a competent prosecutor would use this to show that the driver had no regard for the terms
> that he agreed to when he accepted to contract with Uber's policy. This driver created a situation by escalating it and then using deadly force unnecessarily.
> Remember the drunk passenger had already vacated the vehicle, it was the driver who went after the drunk because he slammed the door.


Maximum penalty for failing to abide by Uber firearm policy is deactivation. I would argue that the 2nd amendment overrides the Uber terms "to the extent permitted by applicable law", presuming the driver has a valid ccw permit where it is required. If you live in Vermont for example, no permit would be needed.

"Uber prohibits riders and their guests, as well as driver and delivery partners, from carrying firearms of any kind while using the app, to the extent permitted by applicable law.

Please note that the only situation where we would allow a firearm while using the app is if you are transporting your firearm in accordance with the Transportation Security Administration rules for transporting firearms and ammunition. That means your firearm must be unloaded and locked in a hard-sided container in the trunk of the vehicle. All parts, including magazines, clips, ammunition, and bolts and firing pins must also be transported in the trunk of the vehicle.

Failure to comply with this policy may lead to account deactivation."


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> The TOS was violated, a competent prosecutor would use this to show that the driver had no regard for the terms
> that he agreed to when he accepted to contract with Uber's policy. This driver created a situation by escalating it and then using deadly force unnecessarily.
> Remember the drunk passenger had already vacated the vehicle, it was the driver who went after the drunk because he slammed the door.


Nobody cares about Uber's TOS. The repercussions for violating it is deactivation.

I'm fairly sure that pregnant lady in Arizona wished she had a gun when her pax took her life for a petty as car.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

U/L guy said:


> The TOS was violated, a competent prosecutor would use this to show that the driver had no regard for the terms that he agreed to when he accepted to contract with Uber's policy.


The TOS was violated. Dear God NO!!!

I'm sure competent prosecutors the whole length and breadth of the country are lining up, salivating at the prospect of an Über TOS violation case.

It would be the absolute pinnacle of a legal career to be involved in prosecuting such a case and I'm sure most law schools are pushing this heavily as a precursor to a spot on the bench of the Supreme Court.

.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> I'm fairly sure that pregnant lady in Arizona wished she had a gun when her pax took her life for a petty as car.


 How can you be sure? Did you know the 39 years pregnant victim's gun shooting skills or 20 years old rider's stabbing skills from the back seat. Having a gun is not the solution. Maybe trying to be a taxi driver on a Saturday night at 1am was not best idea when you're 30 weeks pregnant and have 2- and 4-year-old children waiting at home. One of the most tragic stories i've ever heard.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

XPG said:


> How can you be sure? Did you know the 39 years pregnant victim's gun shooting skills or 20 years old rider's stabbing skills from the back seat. Having a gun is not the solution. Maybe trying to be a taxi driver on a Saturday night at 1am was not best idea when you're 30 weeks pregnant and have 2- and 4-year-old children waiting at home. One of the most tragic stories i've ever heard.


She was still alive when he pulled off. She was left to die


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

Who is John Galt? said:


> The TOS was violated. Dear God NO!!!
> 
> I'm sure competent prosecutors the whole length and breadth of the country are lining up, salivating at the prospect of an Über TOS violation case.
> 
> ...


To be clear, prosecutors in many jurisdictions use tactics like this.

Reloading is a common target. They will say the guy who reloads his own ammo is doing it to impart maximum damage to the person be shot.

It's all nonsense, but it works in clown world liberal areas.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> She was still alive when he pulled off. She was left to die


Yes i know the story, but i'm still trying to understand your confidence on her gun using skills. Not everyone use weapons.


----------



## New Uber (Mar 21, 2017)

A woman spilled 4 cups of coffee in my car. I never stopped. Nor did I argue. I dropped her off. After she got out I took pictures and went straight to the auto detailer for wet-vac cleaning. The receipt said $60.00 but Fuber paid me $80.00. And no one got shot.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

XPG said:


> Yes i know the story, but i'm still trying to understand your confidence on her gun using skills. Not everyone use weapons.


Well if you own a gun it's your responsibility to go to the range and practice. There's lots of women at the gun range.

Also she isn't going to miss at point blank range.


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

XPG said:


> Yes i know the story, but i'm still trying to understand your confidence on her gun using skills. Not everyone use weapons.


If one carries a gun or knife, they should
Practice.

I recommend shooting minimum 150 rounds per month for your carry weapon. Or taking martial arts classes for other options.

The problem is the demographic make up in your community. I wouldn't drive in many areas due to who lives there.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

XPG said:


> Yes i know the story, but i'm still trying to understand your confidence on her gun using skills. Not everyone use weapons.


It doesn't take a ton of skill to shoot someone from point blank range. Basically the only way to screw up is by not unlocking the safety.

That's why I always roll fully loaded with the safety off!


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

EphLux said:


> My Fellow Uber Drivers: Do Not Carry while driving passengers. The chances are 1000x more likely you will use your weapon inappropriately than use it to save your life with it. Two lives destroyed over puke because some cowardly driver decided he "needed" to pack? Stupid.
> 
> I once defended myself from an assaulting passenger by squirting shampoo on him. He thought it was acid and freaked the ***** out. lol


Nice one with the shampoo.

As far as carrying goes, I carry 2 guns, 2 knives, a neck dagger and an air rachet (my favorite, it hurts). I'm in Phoenix where we had 4 brutally barbaric attacks this year, including the murdered pregnant Lyft driver.

I am a military trained SeaBee. I regularly adrenaline practice and keep up with the laws and techniques. For those who don't know, adrenaline practice is on an open field range firing on the move from several different positions at multiple targets so you can simulate firing in a stressful situation. Much different than straight target practice. This is done with all of my weapons, not just the firearms. I maintain a CCW so I can carry as I drive past schools even though I'm in an open carry state. Yes, I've tried to train in a motor vehicle simulation. It's difficult at best. The average driver should NOT try it as it's simple to difficult to aim and you have limited arm motion. To risky to lose control of the fire arm.

For in vehicle combat use the car to your advantage. I also carry a neck dagger. It's a necklace that is actually a dagger. Rest in your palm, blade protrudes through middle and index fingers at the hilt. Near impossible to have taken from you but requires a lot of practice, extremely quick reflexes and situational awareness.

If your going to carry in the event of an attack your advantage comes from slamming brakes while turning wheel harshly to throw your attacker off balance. With right hand release belt while opening door with left. As you exit vehicle remove firearm from holster to the low ready. This alone will make most attackers run. Back away from the car with weapon at low ready, you do not turn your back and run, you do want approx 20-30 ft between you and your car. This space gives the attacker space to exit and run or show they want to fight.

If you have mace grab the mace with your non trigger hand. Firearm at the low ready and mace at the ready. If the attacker comes towards you with no weapon spay the mace. DO NOT fire a gun at an unarmed attacker, you will lose in court. DO NOT put a firearm at the full ready of an unarmed attacker. DO NOT put your trigger finger on the trigger unless you intend to IMMEDIATELY pull the trigger.

You are not the police, your goal is to deesculate the situation and get the attacker to leave. Do not chase them down. If they exit the vehicle and go around it and away get back in your car, lock the doors and leave.

Yes, if you pull the gun while driving the attacker will get your gun or you will shoot yourself. This has been tried many times and only when the attacker is in the front seat is it remotely possible to shoot them. Behind you? Not happening if the attacker is healthy and can remotely fight.

Someone punching or slapping you is not deadly force justified. The average


wicked said:


> I should have been more specific. I am referring to your statement on the minimum necessary force. That wouldn't necessarily apply to a stand your ground case would it?


Actually it does. Your only allowed to use the amount of force needed to being the situation to a close with as little injury to the other party as possible.

A suspect pulls out a shotgun, can you pull out and fire off 12 nuclear missiles? No, that would be ridiculous. You can't pull out a howitzer either. The collateral damage would be massive and you'd be responsible for it. But you could pull a handgun, say a 9mm or a 40 cal and fire. If you were using full metal jackets in those guns and incidentally the bullet went through the suspect and struck a 90 yr old grandmother, you'd be safe. But fire the howitzer and your not.

Minimal necessary force. It's called reasonable force in some laws.


Bubsie said:


> You keep firing until the threat to your life or the life of others stops.


Actually, trained shooter fire 2 shots center mass then recover. If threat persists repeat. Not just firing randomly until the magazine is empty, that type of shooting is more emotional reaction than self defense.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Gun-lover guys & gals please understand that not everyone else carries guns and knives. It’s a choice. Just be nice eachother. I’m so surprised that you question victim’s gun ownership and shooting skills instead her being forced to drive taxi Saturday 1am while being 30 weeks pregnant + 2 kids (2 and 4 years old) at home waiting.

Not to mention 20 years old wannabe male-model university student’s mental health! Why would you kill an innocent person for no reason?


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

UberAdrian said:


> It doesn't take a ton of skill to shoot someone from point blank range. Basically the only way to screw up is by not unlocking the safety.
> 
> That's why I always roll fully loaded with the safety off!


People miss close up all the time. Watch some police/self defense shooting videos.

I was an NRA instructor a long time ago. Carry guns tend to exacerbate misses as well. It is a lot easier to hit a target and follow up with a CZ SP01 or a Glock 17 vs a LCP or snub .357/.38.


----------



## MUGATS (Aug 14, 2016)

RDWRER said:


> This. If the events unfolded as described here, the driver definitely escalated the situation by exiting the vehicle and drawing his firearm. However, once the passenger attempted to hijack the vehicle with expressed intent to commit manslaughter the driver had every right to eliminate the threat with deadly force. In either case I'm not familiar with Colorado law so I don't know exactly what he could possibly be charged with and how likely he could he convicted.


The drunk passenger announcing that he was going to "steal his car and run him over" seems a bit sketchy if you ask me.

Seems like a convenient thing to say if you kinda had to invent a justifiable threat to your life.

Seems to me that this all could of been avoided if the driver had just drove off after the slammed door.

Yeah he slammed your door and it was a dick move. However deciding to get confrontational about it has left a young man dead.

He drives away and none of this happens.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Uberyouber said:


> how much is cleaning fee for blood ?


I got $80 for a smear from a pax with a cut lip. But max is $150.



BlueNOX said:


> Have you ever taken a CCW course? N.M. is a castle doctrine state. Stand your ground. It's also an open carry state. Meaning you can carry a firearm no problem.
> 
> Stand your ground means if your sitting on a bench you have a legal right to sit on and I come up and start an issue, you have no responsibility to leave. If I am yelling you can not physically touch me. However if I say I'm going to punch you and raise my fist to punch you then I've demonstrated and stated my intent and you can reasonably defend yourself. The law calls reasonable defense equal force. So no, you can't shoot me for punching you. That's not equal force. But, if I raise a baseball bat to hit you then yes, you can shoot me. A baseball bat can be construed as deadly to a reasonable person.
> 
> ...


I never understood why a punch isn't considered deadly. Some punches kill. And if you're knocked out you're then defenseless.


----------



## Matt Uterak (Jul 28, 2015)

This is a great lesson for us. You have no idea who someone is. Make assumptions and escalate and you may end up taking the room temperature challenge. 

It is pretty easy to severely injure or kill someone, even without a weapon.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

BlueNOX said:


> Nice one with the shampoo.
> 
> As far as carrying goes, I carry 2 guns, 2 knives, a neck dagger and an air rachet (my favorite, it hurts). I'm in Phoenix where we had 4 brutally barbaric attacks this year, including the murdered pregnant Lyft driver.
> 
> ...


That's why carrying a handgun is dumb. This isn't Iraq, you can't go to war with pax with a lil' toy. What are you gonna do with such low accuracy, range and mag size against rabid pax all hopped up on adrenaline?

You should always carry 2 rifles, 1 pistol and a bag of crack. Any amount of force is justified after you frame your adversary in court.

Phase 1 - Combat. I like a nice compact assault rifle as a main weapon + a reliable side arm. An HK416C with a Beretta M9 would be my choice, suppressor optional. Short bursts while advancing aggressively, double tap to the head with the M9 to make sure they can't contradict you in court. Sprinkle some crack on them to begin phase 2.

Phase 2 - Staging the crime scene. 2nd rifle should be a big honkin' gun for framing and can be whatever. Make sure to get buddy's fingerprints all over it and fire it a few times from his hands to get the residue on him.



> The drunk passenger announcing that he was going to "steal his car and run him over" seems a bit sketchy if you ask me.
> 
> Seems like a convenient thing to say if you kinda had to invent a justifiable threat to your life.


That's what I was thinking, but if that were the case wouldn't he have shot the other guy also? He had no way of knowing the guy wouldn't be able to testify against him...unless he ran out of ammo.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

BlueNOX said:


> Someone punching or slapping you is not deadly force justified.


One punch to the head can kill you. You can absolutely use lethal force once someone starts punching you in the head.

"A person is justified in *using* or threatening to *use deadly force* if he or she reasonably believes that *using *or threatening to *use* such *force* is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."

I dunno about you but I would consider someone punching me in the head to lead to great bodily harm. And pretty much any juror in the USA would agree, if it came down to an actual criminal trial. In fact it would be highly unlikely for a grand jury to even indict.


----------



## UberAdrian (May 26, 2018)

Bubsie said:


> One punch to the head can kill you. You can absolutely use lethal force once someone starts punching you in the head.
> 
> "A person is justified in *using* or threatening to *use deadly force* if he or she reasonably believes that *using *or threatening to *use* such *force* is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
> 
> I dunno about you but I would consider someone punching me in the head to lead to great bodily harm. And pretty much any juror in the USA would agree, if it came down to an actual criminal trial. In fact it would be highly unlikely for a grand jury to even indict.


I second this motion, especially if it's happening in a moving car where distraction of the punch can get you killed - regardless of the direct the damage from the ping itself.


----------



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

KevinH said:


> https://www.abqjournal.com/1321601/dispute-over-vomit-led-to-shooting-by-uber-driver.html
> *BY ELISE KAPLAN / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
> 
> Published: Wednesday, May 29th, 2019 at 7:12pm
> ...


The police would have pumped that perp with dozens of rounds before he even got close to the driver's side door if police were in that situation instead of the Uber driver.
The Uber driver had every right to defend himself with lethal force the instant he feared for his life.


----------



## NORMY (Jan 2, 2017)

Conversation with drunks should be limited to 1 word MM-HMM


----------



## TBone (Jan 19, 2015)

Senzo said:


> No, by law it is meant to stop your assailant. Not to kill, that is murder no matter. If they die because you shot them center mass, well, your intention was to stop them not kill.


What kind of millennial bs is this? You shoot, you shoot to kill. Period. Better to have a dead person than an angry one wanting revenge


----------



## Soars (Jan 2, 2019)

If Uber wants to keep paying $0.60 a mile these stories will keep popping up. Hope it's an Uber exec next time.


----------



## estore009 (Oct 14, 2017)

dmoney155 said:


> Let this be a lesson to all you pukers out there. You puke, you pay. Simple as that.


Sad story! Don't understand this...


----------



## DMV Driver (Dec 26, 2018)

If the situation calls for that drastic of a measure its always to eliminate the threat, not incapacitate.

At least that's what I was taught.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

TampaGuy said:


> I heard you can shoot pax if your are Diamond!


Platinum makes you knife eligible



U/L guy said:


> The car was at a stand still, the shooter had already escalated the confrontation by getting out of his car and challenging the drunk for slamming the car door, this made the driver the aggressor at this point. Ballistics will most likely refute the drivers claim of self defense depending where the drunk was at the moment of the shooting.
> This driver has already shown total disregard for the law by having a gun when it's clear that the TOS forbids possession of one while driving.
> This is the problem with CCW, too many people get emboldened when armed and create problems where none would have existed.
> If you're that scared that you have to carry a gun when driving ride share then you shouldn't be in this business. I would find this driver guilty of murder if I was on the jury by the way it appears from his own statements.


"Most likely refute" and then "depending on..."

And since when is the Uber TOS the same as the law of the land.

Me thinks you are an idiot



U/L guy said:


> The TOS was violated, a competent prosecutor would use this to show that the driver had no regard for the terms
> that he agreed to when he accepted to contract with Uber's policy. This driver created a situation by escalating it and then using deadly force unnecessarily.
> Remember the drunk passenger had already vacated the vehicle, it was the driver who went after the drunk because he slammed the door.


The prosecutor in an "open carry" state is not going to use Uber's management philosophy to drive his case home.

THIS IS NOT A GRIEVANCE TO HUMAN RESOURCES.

In your example, if a new rideshare company allows drivers to carry, then the prosecutor would not have a case because the rideshare company said it was ok.

Smh



U/L guy said:


> That statement clearly demonstrates my previous comment.
> 
> 
> Actually it is, violating the terms of agreement that you agreed to can and will be used against you by the prosecution.


Troll



U/L guy said:


> If this driver didn't have a gun he most likely wouldn't have escalated the situation once the passenger left the car.


Sure, let's ask London how the gun free zone works. Last year the London mayor wanted to ban KNIVES!


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Diamondraider said:


> Platinum makes you knife eligible
> 
> 
> "Most likely refute" and then "depending on..."
> ...


As much as I dislike U/L I dislike most drivers even more.


----------



## Uber1111uber (Oct 21, 2017)

Hahaha suing the uber driver? All they can get is his car his gun and some badges, and we all know uber drivers don't have cars paid off ?


----------



## rubisgsa (Jul 3, 2018)

The DEAD passenger escalated by slamming the door dont just erase that fact

it was mistake to get out of the car

they are far from perfect we should not be expected to behave perfectly in every situation. WE WERE NOT THERE! I am a driver i side with the driver

I have been in many similar situations we do not have to let them walk all over us!!


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

James Porter: deactivated.


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

Bubsie said:


> One punch to the head can kill you. You can absolutely use lethal force once someone starts punching you in the head.
> 
> "A person is justified in *using* or threatening to *use deadly force* if he or she reasonably believes that *using *or threatening to *use* such *force* is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
> 
> I dunno about you but I would consider someone punching me in the head to lead to great bodily harm. And pretty much any juror in the USA would agree, if it came down to an actual criminal trial. In fact it would be highly unlikely for a grand jury to even indict.


The state of Colorado would disagree with you. Rideshare driver shot a pax multiple times for hitting the driver about the head and face.

Did you forget about that one. And no, a punch to the face is not justified with shooting someone. Not a reasonable response.



rubisgsa said:


> The DEAD passenger escalated by slamming the door dont just erase that fact
> 
> it was mistake to get out of the car
> 
> ...


So you would shoot a pax for slamming a door?


----------



## dlearl476 (Oct 3, 2017)

KevinH said:


> https://www.abqjournal.com/1321601/dispute-over-vomit-led-to-shooting-by-uber-driver.html
> *BY ELISE KAPLAN / JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
> 
> Published: Wednesday, May 29th, 2019 at 7:12pm
> ...


You got your title wrong It should read "Dispute Over Vomit Resolved by Uber Driver."



The Gift of Fish said:


> James Porter: deactivated.


Well, good news: There's an opening for him with the Sheriff's Dept.



VanGuy said:


> Not a very good shot if he's close enough that the casings were near the driver's side door, which the passenger was trying to enter, and only 2/6 center mass attempts hit and just barely.


With a percentage like that, he's a shoe-in for the NYPD. Probably get a marksmanship award



RDWRER said:


> This. If the events unfolded as described here, the driver definitely escalated the situation by exiting the vehicle and drawing his firearm. However, once the passenger attempted to hijack the vehicle with expressed intent to commit manslaughter the driver had every right to eliminate the threat with deadly force. In either case I'm not familiar with Colorado law so I don't know exactly what he could possibly be charged with and how likely he could he convicted.


What would Colorado law have to do with an incident that took place in New Mexico?



Cableguynoe said:


> Five stars for this driver if he submitted for cleaning fee even after killing him.


Truth be known, it's probably why Uber deactivated him. Nothing to do with the shooting


----------



## Mr. Sensitive (Jan 7, 2018)

Cableguynoe said:


> Dude would be alive if he had just been apologetic about vomiting in someones car.
> 
> James Porter was a 1st class ahole


What the shit you a ghost? Heard you died some @UberBastid retirement death from UberPeople!!
I'm glad it's not true & you back man.
I never got to (2) tell u (you) how dope Dexter is the unsuspecting serial murderer. 
Most folk didnt even give that show a chance because it seemed 2 (to) gay in the beginning.
****ing Dexter was worse than a gangster, but he was gangster too (2).
Glad 2 (to) see u (you) back.
Uber On!!!


----------



## simbaa (May 23, 2019)

Holy crap! You see the size of that guy's nose?



dmoney155 said:


> Let this be a lesson to all you pukers out there. You puke, you pay. Simple as that.


I agree


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

dlearl476 said:


> You got your title wrong It should read "Dispute Over Vomit Resolved by Uber Driver."
> 
> 
> Well, good news: There's an opening for him with the Sheriff's Dept.
> ...


Thought it was Colorado because it doesn't say at all where the hell it is. Googling Montaño and the 25 case up with a street by that name off the 25 in Colorado.


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

Everything about this story tells me the driver escalated the situation. If you drive drunks, dress for the weather. If drunks ask to waive cleaning fee, say yes and then charge them anyway. 

IF DRUNKS SLAM DOOR, DO NOT GET BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND SHOW THE DRUNKS THAT YOU ARE A TOUGH GUY!


----------



## Jason Wilson (Oct 20, 2017)

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?


You do not shoot to kill anyone. You don't shoot to incapacitate anyone. You only shoot someone so they stop the behavior that could kill you or cause you serious bodily harm (or to another person). And even then the shooting will be criticized and scrutinized by many people.



VanGuy said:


> Not a very good shot if he's close enough that the casings were near the driver's side door, which the passenger was trying to enter, and only 2/6 center mass attempts hit and just barely.


I agree, if the pax didn't have the opportunity to run him over , the shooting may not be deemed justified.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

Shooter and deactivated Uber Driver Clayton Benedict mugshot from a previous booking. ?Authorities already investigated Benedict in 2015, when he and his ex-wife were charged with abuse of a child?

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-driver-kills-passenger-over-vomit-in-car-police-say-2019-5


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

RabbleRouser said:


> Shooter and deactivated Uber Driver Clayton Benedict mugshot from a previous booking. ?Authorities already investigated Benedict in 2015, when he and his ex-wife were charged with abuse of a child?
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-driver-kills-passenger-over-vomit-in-car-police-say-2019-5


This won't end well for him.


----------



## minnoshh (Apr 22, 2019)

The paxs threat to run him over with his own car is very unlikely to have happened. Im not saying it couldnt have happened but 9/10 it wouldn't have. Even if the pax managed to get behind the wheel , i'd back the view that the driver still wouldnt get run over(could be for a number of reasons), even by a drunk. IMO, this time the odds would decrease to say 7/10. Technically the driver might have a self defense card but he could have done many other preventative things before shooting and killing the pax. Even as a last resort, shooting in the air might have been enough to prevent a death. I also dont agree with saying of "shooting to kill" especially against an unarmed person.

The driver seemed to be trigger happy like so many in the US who have been allowed to kill because of legality of having firearms. What would be the chances of a death coming out of this scenario if nobody had a firearm? IMO there would be less than 1% chance of somebody dying here if firearms werent present. 
Self defense is a petty excuse to carry a firearm unless one is a farmer or lives in a remote area. Its simple the more guns that that appear in a situation whether its self defense or not the more likely there a fatalities. Id rather be unarmed against an armed person as cooperating would save either your life or his life. Let cameras and modern technology find and criminate offenders. 
It might take years and many unwarranted deaths before guns can be taken off the streets to a satisfactory level but one has to start somewhere right?



XPG said:


> No it's not WTF. I find rider's reaction very normal. The puke fee does not fit with the idea of "cheap rides with slavery-model worthless drivers", who are afraid at all times for being 1-starred, deactivated etc etc. Uber built this platform, where rider is the king, driver is a slave, and vehicles are worthless. Since Uber built this system, rider's behavior is normal. I hope Uber will be sued properly and pay millions of dollars to the victim's familiy. Money won't bring their loved-one back, but at least help a little. I still can't believe how a simple puke story ended up like this. Why are you arguing the fee with the rider. You try to be a taxi driver and drive around bars without preparing yourself for puker situation, that's your fault. Stop the car, help rider to throw up outside, get back driving, no arguments needed, finish the ride, give your 1-star take your pictures, submit your cleaning fee document. End of the story.


With the puke fee, whenever the subject comes up i ask riders if they would take $150 for someone to puke in there vehicle? Nobody has ever said "yes".
Also loss of earnings for that shift plus cleaning fees easily warrant $150.


----------



## U/L guy (May 28, 2019)

Who is John Galt? said:


> Interesting.... So Über's TOS is now a substitute for the law of the land?
> 
> I suppose this might be a little like the Catholic Church's cannon law, which seems to have a life of its own.
> 
> ...


If you bring a firearm into Disney you'll be arrested because you know it's not allowed and you'll be arrested, it's an implied agreement, same with Uber's TOS.



nosurgenodrive said:


> This won't end well for him.


And yet Uber hired him.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> If you bring a firearm into Disney you'll be arrested because you know it's not allowed and you'll be arrested, it's an implied agreement, same with Uber's TOS.
> 
> 
> And yet Uber hired him.


That's the basis of the law suit file by the deceased parents against Uber
?The shooter should never of been given access to the driver's app.
and Uber does nothing to enforce it's no gun policy.

?Maybe be4 a driver can log on, the Uber app asks a question:
"Do u have a little pee pee?". If driver clicks: Yes ✅
The algorithm knows he's in possession of a weapon
and auto deactivation is initiated


----------



## nosurgenodrive (May 13, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> If you bring a firearm into Disney you'll be arrested because you know it's not allowed and you'll be arrested, it's an implied agreement, same with Uber's TOS.
> 
> 
> And yet Uber hired him.


Have you been to a greenlight hub recently?


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

U/L guy said:


> If you bring a firearm into Disney you'll be arrested because you know it's not allowed and you'll be arrested, it's an implied agreement, same with Uber's TOS.


So, I would be arrested *not* because I broke the law but because I was knowingly and blatantly being naughty. Is that what you are saying?

.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

Former Uber driver and shooter, little Clayton Benedict


----------



## JohnnyBravo836 (Dec 5, 2018)

minnoshh said:


> The paxs threat to run him over with his own car is very unlikely to have happened. Im not saying it couldnt have happened but 9/10 it wouldn't have. Even if the pax managed to get behind the wheel , i'd back the view that the driver still wouldnt get run over(could be for a number of reasons), even by a drunk. IMO, this time the odds would decrease to say 7/10. Technically the driver might have a self defense card but he could have done many other preventative things before shooting and killing the pax. Even as a last resort, shooting in the air might have been enough to prevent a death. I also dont agree with saying of "shooting to kill" especially against an unarmed person.
> 
> The driver seemed to be trigger happy like so many in the US who have been allowed to kill because of legality of having firearms. What would be the chances of a death coming out of this scenario if nobody had a firearm? IMO there would be less than 1% chance of somebody dying here if firearms werent present.
> Self defense is a petty excuse to carry a firearm unless one is a farmer or lives in a remote area. Its simple the more guns that that appear in a situation whether its self defense or not the more likely there a fatalities. Id rather be unarmed against an armed person as cooperating would save either your life or his life. Let cameras and modern technology find and criminate offenders.
> It might take years and many unwarranted deaths before guns can be taken off the streets to a satisfactory level but one has to start somewhere right?


I don't really disagree with any of this; it's obvious that the shooter is a complete imbecile and escalated the situation at several points where he might have simply let it go. Nonetheless, I think there's a good chance that he will wind up not getting charged, or acquitted at trial if he is.

I'll say it again: "George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin". It's extremely difficult to predict how any given group of jurors will judge a set of facts. Zimmerman calls and reports what he regards as a "suspicious person" (in this case, an unarmed 17 year old buying candy and soda). He tells the police on the phone he's going to follow the kid: they directly tell him not to, but he ignores them and does it anyway. He then confronts the kid, and a physical struggle ensues; Zimmerman may well have initiated it, or the kid may have because he's being followed and confronted by a stranger at night -- not an unreasonable reaction by the kid, mind you. The kid starts getting the better of Zimmerman, so Zimmerman shoots and kills him. And _he gets acquitted_; apparently, in Florida you can precipitate a fist fight and if you start losing it, you can shoot the other guy. That's what the jury said, in effect.

Here the driver says the guy said he was going to run him over with his own car. If the ballistics supports the claim that the pax was attempting to enter the driver's side door, that's not going to be an easy case for the prosecutors to win. They still might, but it's _very_ dicey. They also don't like going ahead with a case like that, which has very high visibility, only to wind up losing.


----------



## UberLAguy (Aug 2, 2015)

We all should buy a go pro for placing on the forehead, or body can. This is in addition to the 2-4 dashcams in the car.


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

1.5xorbust said:


> Yeah $150 is a little steep for a minor cleanup.


$150 isnt nearly enough for a puke clean up fee.



U/L guy said:


> Carry a gun and automatically deactivated, TOS agreement.


Carry a gun and live if you need it. #### uber.



BlueNOX said:


> The state of Colorado would disagree with you. Rideshare driver shot a pax multiple times for hitting the driver about the head and face.
> 
> Did you forget about that one. And no, a punch to the face is not justified with shooting someone. Not a reasonable response.
> 
> ...


If someone starts hitting me, and i didnt give them explicit permission to do so, ill be shooting them dead. I have ABSOLUTELY no requirement to allow some ass to beat me. I have ABSOLUTELY no requirement to risk my life to see if the assailant isnt skilled in martial arts of some sort. It goes like this:

1. Do not assualt me.

2. Ignore #1 and i will eliminate the threat that was forced upon me.



Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?


If you shoot, you shoot to kill. Only untrained, ignorant folks think otherwise.



U/L guy said:


> Carry a gun and automatically deactivated, TOS agreement.


I carry, havent been deactivated. Obviously its not automatic.



BlueNOX said:


> There is no such thing as shooting to incapacitate. A good shooter aims for 3 things.
> 
> Head. Instant death.
> 
> ...


A good shooter aims for center mass and puts 2-3 rounds in it. In movies they aim for that nonsense.



wicked said:


> The public doesn't even understand how unsecure Rideshare is. If the driver can prove that the deceased was walking toward the car AND made that specific threat he has a case for self defense.
> 
> He is done with Rideshare and probably any gainful employment for the rest of his life. He demonstrated an extreme lack of ability to control the situation. It would have been simple to finish the ride, drop the pax off and deal with the cleaning fee with Uber.
> 
> ...


This is all very spot on.

Edit: some people do deserve to die, for instance those that force violence upon others in such a way that the victim has no way of knowing if they will be killed. Certainly not over puking in a car, and this driver had the responsibility to leave since he was armed and seems had the opportunity.


----------



## minnoshh (Apr 22, 2019)

Your a nutcase


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

minnoshh said:


> Your a nutcase


You're*


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2017)

I call it murder.

What a coward the killer is. How immature. He has the social skills of a teenager. No wonder so many people won't travel to the US. Such a violent society. And look at the cheerleaders on this thread! There are just too many of you rightious gun nuts. Too much rightious glee.

The United States was founded on enlightenment values. The key idea was that man is a rational being. But clearly that's only true sometimes. Emotions rule us. Johnathan Haidt has a neat metaphor with an elephant and a rider. The trouble in this sad case is that the elephant had a gun.






I can see the attraction of guns, particularly for the insecure and cowardly. Imagine you are 19 years old and you are offered a God-power of life or death. In your teenage narcissism you buy into it. How big you suddenly become! Now they will take you seriously! You then spend the rest of your life defending your decision. You self-select lots of reasons and statistics and hone your arguments. Trump-like, you convince yourself that you are a stable genius and whatever you think must be right.

Flame-way guys but you won't be seeing me. My travel money will go elsewhere.

_In addition to Haidt's *The Rightious Mind*, you might want to check out the psychologist Dan Ariely's *Predictably Irrational*. If you don't want to read you can find them on Youtube._

From Ontario, Canada


----------



## Senzo (Sep 26, 2018)

TBone said:


> What kind of millennial bs is this? You shoot, you shoot to kill. Period. Better to have a dead person than an angry one wanting revenge


This article might enlighten you, then again.

https://www.policeone.com/Officer-S...ting-center-mass-Shooting-to-kill-or-to-stop/


----------



## June132017 (Jun 13, 2017)

What a dumb driver. They should lock him up for 750 years for being stupid. Just in-case people start living longer in the future.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

June132017 said:


> What a dumb driver. They should lock him up for 750 years for being stupid. Just in-case people start living longer in the future.


Banning him from driving for all rideshare companies is more than enough punishment.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> Banning him from driving for all rideshare companies is more than enough punishment.


Who is going to ban his employer Uber from rideshare business for not training the driver for such cases before hiring him as a driver?


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

U/L guy said:


> If you bring a firearm into Disney you'll be arrested because you know it's not allowed and you'll be arrested, it's an implied agreement, same with Uber's TOS.
> 
> 
> And yet Uber hired him.


Disney will ask you to leave and may call police for assistance, although unlikely.

But if Disney opens in Texas, you will not be arrested if you are licensed to carry.

You are an idiot hunting for examples to support your incorrect view.


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> I call it murder.
> 
> What a coward the killer is. How immature. He has the social skills of a teenager. No wonder so many people won't travel to the US. Such a violent society. And look at the cheerleaders on this thread! There are just too many of you rightious gun nuts. Too much rightious glee.
> 
> ...


While I'm not convinced that this guy was in the right because it sure seems he had the ability to get away from the situation I would also add only morons think that people do not have the right to defend themselves and that they have to be subject to a violent attack from a stranger without adequate means of defense. Assuming everybody who is potentially victimized could somehow physically best any random attacker is really a stupid point of view.

Owning a firearm and being responsible with it, Seeking training, are FAR different from thinking youre cool cause you have a firearm, or that you must show it off or use it to bully people.

Trump-like you have convinced yourself there is no honest reason to own and/or carry. Not everyone goes around flashing their piece like a gangster.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> But if Disney opens in Texas, you will not be arrested if you are licensed to carry.


Doesn't matter if it's Texas or if you're licensed. 
If Disney didn't allow it then you can't carry on their property.


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> Doesn't matter if it's Texas or if you're licensed.
> If Disney didn't allow it then you can't carry on their property.


Actually, the Disney statement is true, but a poor example. Disney owns the land their park sits on and can enforce whatever rule they want inside the park.

Uber does not own or even lease the cars drivers operate this they have no rights to say what we can or can not have inside those vehicles.

As far as saying doesn't matter if it's texas... In AZ is most certainly does matter if it's AZ as the open/concealed carry law in AZ specifically states that if an employer were to terminate an employee for having a firearm I. Their vehicle they can be liable for lost wages up to $50k. Be careful with blanket statements.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

BlueNOX said:


> Uber does not own or even lease the cars drivers operate this they have no rights to say what we can or can not have inside those vehicles.


 They have no rights to say what you can not have? Is this a law or you are just saying it? If it's a law, can you cite please?


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

XPG said:


> They have no rights to say what you can not have? Is this a law or you are just saying it? If it's a law, can you cite please?


Its called being 1099 vs W2


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

1.5xorbust said:


> Yeah $150 is a little steep for a minor cleanup.


It's still cheaper than a $35,000 funeral.


----------



## XPG (Oct 4, 2017)

OMG GO! said:


> Its called being 1099 vs W2


Ha ok then.


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

AZ Open/Conceal Carry Law. Applies to the state of AZ.



XPG said:


> They have no rights to say what you can not have? Is this a law or you are just saying it? If it's a law, can you cite please?


AZ Open/Conceal Carry Law.



JohnnyBravo836 said:


> I don't really disagree with any of this; it's obvious that the shooter is a complete imbecile and escalated the situation at several points where he might have simply let it go. Nonetheless, I think there's a good chance that he will wind up not getting charged, or acquitted at trial if he is.
> 
> I'll say it again: "George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin". It's extremely difficult to predict how any given group of jurors will judge a set of facts. Zimmerman calls and reports what he regards as a "suspicious person" (in this case, an unarmed 17 year old buying candy and soda). He tells the police on the phone he's going to follow the kid: they directly tell him not to, but he ignores them and does it anyway. He then confronts the kid, and a physical struggle ensues; Zimmerman may well have initiated it, or the kid may have because he's being followed and confronted by a stranger at night -- not an unreasonable reaction by the kid, mind you. The kid starts getting the better of Zimmerman, so Zimmerman shoots and kills him. And _he gets acquitted_; apparently, in Florida you can precipitate a fist fight and if you start losing it, you can shoot the other guy. That's what the jury said, in effect.
> 
> Here the driver says the guy said he was going to run him over with his own car. If the ballistics supports the claim that the pax was attempting to enter the driver's side door, that's not going to be an easy case for the prosecutors to win. They still might, but it's _very_ dicey. They also don't like going ahead with a case like that, which has very high visibility, only to wind up losing.


The issue is that even if the victim said he was going to run the driver over, it will be claimed easily the victim was trying to use the car to defend himself.

Issue 1: Driver exited vehicle and confronted victim over a slammed door. None of us like a slammed door, but it's not a reason to start a fight. Drive off, take pics down the road and report. Collect fee.

Issue 2: The victim threw sunglasses. A firearm is NOT an equal amount of force to a pit of sunglasses. Driver pulled weapon and put it at the ready in the direction of the victim. There is no justification for a weapon to be drawn.

Issue 3: this happened in New Mexico. New Mexico law says that a gun in a car has to be in a type of secured location. New Mexico is the opposite of AZ on guns at places of employment. In AZ the law protects our 2nd Amendment right and employers have to take multiple steps to deny a gun in a car. New Mexico tells employers they can ban them if they want to even in the car in the parking lot. The driver agreed to Uber's TOS which says no guns.

Grey area on issue 3. But 1 & 2 in my opinion the driver is guilty of murder.


----------



## minnoshh (Apr 22, 2019)

OMG GO! said:


> $150 isnt nearly enough for a puke clean up fee.
> 
> 
> Carry a gun and live if you need it. #### uber.
> ...


So youve gone back an edited your rambo views. This proves that your views were of a nutcase, hence edited. Control yourself out there, people like you should be locked up.


----------



## gambler1621 (Nov 14, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Whenever you fire a gun at someone it is to kill.


 This guarantees that you will have a long expensive trial. You aim for center of mass, for the purpose of stopping a threat. If the aggressor dies, that is merely a side effect.

You never shoot to warn or wound. Doing so can be construed in court to show that you were not in a life or death struggle.


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

U/L guy said:


> Carry a gun and automatically deactivated, TOS agreement.


It does not matter, the driver is going to be deactivated after this situation regardless, may as well be able to protect your life and property.


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

minnoshh said:


> So youve gone back an edited your rambo views. This proves that your views were of a nutcase, hence edited. Control yourself out there, people like you should be locked up.


I edited typos, added things for clarity ya nutter. My POV has not changed. A nutcase like you thinks people HAVE to be victims when some criminal decides to get violent. You havent a clue about how i think, clearly. Im not looking to shoot anyone. Im not lookin to fight anyone. I dont wanna go to court and spend all that inevitable money in my defense. Force violence upon me, i will react in a way as to garuntee i win and go home. Dont want to get shot? Dont force me into a corner. As for the dude in the story, he really should have stayed in his car and drove off. Control myself? You know how many jackasses ive dealt with while armed and NEVER felt the need to draw? Im sorry kid, but you are a dumb####. People like you shouldnt vote until you inform yourself, at least a little bit.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

gambler1621 said:


> This guarantees that you will have a long expensive trial. You aim for center of mass, for the purpose of stopping a threat. If the aggressor dies, that is merely a side effect.
> 
> You never shoot to warn or wound. Doing so can be construed in court to show that you were not in a life or death struggle.


You completely miss the point.

A gun is a fatal weapon. By aiming and pulling the trigger I acknowledge that I'm putting your life in critical jeopardy.

Training to incapacitate means shooting in critical mass until assailant hits ground. It is essentially a death sentence, no matter how you dress this up.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> Doesn't matter if it's Texas or if you're licensed.
> If Disney didn't allow it then you can't carry on their property.


That does not make it arrest-able.


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> That does not make it arrest-able.


True, but you said it as if just because it's Texas you can take your gun anywhere.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> That does not make it arrest-able.


No, I did not. I used Texas to demonstrate the difference between state law and company policy.

Context is everything


----------



## BlueNOX (Apr 3, 2016)

Cableguynoe said:


> True, but you said it as if just because it's Texas you can take your gun anywhere.


That would be damn near anywhere in AZ, Texas has more restrictions.


----------



## Gandler (Jan 27, 2019)

Don'tchasethesurge said:


> Also how many times he shor him? Did he shoot to kill or incapacitate the drunk?


You always shoot to kill...... Never use a firearm to "incapcitate"....... Basic defense training....


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

Gandler said:


> You always shoot to kill...... Never use a firearm to "incapcitate"....... Basic defense training....


Correct.
A dead man can't testify that they weren't being threatening and that you were in fact the agressor. 
Just kill em and it's your word against a dead guy.


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

Cableguynoe said:


> Correct.
> A dead man can't testify that they weren't being threatening and that you were in fact the agressor.
> Just kill em and it's your word against a dead guy.


Thats the anecdotal thing people say. Real reason is, if you arent willing to kill, if the situation doesnt warrant it, you dont shoot at all, you dont even draw. Shooting to "incapacitate" is likely to end up not working because you miss. You miss, you could die. The person forcing the violence deserves what they get. They could always avoid all danger by leaving people the #### alone. The person they are trying to victimize has no need to risk seeing how far the asshole will take their assault.


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2017)

OMG GO! said:


> Thats the anecdotal thing people say. Real reason is, if you arent willing to kill, if the situation doesnt warrant it, you dont shoot at all, you dont even draw. Shooting to "incapacitate" is likely to end up not working because you miss. You miss, you could die. The person forcing the violence deserves what they get. They could always avoid all danger by leaving people the #### alone. The person they are trying to victimize has no need to risk seeing how far the @@@@@@@ will take their assault.


What a sad tale to see how successful the NRA has become in making this violence acceptable. Sadly, the pro-gun people have bought into it. Narrow self-defence scenarios have blinded them to the big picture. Death due to rage and irrationalism, suicide and accident: the carnage is ignored and obscured by a narrative of justified homicide, that rare, contrived case chosen by the NRA out of the rampant carnage that has spread like a cancer across the US and is exported by the movie industry all over our suffering world. Fear, violence and gore: easy, lazy drama churned out in an unending and profitable video stream.

There is the psychological burden, too, a fear carried by society in general. The NRA wants you to be scared. Selling a parasitic product, like a gun or a cigarette is profitable. Fear is a powerful motivator but the unacknowledged by-product is that society becomes inauthentic with politeness out of fear and everyone walking on eggshells.

Then there are the blood soaked imaginations of the gun defenders. That can't be good for their happiness. Training to drop and roll, shoot for the centre-mass or whatever it is they practice. Personally, I think they are fearful cowards. Maybe they should practice self-defence with knive or is that too close and over-the-top?. "Go for the centre-mass", or the jugular or whatever they would teach. Spurting, bloody imaginings, blood soaked dreams: yuk. This is not a paradise for the mind! It's a grim, fearful world for them. They have been victimized.

They are lazy, too, and certain in a belief that their instant judgements will be right and true. The poor victim in this case. He lost his head and died because one of these thoughtless, self-affirming gun nuts didn't bother to learn any people skills but reached immediately for his go-to argument- his pistol.

I think the only way you Americans can heal is to get the big money, the dark money, out of politics and out of the hands of industries that would consume your social trust and distort your worldview for profit. The Citizen's United ruling has been a disaster for you. Subtle arguments, launched by well-funded think-tanks, warp notions of freedom into a selfish a-social individualism. Fear is ramped up and alternatives are subverted. In their employ are a-moral, professional psychologists, black hats, who use their knowledge for propaganda for the billionaires. They say: "I was just following orders". The narrative has become warped and overwhelmed by the money.

I saw this thread because it was a top 10, I usually don't leave the Toronto thread. For me this, has become violence pornography. I'm going to have to leave. I am not desensitized enough.

From Ontario, Canada.


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

Athos said:


> What a sad tale to see how successful the NRA has become in making this violence acceptable. Sadly, the pro-gun people have bought into it. Narrow self-defence scenarios have blinded them to the big picture. Death due to rage and irrationalism, suicide and accident: the carnage is ignored and obscured by a narrative of justified homicide, that rare, contrived case chosen by the NRA out of the rampant carnage that has spread like a cancer across the US and is exported by the movie industry all over our suffering world. Fear, violence and gore: easy, lazy drama churned out in an unending and profitable video stream.
> 
> There is the psychological burden, too, a fear carried by society in general. The NRA wants you to be scared. Selling a parasitic product, like a gun or a cigarette is profitable. Fear is a powerful motivator but the unacknowledged by-product is that society becomes inauthentic with politeness out of fear and everyone walking on eggshells.
> 
> ...


Im not a member, nor a fan, of the NRA. Im just not an idiot. Violence happens. Ive experienced it. Now that ive aged "over the hill" im not gonna be some idiot that thinks he can fight off any assault, or that i somehow HAVE to. A UBER DRIVER WAS ****ING MURDERED WHERE I DRIVE RECENTLY FYI.

Your assumptions here about myself, others and about EVERY SCENARIO THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN, really display how naive you are. The funniest part of your long diatribe, is that you seem to think what every professional teaches, is wrong, based on your ZERO knowledge or training. I bet going at life that way does you a lot of favors. Knowing nothing but assuming everything.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

Shooter and deactivated Uber Driver Clayton Benedict mugshot from a previous booking. ?Authorities already investigated Benedict in 2015, when he and his ex-wife were charged with abuse of a child?









https://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber-driver-kills-passenger-over-vomit-in-car-police-say-2019-5


----------



## Athos (Mar 15, 2017)

The gun lobby works in subtle ways. Their target is boys.

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/worlds-hottest-marine-shannon-ihrke-strips-desert-photoshoot


----------



## Cableguynoe (Feb 14, 2017)

RabbleRouser said:


> Shooter and deactivated Uber Driver Clayton Benedict mugshot from a previous booking. ?Authorities already investigated Benedict in 2015, when he and his ex-wife were charged with abuse of a child?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks like a selfie not a mugshot


----------



## Bork_Bork_Bork (May 20, 2019)

VanGuy said:


> Not a very good shot if he's close enough that the casings were near the driver's side door, which the passenger was trying to enter, and only 2/6 center mass attempts hit and just barely.


Nice assumptions. Nowhere does it say how many times he was hit. Maybe he was a piss poor shot. Maybe all 6 hit and only 2 exited. Under the armpit is a VERY common exit path.This isn't an autopsy report, it's an on scene observation. Idiot Monday Morning Quarterbacking. The fact he wasn't charged, and was released is pretty telling.....


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

This just In. Uber Driver Clayton Benedict, 32, charged with second-degree murder on Monday - more than three months after the shooting death of 27-year-old James Porter.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/new-mexico-driver-charged-in-uber-passengers-shooting-death/
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Prosecutors have charged a driver in the shooting death of an Uber passenger who authorities say was killed along the side of an Albuquerque highway after a dispute over vomit in the vehicle.


----------



## OMG GO! (Jul 11, 2017)

RabbleRouser said:


> This just In. Uber Driver Clayton Benedict, 32, charged with second-degree murder on Monday - more than three months after the shooting death of 27-year-old James Porter.
> 
> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/new-mexico-driver-charged-in-uber-passengers-shooting-death/
> ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Prosecutors have charged a driver in the shooting death of an Uber passenger who authorities say was killed along the side of an Albuquerque highway after a dispute over vomit in the vehicle.


That seemed pretty inevitable. Dude had every chance to leave, instead got out of the car and continued the confrontation. You dont have that option if youre armed.


----------



## Declineathon (Feb 12, 2019)

Deserves a fair trial.


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

Declineathon said:


> Deserves a fair trial.


It took the DA 3 months to charge this Uber Driver.
I suspect All the ducks are in a row,
and trial a slam dunk

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/new-mexico-driver-charged-in-uber-passengers-shooting-death/


----------



## dlearl476 (Oct 3, 2017)

RabbleRouser said:


> It took the DA 3 months to charge this Uber Driver.
> I suspect All the ducks are in a row,
> and trial a slam dunk
> 
> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/new-mexico-driver-charged-in-uber-passengers-shooting-death/


See: Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin


----------



## Declineathon (Feb 12, 2019)

DA vs PubDef? The narrative sounds like M1.

but the DA is going with Man2. 15yrs.

A lesser plea is Man w/ firearm for 7.

This guy is lucky he had dash cam. Footage, otherwise it would have been life w/o parole.


----------



## Z129 (May 30, 2018)

Cableguynoe said:


> That looks like a selfie not a mugshot


Didn't he play Jake in Two and a Half Men?


----------



## RabbleRouser (Apr 30, 2019)

dlearl476 said:


> See: Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin


 Unrelated other than both uber driver Clayton Benedict and George Michael _Zimmerman_ are dirt bags

this victim, James Porter was Caucasian, educated gainfully employed middle class with a future.
Clayton Benedict will meet his end while incarcerated at the end of a shiv to his carotid artery

victim Jim Porter









Dirtbag uber driver Benedict


----------

