# Uber driver shoots and kills his passenger



## BurgerTiime

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/01/uber-driver-fatal-shooting-i-25-denver/

*Denver police question Uber driver who allegedly shot, killed a client on I-25 *
*Southbound lanes of I-25 at University Boulevard will be closed though the rush hour, police say*
*







*
Denver police are questioning an Uber driver for investigation of allegedly fatally shooting a client early Friday morning on southbound Interstate 25, triggering a shutdown of the highway's southbound lanes at University Boulevard through the commute, according to media reports.

The shooting occurred at about 3 a.m.
The vehicle, identified by Fox 31 Denver as a silver sedan, veered off the road and hit a wall on a highway ramp









Police said the driver shot the passenger, an adult male, multiple times. According to emergency dispatch communications, the driver called 911 to report the shooting.

Officers on the scene attempted to perform CPR on the passenger but the man was pronounced dead.

The names of the Uber customer and driver have not been released. The shooting happened before 3 a.m. near the University exit. A car crashed into the concrete barrier at the median.









Denver police declined to confirm reports by several media outlets that the incident involved an Uber driver.

Marika Putnam, Denver police spokeswoman, said the highway will be closed at least through the rush hour while police look for evidence.

Uber, on its website, says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.

"Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."


----------



## TimyTim

No chance to use the emergency option!


----------



## Uber's Guber

Another pax who was threatening to 1* a driver??!


----------



## Cableguynoe

Finally someone does what we have all been thinking about.

"Try to give me directions one more time and see what happens!"


----------



## mikes424

Told the driver "I'll tip you in the app?"


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver

What in the world could anyone do to get shot?!









https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...senger-dead-denver-highway-police-say-n879176


----------



## Pax Collector

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> What in the world could anyone do to get shot?!


Oh, that's an easy one; Threaten someone with great bodily harm, for starters?


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

more dead bodies the better whats done in the dark will eventually come to light

sorry this has to happen but evil needs to be exposed im suprised more drivers arent going postal

$2 can make you see red when you have nothing to lose & you spent $5+ to "earn" it


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver

Pax Collector said:


> Oh, that's an easy one; Threaten someone with great bodily harm, for starters?


Pax looks like was seating in the front seat and wanted to change radio tunes. 
Driver: no ****, you wanna die today?


----------



## Pax Collector

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> no ****, you wanna die today?


"Do you, ****? Do you? Get your stinky claws off my radio!"

Hopefully driver had a dashcam and we'll get to see what happened.


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

lost his job but not his life

should show riders some drivers not punks & roll strapped

good thing pax had a new feature that requires 4 swipes & a press to call 911

cabs dont have partitions to protect riders just saying lol

to me you gotta be crazy to work those hours but 3am far from airports it starts up, more around 4am but might as well get an extra one

gotta know when to cancel & ignore


----------



## KellyC

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> What in the world could anyone do to get shot?!
> View attachment 233657
> 
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...senger-dead-denver-highway-police-say-n879176


In the middle of the freaking highway yet.


----------



## mrpjfresh

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> Pax looks like was seating in the front seat and wanted to change radio tunes.
> Driver: no ****, you wanna die today?


I feel bad laughing because I am picturing Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan in _Rush Hour_. " Ahhh... Beach Boys!"

Maybe I've been lucky, but I cannot say that I have ever wanted to shoot a pax dead.


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

grapevine says argument passenger pulled gun, driver wasn't no punk wasn't bout to get his card pulled, said no taco bell for you, & won suffering minor injuries in the process

just think 2:45 am probably a $10 trip two people in a car both strapped

will uber charge dead rider & award driver a cleaning fee or deactivate & make em call in a real cleaner










this is Americans


----------



## rembrandt

It will be a game changer once it happens in each and every state. Passangers must be subservient to the drivers. If not, take a cab or drive your own vehicle.


----------



## KellyC

mrpjfresh said:


> I feel bad laughing because I am picturing Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan in _Rush Hour_. " Ahhh... Beach Boys!"
> 
> Maybe I've been lucky, but I cannot say that I have ever wanted to shoot a pax dead.


Lol, neither have I, though I've wanted to punch one or two.

I continue to think that it's an extremely bad idea for rideshare drivers to carry guns.



homelesslawnmowers said:


> grapevine says argument passenger pulled gun, driver wasn't no punk wasn't bout to het his card pulled & won
> 
> just think 2:45 am probably a $10 trip two people in a car both strapped
> 
> this is Americans


Insanity.

Hope there's dashcam footage.


----------



## rembrandt

This is the ultimate price to pay when passangers become ‘ultra-entitled’ on a cheap ride.


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

KellyC said:


> Lol, neither have I, though I've wanted to punch one or two.
> 
> I continue to think that it's an extremely bad idea for rideshare drivers to carry guns.
> 
> Insanity.
> 
> Hope there's dashcam footage.


not bad at all id rather have my life than an uber gig

gun saved his life he can still drive today, talk & make memories with his loved ones, the 2 tacos he was getting for the trip he can still enjoy


----------



## 58756

He will be permanently deactivated due to "No firearm law", but at least he lives. He will still have to go to court and all of that, and if convicted he can face manslaughter or other charges. Personally I don't carry firearms and let God protect me, a gun may not be able to save me if another person is shooting at me. It sounds like they are not even sure if he was in an Uber ride when this happened. They may have just saw his Uber stickers on windshield. 

"Jackson said authorities were in contact with Uber and it was unclear if the shooting occurred while the driver was on a job. Prosecutors had not announced any charges as of early Friday morning."


----------



## Kodyhead

KellyC said:


> In the middle of the freaking highway yet.


I agree, I usually like to shoot people in a wooded area or desert


----------



## BurgerTiime

Wow caused massive traffic backup. All those other Uber drivers sitting in traffic making pennies a min made a killing! Ohhhh, too early? Lol 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...shoots-passenger-denver-interstate/662964002/


----------



## leroy jenkins

Cr. Ppy journalists are out with headlines biased against driver. It's class stereotyping by lazy, smug journalists---. Drivers are nutjob schlubs. Pax are angels.

True unbiased headline: Driver shoots pax: circumstances unknown. Pax dead, investigation ongoing.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver

leroy jenkins said:


> Cr. Ppy journalists are out with headlines biased against driver. It's class stereotyping by lazy, smug journalists---. Drivers are nutjob schlubs. Pax are angels.
> 
> True unbiased headline: Driver shoots pax: circumstances unknown. Pax dead, investigation ongoing.


Most likely will be the headline "breaking" news on all the major networks. And, I'm loving it!
#ScumbagDara take that!


----------



## heynow321

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> What in the world could anyone do to get shot?!
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...senger-dead-denver-highway-police-say-n879176


please tell me you're joking.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver

NRA lover are you?!

Edit: I meant to quote someone else. My bad.


----------



## heynow321

Ozzyoz said:


> Personally I don't carry firearms and let God protect me,"


yeah good luck with that.



OrlUberOffDriver said:


> NRA lover are you?!


nah, just low tolerance for stupidity.


----------



## heynow321

people will be increasingly learning that you do not always get your way. You would have thought they would learn that lesson when they were 9....


----------



## touberornottouber

KellyC said:


> I continue to think that it's an extremely bad idea for rideshare drivers to carry guns.


It's not a bad idea if you have some training and the right mentality for it. It's a very bad idea to pull a gun at the wrong time or with the wrong mentality. For instance some people will pull a gun to try to intimidate. That is wrong and just stupid.

The gun should be the last resort and when you pull it you should be prepared to use it. Some non-lethal weapon like pepper spray or a tazer should usually be considered first if the passenger is/seems unarmed. But even better just try to de-escalate or run.

I've been robbed twice at night when doing taxi (over a decade ago). Once with a gun. The other with a knife and got cut up a bit when fighting the two punks a bit (went for my radio to dispatch). It would have been nice to have the gun or some other weapon for the punks with the knives. I would have simply had to open the door, step out, and draw. They would have lost -- either prison or death. For the robbery with a gun, I knew it was coming a second or two in advance and if I had a firearm I could have drew my weapon, sure. But the guy was calm and seemed like a pro and I didn't think he'd hurt me (he didn't). But some aren't like that. Some WANT to hurt or kill you so there are no witnesses. The weapon gives you a fighting chance IF you make that determination. If you do pull your gun on the robber who also has his gun out though it is pretty much going to be either you or him at that point and you need to realize that. It is the ultimate in escalation. You may have gotten off unhurt before but now you could end up dead. It's about a 50/50 chance now. So sometimes it is a tough call to make: fight back in some way or not. It happens fast too.


----------



## Uber's Guber

Anybody seen what's missing from this story? Pax is described as "male" but gender of the "Uber driver" was not announced.
Maybe she's female, and was being assaulted by a scum bag?
*UPDATE*: another news account says it was 2 males. Still doesn't verify if relationship was pax/driver, or 2 buddies.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver

Uber's Guber said:


> Anybody seen what's missing from this story? Pax is described as "male" but gender of the "Uber driver" was not announced.
> Maybe she's female, and was being assaulted by a scum bag?


Male/female it does not matter. I personally know females that most of us would not want to mess with.
If you carry and make the decision to draw your weapon then you also need to be prepared to shoot to kill!


----------



## BurgerTiime

leroy jenkins said:


> Cr. Ppy journalists are out with headlines biased against driver. It's class stereotyping by lazy, smug journalists---. Drivers are nutjob schlubs. Pax are angels.
> 
> True unbiased headline: Driver shoots pax: circumstances unknown. Pax dead, investigation ongoing.


Perhaps journalism is your calling?


----------



## TimyTim




----------



## fwdmarch

Will the $150 cleaning fee cover the cost of removing the blood stains?


----------



## FormerTaxiDriver♧

Looks like some kind of *bar call* crap!


----------



## BurgerTiime

Passenger didn't notice the decal identification on his windshield???


----------



## Trump Economics

TimyTim said:


>


Yaaaaaaaassssssssssss


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

fwdmarch said:


> Will the $150 cleaning fee cover the cost of removing the blood stains?


doubtful, you know they won't get the car released back to them for weeks. It will be dried and set it. Also at point blank range a lethal shot was probobly a thru and thru (bullet passes through).

So your looking at pooled blood, at least one bullet hole (probably more) in at least a seat, maybe damage to the uni-body as well from the bullets.

Your looking at a bare minimum of completely redoing the carpet, the back seat, and the body damage to the wreck.

The fact the car has a body tied to it... it's value is gone for anything but scrapping if you choose not to keep it.

Personally i'd tell the PD i don't want the car back, then they would dispose of it.

A car with a dead body tied to it is never ending bad juju.

Going back to the original story,

Here's some details i pulled from the story,

1. The driver called 911 (Wasn't trying to get away with it)
2. The car crashed into the side of the road
3. The driver was arrested (standard for shooting deaths {everywhere but Sanford Florida})

My suspicion?

I don't suspect armed robbery, no one gets robbed/car jacked on the highway. This is something that i don't think a lot of you have considered. You don't rob someone on the highway because there's no escape for the attacker and if you shoot the driver while your driving your gonna get into an accident.

Self defense robberies are also very quick to determine. BECAUSE there would be two weapons present. The attacker and the victim.

That leaves other acts of violence against the driver spurred on by... High surge? Drunken Shenanigans?

If/when we get the details we are going to find that it was either not an uber trip, and thus anything could have happened, or a violent drunken A-hole who got way out of hand and caused an accident, and the driver had to defend himself.

But i have to remind you folks, not once have I ever called the cops on a customer for robbery, but i have had multiple drunken altercations.


----------



## FormerTaxiDriver♧

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> doubtful, you know they won't get the car released back to them for weeks. It will be dried and set it. Also at point blank range a lethal shot was probobly a thru and thru (bullet passes through).
> 
> So your looking at pooled blood, at least one bullet hole (probably more) in at least a seat, maybe damage to the uni-body as well from the bullets.
> 
> Your looking at a bare minimum of completely redoing the carpet, the back seat, and the body damage to the wreck.
> 
> The fact the car has a body tied to it... it's value is gone for anything but scrapping if you choose not to keep it.
> 
> Personally i'd tell the PD i don't want the car back, then they would dispose of it.
> 
> A car with a dead body tied to it is never ending bad juju.
> 
> Going back to the original story,
> 
> Here's some details i pulled from the story,
> 
> 1. The driver called 911 (Wasn't trying to get away with it)
> 2. The car crashed into the side of the road
> 3. The driver was arrested (standard for shooting deaths {everywhere but Sanford Florida})
> 
> My suspicion?
> 
> I don't suspect armed robbery, no one gets robbed/car jacked on the highway. This is something that i don't think a lot of you have considered. You don't rob someone on the highway because there's no escape for the attacker and if you shoot the driver while your driving your gonna get into an accident.
> 
> Self defense robberies are also very quick to determine. BECAUSE there would be two weapons present. The attacker and the victim.
> 
> That leaves other acts of violence against the driver spurred on by... High surge? Drunken Shenanigans?
> 
> If/when we get the details we are going to find that it was either not an uber trip, and thus anything could have happened, or a violent drunken A-hole who got way out of hand and caused an accident, and the driver had to defend himself.
> 
> But i have to remind you folks, not once have I ever called the cops on a customer for robbery, but i have had multiple drunken altercations.


Uberman will buy it from a copart auction with a BIO tag on it.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

BurgerTiime said:


> Wow caused massive traffic backup. All those other Uber drivers sitting in traffic making pennies a min made a killing! Ohhhh, too early? Lol
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...shoots-passenger-denver-interstate/662964002/


Scary. I left Denver for home 20 min before the shooting. Here is another part of the story that will not play well for Uber. The driver was driving without a valid licence and had multiple prior traffic violations going back more than a year. So, is he really an Uber driver or did he just have the dress? If he was active with Uber, what happened with the background check that Uber promise is run?

This will be interesting to watch.


----------



## FormerTaxiDriver♧

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Scary. I left Denver for home 20 min before the shooting. Here is another part of the story that will not play well for Uber. The driver was driving without a valid licence and had multiple prior traffic violations going back more than a year. So, is he really an Uber driver or did he just have the dress? If he was active with Uber, what happened with the background check that Uber promise is run?
> 
> This will be interesting to watch.


London is right, that Uber is UNFIT!


----------



## BurgerTiime

Update: Driver arrested on 1st degree murder charges 
https://cbsloc.al/2smIg6T


----------



## Cableguynoe

fwdmarch said:


> Will the $150 cleaning fee cover the cost of removing the blood stains?





Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> doubtful, you know they won't get the car released back to them for weeks. It will be dried and set it. Also at point blank range a lethal shot was probobly a thru and thru (bullet passes through).
> 
> So your looking at pooled blood, at least one bullet hole (probably more) in at least a seat, maybe damage to the uni-body as well from the bullets.
> 
> Your looking at a bare minimum of completely redoing the carpet, the back seat, and the body damage to the wreck.
> 
> The fact the car has a body tied to it... it's value is gone for anything but scrapping if you choose not to keep it.
> 
> Personally i'd tell the PD i don't want the car back, then they would dispose of it.
> 
> A car with a dead body tied to it is never ending bad juju.
> 
> Going back to the original story,
> 
> Here's some details i pulled from the story,
> 
> 1. The driver called 911 (Wasn't trying to get away with it)
> 2. The car crashed into the side of the road
> 3. The driver was arrested (standard for shooting deaths {everywhere but Sanford Florida})
> 
> My suspicion?
> 
> I don't suspect armed robbery, no one gets robbed/car jacked on the highway. This is something that i don't think a lot of you have considered. You don't rob someone on the highway because there's no escape for the attacker and if you shoot the driver while your driving your gonna get into an accident.
> 
> Self defense robberies are also very quick to determine. BECAUSE there would be two weapons present. The attacker and the victim.
> 
> That leaves other acts of violence against the driver spurred on by... High surge? Drunken Shenanigans?
> 
> If/when we get the details we are going to find that it was either not an uber trip, and thus anything could have happened, or a violent drunken A-hole who got way out of hand and caused an accident, and the driver had to defend himself.
> 
> But i have to remind you folks, not once have I ever called the cops on a customer for robbery, but i have had multiple drunken altercations.


Wow!
Did you really give that serious response?

And a long one at that.


----------



## Kodyhead

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> doubtful, you know they won't get the car released back to them for weeks. It will be dried and set it. Also at point blank range a lethal shot was probobly a thru and thru (bullet passes through).
> 
> So your looking at pooled blood, at least one bullet hole (probably more) in at least a seat, maybe damage to the uni-body as well from the bullets.
> 
> Your looking at a bare minimum of completely redoing the carpet, the back seat, and the body damage to the wreck.
> 
> The fact the car has a body tied to it... it's value is gone for anything but scrapping if you choose not to keep it.
> 
> Personally i'd tell the PD i don't want the car back, then they would dispose of it.
> 
> A car with a dead body tied to it is never ending bad juju.
> 
> Going back to the original story,
> 
> Here's some details i pulled from the story,
> 
> 1. The driver called 911 (Wasn't trying to get away with it)
> 2. The car crashed into the side of the road
> 3. The driver was arrested (standard for shooting deaths {everywhere but Sanford Florida})
> 
> My suspicion?
> 
> I don't suspect armed robbery, no one gets robbed/car jacked on the highway. This is something that i don't think a lot of you have considered. You don't rob someone on the highway because there's no escape for the attacker and if you shoot the driver while your driving your gonna get into an accident.
> 
> Self defense robberies are also very quick to determine. BECAUSE there would be two weapons present. The attacker and the victim.
> 
> That leaves other acts of violence against the driver spurred on by... High surge? Drunken Shenanigans?
> 
> If/when we get the details we are going to find that it was either not an uber trip, and thus anything could have happened, or a violent drunken A-hole who got way out of hand and caused an accident, and the driver had to defend himself.
> 
> But i have to remind you folks, not once have I ever called the cops on a customer for robbery, but i have had multiple drunken altercations.


So you think $175 cleaning fee then? Lol



BurgerTiime said:


> Update: Driver arrested on 1st degree murder charges
> https://cbsloc.al/2smIg6T


1st degree sounds high according to my law an order degree, I'm gonna text ice-t to see what's up


----------



## just_me

BurgerTiime said:


> Update: Driver arrested on 1st degree murder charges
> https://cbsloc.al/2smIg6T


I read that the Uber driver was ''arrested for investigation of first degree murder''. I did not see an official arrest for 1st degree murder. (I may have it wrong too - please correct)
------------------------------------------------
Also from: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/01/police-uber-driver-fatally-shoots-passenger-on-interstate.html

- ''An Uber driver arrested in the fatal shooting of a passenger told a witness that he opened fire after his customer tried to attack him, police said Friday.''

- ''However, according to a partially redacted police report, (the Uber driver), declined to talk to investigators about the shooting on Interstate 25 just before 3 a.m. without a lawyer.''

- ''Uber said In a statement that it has removed (the Uber driver's) access to its app and will continue to work closely with police''.


----------



## Kodyhead

I thought 1st degree required planning and stuff, to me this might be at the highest 2nd degree, doubt he will get it but depends on the investigation


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

More....

The driver did NOT have a valid drivers licence. 

The driver had moving violations, over the last 3 YEARS that would have disqualified him both U/L. 

This is exactly what Uber promised the State of Colorado would not happen again. (Colorado nailed Uber for failing to do background checks, both driving and criminal. Colorado hit Uber with $8.9M. They reduced it by half and the case is still open, giving Colorado time to monitor how or if they shape up.)

I bet that our PUC will nail Uber to the wall. Not for the shooting, rather this driver should never had been driving.


----------



## Jo3030




----------



## UBERPROcolorado

Kodyhead said:


> I thought 1st degree required planning and stuff, to me this might be at the highest 2nd degree, doubt he will get it but depends on the investigation


In Colorado, they can charge a suspect with "investigation of" a crime. In most cases that involve death, the greater charge is filed, pending an investigation.

The driver is not talking at this point. He has a "no bond hold". A public defender was with the driver as of 3pm. Discussing the matter.


----------



## Rexi

leroy jenkins said:


> Cr. Ppy journalists are out with headlines biased against driver. It's class stereotyping by lazy, smug journalists---. Drivers are nutjob schlubs. Pax are angels.
> 
> True unbiased headline: Driver shoots pax: circumstances unknown. Pax dead, investigation ongoing.


That's the crazy part. They don't even have confirmation that the driver was even working at the time. They also don't even have confirmation the Guy was a paying passenger but they prob saw that uber sign and went with it. I'm sure this guy works for lyft too.

Either way that's the media for ya.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Kodyhead said:


> I thought 1st degree required planning and stuff, to me this might be at the highest 2nd degree, doubt he will get it but depends on the investigation


Yes weird. Many outlets stating he is in fact arrested on first degree murder charges. Perhaps this has to do with bail and maybe he's an immigrant and they suspect fleeing possibility. Don't see how this is truly 1st degree. Seems very far fetched unless he admitted to premeditated murder.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

Rexi said:


> That's the crazy part. They don't even have confirmation that the driver was even working at the time. They also don't even have confirmation the Guy was a paying passenger but they prob saw that uber sign and went with it. I'm sure this guy works for lyft too.
> 
> Either way that's the media for ya.


It HAS been confirmed via Uber, that the driver was an active driver.

It has NOT confirmed that the app was on and the rider was an Uber client.


----------



## KellyC

A few more details here: Uber says they've removed the driver's access to the app. Story doesn't address whether he was logged in & driving for Uber at the time, or whether the victim was an Uber pax.

Also apparently a witness called 911, NOT the driver. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-uber-driver-fatally-shoots-passenger-interstate-55583588


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

Corrections.....a public defender is was meeting with the driver at Denver Health Hosp. Not at the jail. He will be transported to Denver city jail shortly. Wonder if he will be allowed to take an Uber?


----------



## Palm Beach Driver

How about this. A human being lost their life today at the hands and decisions of someone else. The comments here are part of what is wrong with our country. It may be a son, father, friend, loved one and that should be enough. It is not funny to to mock death. Grow up.


----------



## Rexi

UBERPROcolorado said:


> It HAS been confirmed via Uber, that the driver was an active driver.
> 
> It has NOT confirmed that the app was on and the rider was an Uber client.


That's what I said


----------



## JimKE

Kodyhead said:


> I thought 1st degree required planning and stuff, to me this might be at the highest 2nd degree, doubt he will get it but depends on the investigation


Laws and case law vary a bit from state to state, but 1st degree usually means "premeditated" murder. But typically, "premeditated" doesn't mean the killing was planned or anything like that.

It just means intentional. If there is any demonstrable thought pattern -- even for a few seconds -- that indicates the killer *meant* to do great bodily harm, that would usually meet the "premeditated" standard.

On the "arrested for investigation" question, I'd bet that is a news media mistake. In the US, I don't know of any jurisdiction that allows arrest "for investigation." Some international jurisdictions can hold someone for "investigation" but in the US, you have have probable cause.

The quotes from the police "Statement of Probable Cause" indicate that he was, in fact, arrested. That document is usually the original arrest affidavit charging the defendant. That initial physical arrest is followed shortly (usually the next day) by a court hearing where a judge reviews the PC statement and rules that there either is, or is not, sufficient probable cause to hold the defendant for trial.

The actual formal charging document comes either from a prosecutor or a grand jury later.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002625527952183296
Here is the drivers pix.


----------



## KellyC

BurgerTiime said:


> Yes weird. Many outlets stating he is in fact arrested on first degree murder charges. Perhaps this has to do with bail and maybe he's an immigrant and they suspect fleeing possibility. Don't see how this is truly 1st degree. Seems very far fetched unless he admitted to premeditated murder.


Based on my diligent minutes of google research, I believe the state can charge a person with first degree murder if it thinks the person acts with "extreme indifference" to human life, knowing his actions could lead to the death of another person, and the actions do lead to the death of another person (who is not a co-conspirator). So I reckon pulling your loaded gun out and pointing it at someone in your car and pulling the trigger several times resulting in their death could indeed be the basis for a 1st degree murder charge.

Of course the driver can always claim self defense, which it sounds like he's going to do.



UBERPROcolorado said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002625527952183296
> Here is the drivers pix.


I can't tell if this lady is joking. Lol.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002632970841350145


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

The pix shows a partial tat....searching for a match. Might be a gang deal.

10 spent shells. Been driving with Uber for 3 yrs. College student, has a family, no criminal record is confirmed.


----------



## JimKE

KellyC said:


> I can't tell if this lady is joking. Lol.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002632970841350145


When you see a question like that, the Twit is usually either stupid or joking.

Personally, I don't think she was joking.


----------



## OrlUberOffDriver

In case you missed the network news. This is CBS reporting.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/us/felons-driving-for-uber-invs/index.html

This one takes the cake. An Uber driver with multiple felony convictions including the SALE OF ROCKET LAUNCHERS TO A MIDDLE EAST BUYER.

Oh boy.....


----------



## Kodyhead

JimKE said:


> When you see a question like that, the Twit is usually either stupid or joking.
> 
> Personally, I don't think she was joking.


Twitter is a reason why freedom of speech is a bad idea


----------



## leroy jenkins

UBERPROcolorado said:


> 10 spent shells.


This guy makes a suggestion that if you want to conceal carry for self-defense, the best choice is a revolver (like a _Ruger LCR_). one reason cuz precisely that too many spent shells doesn't look good for a self-defense argument

argue amongst yourselves

https://thesaker.is/self-defense-myths-and-choices-for-civilians/


----------



## Kodyhead

UBERPROcolorado said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/us/felons-driving-for-uber-invs/index.html
> 
> This one takes the cake. An Uber driver with multiple felony convictions including the SALE OF ROCKET LAUNCHERS TO A MIDDLE EAST BUYER.
> 
> Oh boy.....


That's the low hanging fruit arms sales lol the RPGs lol


----------



## JimKE

UBERPROcolorado said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/us/felons-driving-for-uber-invs/index.html
> 
> This one takes the cake. An Uber driver with multiple felony convictions including the SALE OF ROCKET LAUNCHERS TO A MIDDLE EAST BUYER.
> 
> Oh boy.....


In fairness, the Uber driver who is the topic of this thread is 29 years old and has no criminal record. So, your link above has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.

Also, in reference to your earlier post, just know that MANY 29 year old males (and females) have tattoos. You may not like them (I'm not a fan either), but they don't mean that person is a member of a gang.

Might just be a father of a couple of kids trying to get by...just sayin'



leroy jenkins said:


> This guy makes a suggestion that if you want to conceal carry for self-defense, the best choice is a revolver (like a _Ruger LCR_). one reason cuz precisely that too many spent shells doesn't look good for a self-defense argument
> 
> argue amongst yourselves
> 
> https://thesaker.is/self-defense-myths-and-choices-for-civilians/


With all due respect, I would look elsewhere for self-defense guidance...lol.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

JimKE said:


> In fairness, the Uber driver who is the topic of this thread is 29 years old and has no criminal record. So, your link above has absolutely NOTHING to do with this thread.
> 
> Also, in reference to your earlier post, just know that MANY 29 year old males (and females) have tattoos. You may not like them (I'm not a fan either), but they don't mean that person is a member of a gang.
> 
> Might just be a father of a couple of kids trying to get by...just sayin'
> 
> With all due respect, I would look elsewhere for self-defense guidance...lol.


As for the tat..you are correct. Still the origin will be looked at. Just posting info as I get it from friends. FYI...the idea of a drug deal gone wrong is floating. At least one narcotics detective has joined the investigative team. Hmmm.


----------



## Mista T

Why is it that Uber continues to break the laws when lives and safety are involved?


----------



## Brooklyn

> Uber, on its website, says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.


So is it Uber's vehicles or the drivers vehicle?


----------



## Kodyhead

Brooklyn said:


> So is it Uber's vehicles or the drivers vehicle?


 I'm confused what you're asking but I'm pretty confident uber meant no guns in all cars lol


----------



## transporter007

rembrandt said:


> It will be a game changer once it happens in each and every state. Passangers must be subservient to the drivers. If not, take a cab or drive your own vehicle.


Nope. Uber corporate will require all drivers to sign an agreement: no guns in vehicle while active on uber driver app.
Want ur gun, delete the drivers app
Period

*And let's face it, uber doesn't need u, doesn't want u. plenty of drivers waiting to go on line.
U leave, 100 waiting to replace u. *



touberornottouber said:


> It's not a bad idea if you have some training and the right mentality for it. It's a very bad idea to pull a gun at the wrong time or with the wrong mentality. For instance some people will pull a gun to try to intimidate. That is wrong and just stupid.
> 
> The gun should be the last resort and when you pull it you should be prepared to use it. Some non-lethal weapon like pepper spray or a tazer should usually be considered first if the passenger is/seems unarmed. But even better just try to de-escalate or run.
> 
> I've been robbed twice at night when doing taxi (over a decade ago). Once with a gun. The other with a knife and got cut up a bit when fighting the two punks a bit (went for my radio to dispatch). It would have been nice to have the gun or some other weapon for the punks with the knives. I would have simply had to open the door, step out, and draw. They would have lost -- either prison or death. For the robbery with a gun, I knew it was coming a second or two in advance and if I had a firearm I could have drew my weapon, sure. But the guy was calm and seemed like a pro and I didn't think he'd hurt me (he didn't). But some aren't like that. Some WANT to hurt or kill you so there are no witnesses. The weapon gives you a fighting chance IF you make that determination. If you do pull your gun on the robber who also has his gun out though it is pretty much going to be either you or him at that point and you need to realize that. It is the ultimate in escalation. You may have gotten off unhurt before but now you could end up dead. It's about a 50/50 chance now. So sometimes it is a tough call to make: fight back in some way or not. It happens fast too.


*Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.

"Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*



leroy jenkins said:


> This guy makes a suggestion that if you want to conceal carry for self-defense, the best choice is a revolver (like a _Ruger LCR_). one reason cuz precisely that too many spent shells doesn't look good for a self-defense argument
> 
> argue amongst yourselves
> 
> https://thesaker.is/self-defense-myths-and-choices-for-civilians/


*Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.

"Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*



Brooklyn said:


> So is it Uber's vehicles or the drivers vehicle?


Nah, reference is to "using THEIR app"
"Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind* in a vehicle while using our app."

U gals need guns to protect yourselves from the boogieman then don't use the uber app to lure Uber's clients into ur vehicle *


----------



## rembrandt

transporter007 said:


> Nope. Uber corporate will require all drivers to sign an agreement: no guns in vehicle while active on uber driver app.
> Want ur gun, delete the drivers app
> Period
> 
> *And let's face it, uber doesn't need u, doesn't want u. plenty of drivers waiting to go on line.
> U leave, 100 waiting to replace u. *
> 
> *Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.
> 
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*
> 
> *Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.
> 
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*
> 
> Nah, reference is to "using THEIR app"
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind* in a vehicle while using our app."
> 
> U gals need guns to protect yourselves from the boogieman then don't use the uber app to lure Uber's clients into ur vehicle *


Find the guns and deactivate. And good luck !


----------



## Kodyhead

transporter007 said:


> Nope. Uber corporate will require all drivers to sign an agreement: no guns in vehicle while active on uber driver app.
> Want ur gun, delete the drivers app
> Period


Pretty confident that we clicked I agree to it already


----------



## BurgerTiime

transporter007 said:


> Nope. Uber corporate will require all drivers to sign an agreement: no guns in vehicle while active on uber driver app.
> Want ur gun, delete the drivers app
> Period
> 
> *And let's face it, uber doesn't need u, doesn't want u. plenty of drivers waiting to go on line.
> U leave, 100 waiting to replace u. *
> 
> *Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.
> 
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*
> 
> *Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.
> 
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*
> 
> Nah, reference is to "using THEIR app"
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind* in a vehicle while using our app."
> 
> U gals need guns to protect yourselves from the boogieman then don't use the uber app to lure Uber's clients into ur vehicle *


Independent contractor, personal vehicle, no background checks on passengers, called to areas where it's dark and drivers have been beaten, robbed, assaulted, kidnapped and killed. Protect yourself! Uber will not stop a billet for you! Use deadly force if your LIFE is in immediate danger! And get a dashcam!


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

news said uber said app was on...

btw anyone can walk into uber and get stickers they don't even verify a phone number, bunch of hipsters in t shirt, shorts, uber tees lots tatted up & havent shaved in weeks...

uber eats is pretty much McDonald's & drug dealers delivery in guise of an app, businesses skirting labor laws not having to pay minimum wage so use uber, get a couple McChickens & a dime bag

watch the shows higher maintenance & shameless the last seasons had uber plot lines & for some reason every one i take to a dispensary asks if i want to smoke with them like wtf im driving you dude lmao but you can leave some as a tip.... 

uber is used by protitutes & drug dealers a lot price is less than costs so sure ill deliver & outcall just order my uber be right there id say third shift add the drunks going to get drunks is 90% & only 10% legit, thats why only worked it once...if i wanted to knock a prostitute id do it though but im retired from that, the real ones pretty much extinct, the new generation hears 7000$ fee might as well bw talking Swahili lol thats why you broke batch haha ....

never showed my trade dress from day one in the center console serves no purpose but being a target unless you do street hails, events, bars...eveyone hates us even i hate uber drivers lol

busy spot, app offline sticker in window theyll come up to you "uber you an uber"

"yup off the clock though where ya headed" ok $30 cash, square or paypal lol

or you can drive up to the people doing the obvious uber dance roll window down same shtick

good business riders to the airport get business cards for scheduled rides off books cuz after the first one we friends, i know i have a dozen of those & im sure theres least 50 of me in my city

its going on thousands of times a day in every city everyones an uber driver its ride "share" right

anyhoo like i said uber stated app was on, i know there was a shooting murder maybe 5 miles away from there a few months ago at a bowling ally involving an asian with last name Kim, this victim was a Hyun Kim but its as common as Smith over here...

sad story all around all over probably less than $15, i never have riders in the front but maybe at that time its better than them being in the back, i dont have an issue with felons driving long as its not recent or violent, but lots of driving violations/accidents i do, drivers get or risk assault 1000s of times more than riders, thats why cabs have paritions, no background checks on pax, no i.d. any felon, rapist, murderer, robber, people with20 duis, drunks, kids, prostitutes, junkies, can use burners & prepaids

uber needs to offer verified accounts submit i.d. get check next to their name but how many precious riders would be o.k with that? lol, they can screenshot our face, license plate vehicle type, record video audio without us knowing, stay on convo or share gps with family friends, their phone our phone uber tracking trip, we have background, license, insurance, registration on file, our attention is to the road, no partition, no info , now they have direct 911 feature AND they scared? lmao bizzaro most 5 star riders are previously banned accounts now, or minors where i started ignoring those unless i feel like dropping a rating down a whole point or 2 lol but i know its trivial for them to just get a new one again....

smart not to ever talk to police without lawyer though good on him if he has dash cam thats his property, id monetize it make more on views or selling it than uber would pay him in 10 years of driving

if he was doing it 3 years he was a fellow 1%er & obviously knew he needed a gun that shift so most likely a dash cam too


----------



## nurburgringsf

3 am.


----------



## Mole

Welcome to my Uber.


----------



## darkshy77

Pax Collector said:


> Oh, that's an easy one; Threaten someone with great bodily harm, for starters?


Grab the wheel and made them wreck... Claim self defense


----------



## transporter007

BurgerTiime said:


> Independent contractor, personal vehicle, no background checks on passengers, called to areas where it's dark and drivers have been beaten, robbed, assaulted, kidnapped and killed. Protect yourself! Uber will not stop a billet for you! Use deadly force if your LIFE is in immediate danger! And get a dashcam!


Want protection? Wear a condom over ur head.
BurgerTiime Too nervous/scared to deal with general public. Delete drivers app. Period 

Use the uber drivers app. Their rules 
Don't want to abide by app owner rules?
Delete driver app 
Go F/T toilet cleaner
Won't scare you, they only overflow 



rembrandt said:


> Find the guns and deactivate. And good luck !


Police check points. Each and every uber car stopped and checked for weapons, operator for outstanding wants, warrants and outstanding citations.


----------



## BurgerTiime

transporter007 said:


> Want protection? Wear a condom over ur head.
> BurgerTiime Too nervous/scared to deal with general public. Delete drivers app. Period
> 
> Use the uber drivers app. Their rules
> Don't want to abide by app owner rules?
> Delete driver app
> Go F/T toilet cleaner
> Won't scare you, they only overflow
> 
> Police check points. Each and every uber car stopped and checked for weapons, operator for outstanding wants, warrants and outstanding citations.


Uber and Lyft cannot have control over your second amendment as an independent contractor PERIOD!
You do not work for them you're not an employee unless the rules and laws change. They have the right to deactivate you but there's NO LAW BROKEN so protect yourself if must be. If the crazies know all Uber drivers are unarmed you will be a target. That's why schools and churches keep getting targeted by gunmen. Uber drivers will become soft targets for carjacking, robberies, rape and kidnapping and homicide. Don't think for one min these unfortunate events don't happen to drivers cause they do on a daily basis. Uber is the new taxi and taxi drivers have been protecting themselves for decades. People are under the influence of drugs and alcohol and that's why you can never trust a stranger and what they may do to you under duress and desperation.


----------



## Demon

BurgerTiime said:


> Independent contractor, personal vehicle, no background checks on passengers, called to areas where it's dark and drivers have been beaten, robbed, assaulted, kidnapped and killed. Protect yourself! Uber will not stop a billet for you! Use deadly force if your LIFE is in immediate danger! And get a dashcam!


Or, don't drive for Uber/Lyft.



BurgerTiime said:


> Uber and Lyft cannot have control over your second amendment as an independent contractor PERIOD!
> You do not work for them you're not an employee unless the rules and laws change. They have the right to deactivate you but there's NO LAW BROKEN so protect yourself if must be. If the crazies know all Uber drivers are unarmed you will be a target. That's why schools and churches keep getting targeted by gunmen. Uber drivers will become soft targets for carjacking, robberies, rape and kidnapping and homicide. Don't think for one min these unfortunate events don't happen to drivers cause they do on a daily basis. Uber is the new taxi and taxi drivers have been protecting themselves for decades. People are under the influence of drugs and alcohol and that's why you can never trust a stranger and what they may do to you under duress and desperation.


This isn't about the 2nd Amendment at all.


----------



## just_me

UBERPROcolorado said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/us/felons-driving-for-uber-invs/index.html
> 
> This one takes the cake. An Uber driver with multiple felony convictions including the SALE OF ROCKET LAUNCHERS TO A MIDDLE EAST BUYER.
> 
> Oh boy.....


From your article: ''Three former Uber employees who worked on policy told CNN Uber seeks to approve new drivers as quickly as possible to maintain a large workforce and therefore opposes requirements to fingerprint applicants, which can add weeks to the onboarding process.''
-----------------
Now we know why U/L lobby so hard against fingerprints and other additional checks mentioned in the article.


----------



## Gung-Ho

It’s all tied up.

Uber autonomous car one confirmed kill. (Phoenix)
Human Uber driver one confirmed kill. ( Denver)

Let’s go people! Can’t have those machines out killing us. Time to step up our homicidal rage.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Demon said:


> Or, don't drive for Uber/Lyft.
> 
> This isn't about the 2nd Amendment at all.


Of course it is. Sometimes people are limited in job opportunities. School, bills, low education, you name it, easy to say just don't work for them but it not that easy. There's a reason these companies get to much grief from drivers or pay and work conditions. Most of us that do this don't have many options right now. I'm in grad school and can't find a job around my other job for something around 10hours or less with immediate pay. I have rent. So many of do this and are subjected to harm under certain conditions. I won't work late nights anymore it too dangerous for me. But for many that's when you make the most money in a short period of time so there's no choice. Now Imagine if this was your dad or you! A driver who had a family just trying to make a living and provide for his family. Working during the day and just so happen to pick up some random guy who decided to rob him and take it to the extreme. If had a gun things may have turned out differently. You are picking up strangers with no background check and could be the wrong passenger too. There's no way to verify 100% is there? Just be warned, the link is graphic:


----------



## getawaycar

This is why I have never taken an Uber or Lyft and probably never will. There are way too many horror stories associated with these companies that occur on a daily basis. 

By now you have to be an idiot to get into one. Almost like playing Russian Roulette.


----------



## Kodyhead

Bigger threat to your life is driving a car for 40+ hours a week


----------



## JimKE

Gung-Ho said:


> It's all tied up.
> 
> Uber autonomous car one confirmed kill. (Phoenix)
> Human Uber driver one confirmed kill. ( Denver)
> 
> Let's go people! Can't have those machines out killing us. Time to step up our homicidal rage.


No we're ahead.

I know of one here locally where an Uber driver killed a car-jacker: https://www.local10.com/news/crime/...ls-would-be-robber-on-william-lehman-causeway

And there MUST be other similar cases. I have enough confidence in my fellow drivers to believe we're not going to be outdone by stupid robots who can't even fire a gun!


----------



## 5231XDMA

So did he kill a pax while he is on the job or he just happened to be an uber driver who killed a stranger in his car? Big difference here.


----------



## Rexi

5231XDMA said:


> So did he kill a pax while he is on the job or he just happened to be an uber driver who killed a stranger in his car? Big difference here.


That's what I was saying, huge difference, waiting for more details on this.


----------



## JimKE

Rexi said:


> That's what I was saying, huge difference, waiting for more details on this.


With stories like this, the early information is usually about 90% wrong -- either because people don't KNOW what happened, or they misinterpret what they hear, or they just make stuff up.

By the time the police get an accurate picture of what _really_ happened (several days to several weeks, depending), the story will be old news and the news media will not pay any attention.


----------



## Mista T

JimKE said:


> By the time the police get an accurate picture of what _really_ happened (several days to several weeks, depending), the story will be old news and the news media will not pay any attention.


Exactly.

I'm still waiting to hear what happened to that lost Uber driver a couple months ago in LA, parents frantically searching for him for about ten days, and he was found in a hospital. No more info, no more news... WTF. They blow up the media for 10 days with his picture and what a wonderful person he is, then don't tell us what happened? Is he a heroin addict? Was he mugged? Was he in an accident? All of the above?

This driver in Denver apparently has a loving family, clean record, and was in school to improve his life. But he had no license, and fired 10 shots. TEN! At close range! Shoot, even I can hit a target in the seat next to me.

So, what's the real story?


----------



## Demon

BurgerTiime said:


> Of course it is. Sometimes people are limited in job opportunities. School, bills, low education, you name it, easy to say just don't work for them but it not that easy. There's a reason these companies get to much grief from drivers or pay and work conditions. Most of us that do this don't have many options right now. I'm in grad school and can't find a job around my other job for something around 10hours or less with immediate pay. I have rent. So many of do this and are subjected to harm under certain conditions. I won't work late nights anymore it too dangerous for me. But for many that's when you make the most money in a short period of time so there's no choice. Now Imagine if this was your dad or you! A driver who had a family just trying to make a living and provide for his family. Working during the day and just so happen to pick up some random guy who decided to rob him and take it to the extreme. If had a gun things may have turned out differently. You are picking up strangers with no background check and could be the wrong passenger too. There's no way to verify 100% is there? Just be warned, the link is graphic:


None of what you wrote has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. The government isn't telling drivers they can't have a gun in their car. Uber has a constitutional right to tell drivers & pax not to have a gun during an Uber ride.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Demon said:


> None of what you wrote has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. The government isn't telling drivers they can't have a gun in their car. Uber has a constitutional right to tell drivers & pax not to have a gun during an Uber ride.


The right to bear arms has everything to do with it. Under other circumstances an employer can tell you if you may or may not bear arms during work. Uber says you cannot but they have zero control over that. Uber has NO RIGHT to have control over a driver carrying a firearm PERIOD! They are trying to control your 2nd right as a citizen. If a driver decides to carry he can it's his god damn given right to protect himself.


----------



## Mole

Demon said:


> None of what you wrote has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. The government isn't telling drivers they can't have a gun in their car. Uber has a constitutional right to tell drivers & pax not to have a gun during an Uber ride.


Good luck with that one it is at the point now you must have a firearm in a uber at all times. People are crazy and are on drugs no one is safe the human race has turned in to zombies and no one has noticed.


----------



## peteyvavs

BurgerTiime said:


> The right to bear arms has everything to do with it. Under other circumstances an employer can tell you if you may or may not bear arms during work. Uber says you cannot but they have zero control over that. Uber has NO RIGHT to have control over a driver carrying a firearm PERIOD! They are trying to control your 2nd right as a citizen. If a driver decides to carry he can it's his god damn given right to protect himself.


Sorry to disappoint you but Uber has every right to tell drivers no guns allowed while driving for them. It's no different then any company saying that no weapons allowed on their premises, even the government states that no one can have a firearm on them entering their premises except law enforcement.
The only thing the 2nd amendment guarantees is the right to bear arms, not impose them on others.


----------



## BurgerTiime

peteyvavs said:


> Sorry to disappoint you but Uber has every right to tell drivers no guns allowed while driving for them. It's no different then any company saying that no weapons allowed on their premises, even the government states that no one can have a firearm on them entering their premises except law enforcement.
> The only thing the 2nd amendment guarantees is the right to bear arms, not impose them on others.


You better look up the law buddy. Uber cannot control that one bit. Once again they can deactivate you if they want but you cannot be charge you if they found out. They are not your employer. You are simply spitting crap out your mouth at this point. Google some stuff there kid.


----------



## peteyvavs

BurgerTiime said:


> You better look up the law buddy. Uber cannot control that one bit. Once again they can deactivate you if they want but you cannot be charge you if they found out. They are not your employer. You are simply spitting crap out your mouth at this point. Google some stuff there kid.


Sorry you're wrong again, Uber has you sign an agreement that you will NOT have any weapons in the car while using their app. Uber will deactivate your contract and will not assist in your defense whatsoever.
Once you turn on the app and have a weapon in the car you automatically void your contract and Uber can sue you for breach of contract as well as the victims family can sue you because of breach of contract and subjecting a passenger to gun violence.
JUST BECAUSE THE 2nd AMENDMENT GIVES ONE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IT DOES NOT GIVE ONE BLANKET IMMUNITY FROM THEIR ACTIONS WITH SAID ARMS REGARDLESS IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OR GUILTY.
All the responsibility of bearing arms falls on you the bearer and it can and most likely will have a very heavy cost to you if you have to draw your weapon on another.


----------



## rembrandt

If you believe that an Uber driver will not carry a legal gun in his personal property to save his/her life, you are dreaming.


peteyvavs said:


> Sorry you're wrong again, Uber has you sign an agreement that you will NOT have any weapons in the car while using their app. Uber will deactivate your contract and will not assist in your defense whatsoever.
> Once you turn on the app and have a weapon in the car you automatically void your contract and Uber can sue you for breach of contract as well as the victims family can sue you because of breach of contract and subjecting a passenger to gun violence.
> JUST BECAUSE THE 2nd AMENDMENT GIVES ONE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IT DOES NOT GIVE ONE BLANKET IMMUNITY FROM THEIR ACTIONS WITH SAID ARMS REGARDLESS IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OR GUILTY.
> All the responsibility of bearing arms falls on you the bearer and it can and most likely will have a very heavy cost to you if you have to draw your weapon on another.


Are you the US Supreme Court , buddy ? Do you know about the 'castle' and 'stand your ground' doctrine which also cover your private vehicle ? Both castle and stand your ground doctrine apply in Florida. The state of Florida will not save aggressive Uber passengers from being shot or killed . Only thing police in Florida will do is to write reports. The life of a driver on an interstate freeway can be threatened in many ways abd the driver has every right to self defense.


----------



## peteyvavs

I actually do attend law school, so if you really want to challenge me go for it. The 2nd Amendment only allows you to bear arms, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS OVER OTHERS AS TO WHERE YOU CAN BEAR THOSE ARMS.
As a matter of fact if you or anyone else carries guns while driving for Uber, Lyft or any public conveyance then you already voided your contract, YOU AGREED TO CARRY NO WEAPONS, WHICH IS BINDING IF UBER AND LYFT WANT TO SUE YOU FOR VIOLATING TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT YOU WILL LOSE.
An owner of a business has every right to tell you no weapons allowed and you have 2 choices, you can comply or you can go elsewhere, Uber has every right to tell you no firearms allowed and you are not protected by 2nd Amendment if you violate the terms of your contract.

BTW, your vehicle is no longer a private vehicle once you use it to transport the public for profit.


----------



## transporter007

BurgerTiime said:


> Uber and Lyft cannot have control over your second amendment as an independent contractor PERIOD!
> You do not work for them you're not an employee unless the rules and laws change. They have the right to deactivate you but there's NO LAW BROKEN so protect yourself if must be. If the crazies know all Uber drivers are unarmed you will be a target. That's why schools and churches keep getting targeted by gunmen. Uber drivers will become soft targets for carjacking, robberies, rape and kidnapping and homicide.
> these unfortunate events don't happen to drivers cause they do on a daily basis. Uber is the new taxi and taxi drivers have been protecting themselves for decades. People are under the influence of drugs and alcohol and that's why you can never trust a stranger and what they may do to you under duress and desperation.



For legal advise I alway seek out an Uber driver 
For second amendment explanation I always listen to uber drivers.
For info on illegal drug effect on Societal norms I alway go with the uber drivers explanation and reasoning 

Cause at uber only PhDs, JDs and CPAs are qualified to use the drivers app


----------



## BurgerTiime

peteyvavs said:


> I actually do attend law school, so if you really want to challenge me go for it. The 2nd Amendment only allows you to bear arms, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS OVER OTHERS AS TO WHERE YOU CAN BEAR THOSE ARMS.
> As a matter of fact if you or anyone else carries guns while driving for Uber, Lyft or any public conveyance then you already voided your contract, YOU AGREED TO CARRY NO WEAPONS, WHICH IS BINDING IF UBER AND LYFT WANT TO SUE YOU FOR VIOLATING TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT YOU WILL LOSE.
> An owner of a business has every right to tell you no weapons allowed and you have 2 choices, you can comply or you can go elsewhere, Uber has every right to tell you no firearms allowed and you are not protected by 2nd Amendment if you violate the terms of your contract.
> 
> BTW, your vehicle is no longer a private vehicle once you use it to transport the public for profit.


You're a moron and I don't believe you as my brother is right next to me and he's a cop! Lol loser!


----------



## KellyC

BurgerTiime said:


> You're a moron and I don't believe you as my brother is right next to me and he's a cop! Lol loser!


Lol indeed, the funniest thing I see gun freaks say is that the 2d Am was written so citizens can defend against the govt & its agents. Such as cops.


----------



## Daisey77

In Colorado your vehicle is an extension of your house. so you can have your weapon in your vehicle without having a Concealed permit. As for the 10 shots fired, in a small vehicle and being in such close proximity to each other, if the passenger in fact had a gun and pulled it on the driver and the driver was lucky enough to get a shot off before the passenger did, the drivers going to keep shooting until there's no movement from the passenger. Driver knows if the passenger even gets one opportunity to fire his gun, the chance of the driver being hit is extremely high. You're going to panic and you get to keep shooting to know there's no chance a shot being fired back. I have not heard the driver did not have a license. I am curious as to the criminal background on the passenger and with a passenger rating was. The passenger ever have complaints from previous drivers that Uber ignored?


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

peteyvavs said:


> I actually do attend law school, so if you really want to challenge me go for it. The 2nd Amendment only allows you to bear arms, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS OVER OTHERS AS TO WHERE YOU CAN BEAR THOSE ARMS.
> As a matter of fact if you or anyone else carries guns while driving for Uber, Lyft or any public conveyance then you already voided your contract, YOU AGREED TO CARRY NO WEAPONS, WHICH IS BINDING IF UBER AND LYFT WANT TO SUE YOU FOR VIOLATING TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT YOU WILL LOSE.
> An owner of a business has every right to tell you no weapons allowed and you have 2 choices, you can comply or you can go elsewhere, Uber has every right to tell you no firearms allowed and you are not protected by 2nd Amendment if you violate the terms of your contract.
> 
> BTW, your vehicle is no longer a private vehicle once you use it to transport the public for profit.[/QUOTE
> 
> He is right.


----------



## Demon

BurgerTiime said:


> You're a moron and I don't believe you as my brother is right next to me and he's a cop! Lol loser!


You & your brother have no idea what you are talking about. You're confusing the 2nd Amendment with Uber's right to deactivate you from the platform for having a gun in the car.


----------



## BurgerTiime

Demon said:


> You & your brother have no idea what you are talking about. You're confusing the 2nd Amendment with Uber's right to deactivate you from the platform for having a gun in the car.


Never said they couldn't at all. In fact I said that's all they could do. So you are totally lost in the convo.


----------



## Demon

BurgerTiime said:


> Never said they couldn't at all. In fact I said that's all they could do. So you are totally lost in the convo.


Says the guy that brought 2A into this when it has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Demon

BurgerTiime said:


> Never said they couldn't at all. In fact I said that's all they could do. So you are totally lost in the convo.


Is the government telling you that you can't drive with a gun in the car?


----------



## Mista T

This is from the Denver Channel, a few hours ago.

Full fluff story here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8wAA&usg=AOvVaw0li3Sel9ZNbGM6rP_GVRnK&ampcf=1


----------



## bsliv

KellyC said:


> Lol indeed, the funniest thing I see gun freaks say is that the 2d Am was written so citizens can defend against the govt & its agents. Such as cops.


Are you questioning the wisdom of our Founding Fathers?

Alexander Hamilton said, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." What institution was Hamilton referring to when he said "the representatives of the people"?

Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Who are the rulers Jefferson had in mind?

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said, "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation &#8230; (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them," later saying, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

Would you question the wisdom of more current leaders?

John F. Kennedy said, "In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men - citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment's notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."

Hubert H. Humphrey said, "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. &#8230; The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

On the opposite side of the fence, Mao Tse Tung said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China."

So, I guess Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and myself are freaks. I'll take that company, call us what you will.

Don't think it can happen today? Check Bunkerville, NV and the Malheur, OR refuge examples. Otherwise peaceful people had enough of federal overreach. While most are apathetic, some are heroes. I am grateful for the heroes. I do not like a government that sets up 'first amendment zones,' performs searches without warrants, confines people without charges or trial, forces people out of their homes so the police may occupy it, etc.

Funny? I don't think so. I'm sure the opposing sides during the Bunkerville siege didn't see it as funny. I think they viewed it as life and death. Patrick Henry had a few choice words a few years ago, "Give me liberty or give me death."


----------



## rembrandt

Why so much arguments ? Get shot by an Uber driver by being aggressively life threatening in one of the ‘gun friendly states’ and then prosecute him or deactivate him from hell. If you happen to be an Uber corporate, congratulations for being ‘deactivated’ from Mother Earth.


----------



## tohunt4me

Uber's Guber said:


> Another pax who was threatening to 1* a driver??!


He Got what he deserved then. . . .



Kodyhead said:


> I agree, I usually like to shoot people in a wooded area or desert


Very wise.


----------



## Kodyhead

JimKE said:


> With stories like this, the early information is usually about 90% wrong -- either because people don't KNOW what happened, or they misinterpret what they hear, or they just make stuff up.
> 
> By the time the police get an accurate picture of what _really_ happened (several days to several weeks, depending), the story will be old news and the news media will not pay any attention.


The issue i have with some articles are they are combining the background issue and the colorado shooting in the same story and they are completely different stories lol

The colorado story driver had no background issues at all and had all documents to carry, and still have no idea what happened inside that car yet


----------



## peteyvavs

Just because the government gives one the right to bear arms doesn't exempt them from being held liable when they agree to NOT have a gun while using their car for work purposes. This is like saying you have a right to do what you want in the privacy of your home until you use that home for criminal purposes.
The constitution gives the individual certain rights, but does NOT give blanket immunity to those rights when it infringes on the rights of others.
BTW, If you use a weapon while driving for a livery service don't expect any help from Uber, Lyft or any other service you work for, as far as they are concerned you are at fault for violating your contractual agreement.


----------



## Kodyhead

bsliv said:


> Are you questioning the wisdom of our Founding Fathers?


I would question anything from hundreds of years ago ABSOLUTELY I question people who have a friggin Iphone 3 today lol

All things need to be updated, adjusted and improved

If you had a headache and I gave you some leeches to put on your forehead...... WOULD YOU QUESTION THE WISDOM OF FOUNDING FATHER OF MODERN MEDICINE HIPPOCRATES?

lol


----------



## peteyvavs

You always can tell if someone is just a gun nut, they'll agree to the conditions for a contract then violate that agreement when it suits their own agenda. This is the kind of individual who blames the bank for cheating them on their car loan when the car dies due to their own negligence.


----------



## tohunt4me

Kodyhead said:


> I would question anything from hundreds of years ago ABSOLUTELY I question people who have a friggin Iphone 3 today lol
> 
> All things need to be updated, adjusted and improved
> 
> If you had a headache and I gave you some leeches to put on your forehead...... WOULD YOU QUESTION THE WISDOM OF FOUNDING FATHER OF MODERN MEDICINE HIPPOCRATES?
> 
> lol


LEACHES WORK.

THEY RELEASE NATURAL BLOOD THINNERS.

( if LEACH sales reps. Took your Dr. Golfing . . . you would see them prescribed Today !)


----------



## Daisey77

peteyvavs said:


> You always can tell if someone is just a gun nut, they'll agree to the conditions for a contract then violate that agreement when it suits their own agenda. This is the kind of individual who blames the bank for cheating them on their car loan when the car dies due to their own negligence.


Omg! this guy is not a "gun nut". Something happened in that car. I can almost guarantee it. If him protecting his own life , falls into your category of "suiting his own agenda", so be it. Good for him. You act like he signed up for Uber, just to violate their weapons policy and to abuse the violation?? What??? If it does in fact turn out he was acting in self-defense, that's a pretty damn good reason to suit his own agenda. Personally I can't think of any better reason to suit his own agenda. Any driver who drives ignorantly by not acknowledging something can happen to them, deserves everything that happens to them. Don't tell me you're one of those drivers. If you were in a situation where you had the choice to die or to lose your job and survive, what would you choose? You cannot tell me you would die in order to not violate Uber's agreement. By the way Mr Upstanding Uber driver, Uber won't pay for your funeral. So you just died for nothing


----------



## tohunt4me

Demon said:


> Is the government telling you that you can't drive with a gun in the car?


You have aRIGHT to shoot car jackers in my state.


----------



## bsliv

Kodyhead said:


> I would question anything from hundreds of years ago ABSOLUTELY I question people who have a friggin Iphone 3 today lol
> 
> All things need to be updated, adjusted and improved
> 
> If you had a headache and I gave you some leeches to put on your forehead...... WOULD YOU QUESTION THE WISDOM OF FOUNDING FATHER OF MODERN MEDICINE HIPPOCRATES?
> 
> lol


Are you questioning their wisdom or whether their ideas are relevant today? What are the results of your inquiries?

My results? Their wisdom is undisputed. Their ideas are absolutely still relevant today. Read the quotes from the two Democrats who served during my lifetime.

Hippocrates lived thousands of years ago and some of his ideas are absolutely relevant today. The idea of "do no harm" is great. His techniques are outdated due to technology. I don't suggest we use the technology from thousands or even hundreds of years ago. I suggest the highest technology available.



peteyvavs said:


> You always can tell if someone is just a gun nut, they'll agree to the conditions for a contract then violate that agreement when it suits their own agenda. This is the kind of individual who blames the bank for cheating them on their car loan when the car dies due to their own negligence.


You always can tell if someone is just an Uber nut, they'll agree to the conditions for a contract then violate that agreement when it suits their own agenda. This is the kind of individual who blames the bank for cheating them on their car loan when the car dies due to their own negligence.

Everyone who uses a financed car for Uber without notifying their lender are probably violating their contract. Neither a gun nut or an Uber nut are violating the law. Contracts are knowingly and purposely violated all the time, just ask our current president. Proper contracts have penalty clauses. If the penalty is better than completing the contract, take the penalty. In this case, its more than just money involved. One's own life is involved. If the penalty to save my life is deactivation, no problem, take the deactivation penalty.


----------



## Clothahump

Ozzyoz said:


> Personally I don't carry firearms and let God protect me


Yeah, good luck with that one.


----------



## JimKE

tohunt4me said:


> You have aRIGHT to shoot car jackers in my state.


In Florida, they have to actually be carjacking YOUR car at the time you shoot them. We can't just randomly shoot them down on sight.

There's probably a reasonable middle ground there somewhere...maybe a 2-3 month season every year? Lottery for a carjacker tag? Got to be a reasonable solution.


----------



## KellyC

bsliv said:


> Are you questioning the wisdom of our Founding Fathers?
> 
> Alexander Hamilton said, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." What institution was Hamilton referring to when he said "the representatives of the people"?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Who are the rulers Jefferson had in mind?
> 
> James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said, "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation &#8230; (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> 
> George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them," later saying, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Would you question the wisdom of more current leaders?
> 
> John F. Kennedy said, "In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men - citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment's notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens





bsliv said:


> Are you questioning the wisdom of our Founding Fathers?
> 
> Alexander Hamilton said, "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed," adding later, "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." What institution was Hamilton referring to when he said "the representatives of the people"?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Who are the rulers Jefferson had in mind?
> 
> James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said, "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation &#8230; (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
> 
> George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which served as inspiration for the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, said, "To disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them," later saying, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> 
> Would you question the wisdom of more current leaders?
> 
> John F. Kennedy said, "In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the thousands of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men - citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment's notice. Today we need a nation of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort."
> 
> Hubert H. Humphrey said, "Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. &#8230; The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
> 
> On the opposite side of the fence, Mao Tse Tung said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party. Yet, having guns, we can create Party organizations, as witness the powerful Party organizations which the Eighth Route Army has created in northern China."
> 
> So, I guess Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and myself are freaks. I'll take that company, call us what you will.
> 
> Don't think it can happen today? Check Bunkerville, NV and the Malheur, OR refuge examples. Otherwise peaceful people had enough of federal overreach. While most are apathetic, some are heroes. I am grateful for the heroes. I do not like a government that sets up 'first amendment zones,' performs searches without warrants, confines people without charges or trial, forces people out of their homes so the police may occupy it, etc.
> 
> Funny? I don't think so. I'm sure the opposing sides during the Bunkerville siege didn't see it as funny. I think they viewed it as life and death. Patrick Henry had a few choice words a few years ago, "Give me liberty or give me death."


It looks like you're saying it's bad to question politicians but okay to shoot them.


----------



## bsliv

KellyC said:


> It looks like you're saying it's bad to question politicians but okay to shoot them.


Not at all. You questioned the intentions of a certain group of politicians. I pointed out their intentions and the continued need for those intentions. Ideas can be trusted. Politicians, not so much, you can and should question them.

I didn't and don't suggest shooting anyone. If situation arises and the tyrannical oppressors want to correct themselves peaceably, great.

The government should fear the people. The people should not fear their government. You suggest that is a laughable idea. I don't think it is. I know its a far fetched idea that we may elect the wrong person for president that has good political support but does stuff like disbands the supreme court, suspend the constitution, cancels elections, detains mass groups of people, etc., but it could happen. Having the option as a last resort helps prevent the oppresion from happening in the first place. Read the quotes from Humphrey and Mao again.


----------



## NoPooPool

peteyvavs said:


> I actually do attend law school, so if you really want to challenge me go for it. The 2nd Amendment only allows you to bear arms, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS OVER OTHERS AS TO WHERE YOU CAN BEAR THOSE ARMS.
> As a matter of fact if you or anyone else carries guns while driving for Uber, Lyft or any public conveyance then you already voided your contract, YOU AGREED TO CARRY NO WEAPONS, WHICH IS BINDING IF UBER AND LYFT WANT TO SUE YOU FOR VIOLATING TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT YOU WILL LOSE.
> An owner of a business has every right to tell you no weapons allowed and you have 2 choices, you can comply or you can go elsewhere, Uber has every right to tell you no firearms allowed and you are not protected by 2nd Amendment if you violate the terms of your contract.
> 
> BTW, your vehicle is no longer a private vehicle once you use it to transport the public for profit.


Who gives a flying leap what Uber's policy is on guns. They are in to covering their hide in any type of litigation. If a driver loses their life in a criminal attack on their life, Uber has ants lined up to drive in place of that expendable driver. Uber could not care less that a partner lost their life. Next!

It is more or less the inverse scenario of having gun free zones such as schools and libraries. The only persons to have guns in those gun free zones are the criminals that go in there and shoot up the place undeterred, being the disturbed cowards that they are.

If you are legally permitted to carry concealed, carry when you drive, and give yourself a chance to live to tell about.

Gee, tough choice. Save your life, or get your access to the Uber app revoked. Yep, such a tough choice.


----------



## Daisey77

So this is what the Uber driver's sister is saying:

My brother Michael Hancock has been in custody since June 1st he has left behind his wife and his 2 beautiful boys that he loves so much Mike was a community leader amongst the urban youth in the Aurora and Denver area. Michael also work two jobs while going to school and is currently working on building his own business. On that very night during what he thought was going to be a routine uber ride Mike was attacked by his passenger in fear of his life he swerved his car struggling to get the man to stop. Mike crashed into a wall and the man continued to beat Mike in the head. Mike fired off 10 rounds in fear for his life. Mike is a victim of a malicious man who intentionally wanted to harm him. Michael Hancock was forced to defend himself. #justiceforMichaelHancock#selfdefenseisnitacrime #protectuberdrivers


----------



## 58756

Daisey77 said:


> So this is what the Uber driver's sister is saying:
> 
> My brother Michael Hancock has been in custody since June 1st he has left behind his wife and his 2 beautiful boys that he loves so much Mike was a community leader amongst the urban youth in the Aurora and Denver area. Michael also work two jobs while going to school and is currently working on building his own business. On that very night during what he thought was going to be a routine uber ride Mike was attacked by his passenger in fear of his life he swerved his car struggling to get the man to stop. Mike crashed into a wall and the man continued to beat Mike in the head. Mike fired off 10 rounds in fear for his life. Mike is a victim of a malicious man who intentionally wanted to harm him. Michael Hancock was forced to defend himself. #justiceforMichaelHancock#selfdefenseisnitacrime #protectuberdrivers


Reminds me of Trevon Martin and George Zimmerman. Also the dude Michael is tattooed too much and doesn't look like one that is active in helping community.


----------



## NoPooPool

Didn’t yo momma ever teach you, don’t judge a book by it’s cover?


----------



## Kodyhead

Some of the people I have worked with down here are some of the scariest people you might see lol some excons addicts and they are the most helpful and generous people there. I bet some of you would cancel and drive away with some of them lol


----------



## 58756

NoPooPool said:


> Didn't yo momma ever teach you, don't judge a book by it's cover?


What about a shooter? Can't we judge a shooter by his cover? lol


----------



## Kodyhead

Just by name I assume Korean lol curious if he is Korean born or 1st + generation korean, I am guessing 1st gen korean


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

Mole said:


> Welcome to my Uber.


I've fantasied about putting a microwave magnetron under the seat.

Not quite as awesome as that but close LOL.


----------



## JimKE

Ozzyoz said:


> Reminds me of Trevon Martin and George Zimmerman.


If this case IS like the Zimmerman case, Michael is good. A jury will decide that based on information entered into evidence in a trial -- not on newspaper stories or sisters' versions of the incident.


> Also the dude Michael is tattooed too much and doesn't look like one that is active in helping community.


I've never worked in community organizations in Denver, but if I were recruiting for an urban at-risk youth program, a 29 year-old black male with no criminal history at all, with dreads and tats would be exactly the kind of person I'd be looking for.

More than anything else, the fact that he's from an urban area and has gone 29 years without being arrested tells me much more about his character than any of our silly avatars or comments.


----------



## Daisey77

Ozzyoz said:


> Reminds me of Trevon Martin and George Zimmerman. Also the dude Michael is tattooed too much and doesn't look like one that is active in helping community.


Wow. so people with tattoos can't be good people?? what about ignorant people? Can they be good people? Or are your personal flaws somehow exempt? Honestly, it doesn't matter if you think he doesn't "look" like someone who is actively helping the community. Fact is, he is a counselor for troubled youth. Fact is, he works two jobs. Fact is he goes to school full-time. Fact is he's a husband and a father of two kids. Fact is he is a man with strong Christian belief. Fact is, he has a clean criminal record. There's absolutely nothing within his lifestyle or character suggesting that he is a cold-blooded killer.

What I do find extremely odd is, no one is even talking about the passenger. What's his criminal background? What's his passenger rating? Where's his family and friends?


----------



## RockinEZ

Just wondering.... why was the brass all over the freaking hwy?
Ten cases on the concrete....
Did the driver jump out and blast the ****?

Some AssHat was calling me out last week for packing a real Taser and pepper jell in my car.
Seems a lot less like life in prison than shooting a PAX 10 times.



BurgerTiime said:


> Wow caused massive traffic backup. All those other Uber drivers sitting in traffic making pennies a min made a killing! Ohhhh, too early? Lol
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...shoots-passenger-denver-interstate/662964002/


Please pull into the emergency lane to shoot your PAX.



UBERPROcolorado said:


> More....
> 
> The driver did NOT have a valid drivers licence.
> 
> The driver had moving violations, over the last 3 YEARS that would have disqualified him both U/L.
> 
> This is exactly what Uber promised the State of Colorado would not happen again. (Colorado nailed Uber for failing to do background checks, both driving and criminal. Colorado hit Uber with $8.9M. They reduced it by half and the case is still open, giving Colorado time to monitor how or if they shape up.)
> QUOTE]


----------



## Daisey77

RockinEZ said:


> Just wondering.... why was the brass all over the freaking hwy?
> Ten cases on the concrete....
> Did the driver jump out and blast the ****?
> 
> Some AssHat was calling me out last week for packing a real Taser and pepper jell in my car.
> Seems a lot less like life in prison than shooting a PAX 10 times.
> 
> Please pull into the emergency lane to shoot your PAX.


 What we don't know is how many of those 10 Rounds hit the passenger. How many bullets wounds were found on the passenger? Those may have been "warning shots".


----------



## RockinEZ

Daisey77 said:


> What we don't know is how many of those 10 Rounds hit the passenger. How many bullets wounds were found on the passenger? Those may have been "warning shots".


What matters is why he felt so threatened that he had to shoot a passenger. 
I have had some scary moments, pretty much why I drive in the AM now days.

We have to wait until the trial. I am sure Uber has the driver gagged.


----------



## Daisey77

RockinEZ said:


> What matters is why he felt so threatened that he had to shoot a passenger.
> I have had some scary moments, pretty much why I drive in the AM now days.
> 
> We have to wait until the trial. I am sure Uber has the driver gagged.


 Charges have not even been filed. The DA stated today the decision whether to file charges or not , will most likely happen by the end of the week. He has been arrested for investigation of first-degree murder. Although I can see Uber attempting to gag the driver, Uber doesn't have shit when it comes to first-degree murder charge. The legal system would laugh at Uber's gag order


----------



## Mista T

RockinEZ said:


> What matters is why he felt so threatened that he had to shoot a passenger.
> I have had some scary moments, pretty much why I drive in the AM now days.
> 
> We have to wait until the trial. I am sure Uber has the driver gagged.


Gagged or not, the guy is gonna talk. And since Uber deactivated him, they can go suck an egg. He is facing 1st degree murder charges possibly. What is Uber gonna do, take away his birthday? I see a movie deal in the future.

Since he has not been charged yet (days later), and since the other guy's "story" is non existent so far, perhaps the driver was in the right and simply panicked. Who knows. I am truly curious, but this is one instance where assumptions are definitely not called for.


----------



## RockinEZ

Mista T said:


> Gagged or not, the guy is gonna talk. And since Uber deactivated him, they can go suck an egg. He is facing 1st degree murder charges possibly. What is Uber gonna do, take away his birthday? I see a movie deal in the future.
> 
> Since he has not been charged yet (days later), and since the other guy's "story" is non existent so far, perhaps the driver was in the right and simply panicked. Who knows. I am truly curious, but this is one instance where assumptions are definitely not called for.


I would suspect that Uber is supplying legal council. This guy only has life in prison to risk. Uber is risking potential future profits. 
Uber has to get their priorities in order, and it is not the driver's a$$.


----------



## KellyC

RockinEZ said:


> I would suspect that Uber is supplying legal council. This guy only has life in prison to risk. Uber is risking potential future profits.
> Uber has to get their priorities in order, and it is not the driver's a$$.


I doubt Uber is doing jack for this guy. They don't have their drivers' backs on minor things, no way they're gonna stick up for a driver who shot a pax.

The driver's family has started a gofundme for his legal expenses.

I just wonder if the driver had a dashcam. None of the news stories I've seen has memtioned one.



Mista T said:


> Gagged or not, the guy is gonna talk. And since Uber deactivated him, they can go suck an egg. He is facing 1st degree murder charges possibly. What is Uber gonna do, take away his birthday? I see a movie deal in the future.
> 
> Since he has not been charged yet (days later), and since the other guy's "story" is non existent so far, perhaps the driver was in the right and simply panicked. Who knows. I am truly curious, but this is one instance where assumptions are definitely not called for.


In fairness, the other guy's story is non-existent because he's dead


----------



## RockinEZ

KellyC said:


> I doubt Uber is doing jack for this guy. They don't have their drivers' backs on minor things, no way they're gonna stick up for a driver who shot a pax.
> 
> The driver's family has started a gofundme for his legal expenses.
> 
> I just wonder if the driver had a dashcam. None of the news stories I've seen has memtioned one.


We don't know anything except a driver shot a PAX.

We have seen Uber poor a lot of legal power into problems in the past. I have no problem believing Uber has provided council to the driver to keep him quiet.


----------



## KellyC

RockinEZ said:


> We don't know anything except a driver shot a PAX.
> 
> We have seen Uber poor a lot of legal power into problems in the past. I have no problem believing Uber has provided council to the driver to keep him quiet.


I wouldn't put much past Uber but I'll eat my hat if they're paying for this guy's lawyer to keep him quiet, or for any other reason

Here's a link to the family's gofundme, btw. https://www.gofundme.com/justice4uberdriver


----------



## RockinEZ

KellyC said:


> I wouldn't put much past Uber but I'll eat my hat if they're paying for this guy's lawyer to keep him quiet, or for any other reason
> 
> Here's a link to the family's gofundme, btw. https://www.gofundme.com/justice4uberdriver


Wow, that description will not get many donations. 
If it is up to his family.... he be screwed.

If you don't have a dual lens dash cam, you should seriously consider getting one. 
My camera is visible, I talk about it. 
It makes people think. 
If they ask me about storage, I tell them it is wifi enabled and has cloud storage through my phone's hot spot.


----------



## NoPooPool

RockinEZ said:


> I would suspect that Uber is supplying legal council. This guy only has life in prison to risk. Uber is risking potential future profits.
> Uber has to get their priorities in order, and it is not the driver's a$$.


Why would Uber supply legal council? They are only going to wash their hands of it, and contend that the driver broke the terms of service, which states that it is against Uber's policy for either a passenger or driver to possess a firearm in the car.

Whether the driver walks free and is never charged with murder 1 , murder 2, or even something like involuntary manslaughter, the driver's Uber account is going to be permanently deactivated.

As to Daisy 77 stating that some of the first few shots fired of the 10 rounds possibly having been warning shots, that is highly unlikely. Warning shots are, for the most part seen on tv and in movies. Any trained or even untrained lawful citizens know better than to do such a thing. Firing random rounds from a firearm, would carry with it a charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm, which is believe is a felony.

Even crazy reckless gun owners that fire rounds into the air on New Years, or Independence Day in celebration are breaking the law, and committing a felony. What goes up, must come down, and those random shots fired into the air, come back down to earth at over 1000 feet per second, and can cause serious damage, injury or even death, if they happen to land on a house, car, animal, or human.



Ozzyoz said:


> What about a shooter? Can't we judge a shooter by his cover? lol


Emphatically, NO!


----------



## Daisey77

RockinEZ said:


> I would suspect that Uber is supplying legal council. This guy only has life in prison to risk. Uber is risking potential future profits.
> Uber has to get their priorities in order, and it is not the driver's a$$.


 I doubt Uber is supplying legal counsel but if they are, the best interest of that guy is to get his own. His friends and family are raising money to get him legal defense. Which I wouldn't think they would need to be doing, if Uber was stepping in to help. As far as future profits, the media has been talking to passengers in Denver and elsewhere . None of them have said they're going to quit using the service because of this. In fact , from the stories I've read, passengers are not taking the passenger 's side necessarily. They're keeping a pretty open mind about things, surprisingly. Profits are not going to be affected. I don't defend Uber on a lot of things but I'm not sure what they could have done to prevent this. He has a clean criminal background. It's being reported that he had a driving under restraint infraction the end of April. Literally 5 weeks prior. Unless we want them to be running MVR reports every month or every day, that's not an unreasonable amount of time that he went unnoticed. If he even in fact did get said citations.


----------



## NoPooPool

RockinEZ said:


> We don't know anything except a driver shot a PAX.
> 
> We have seen Uber poor a lot of legal power into problems in the past. I have no problem believing Uber has provided council to the driver to keep him quiet.


Uber has absolutely zero control over the driver, in regard to what he does or does not say.


----------



## Z129

Are they going after this guy in this overzealous fashion because he emptied a clip in to the passenger? If he had shot him just six times would it have been more legit?

"Why did you shoot him ten times?"
"Because the gun came with a 10-round clip and I just kept pulling the trigger until the gun stopped firing."


----------



## Daisey77

NoPooPool said:


> Why would Uber supply legal council? They are only going to wash their hands of it, and contend that the driver broke the terms of service, which states that it is against Uber's policy for either a passenger or driver to possess a firearm in the car.
> 
> Whether the driver walks free and is never charged with murder 1 , murder 2, or even something like involuntary manslaughter, the driver's Uber account is going to be permanently deactivated.
> 
> As to Daisy 77 stating that some of the first few shots fired of the 10 rounds possibly having been warning shots, that is highly unlikely. Warning shots are, for the most part seen on tv and in movies. Any trained or even untrained lawful citizens know better than to do such a thing. Firing random rounds from a firearm, would carry with it a charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm, which is believe is a felony.
> 
> Even crazy reckless gun owners that fire rounds into the air on New Years, or Independence Day in celebration are breaking the law, and committing a felony. What goes up, must come down, and those random shots fired into the air, come back down to earth at over 1000 feet per second, and can cause serious damage, injury or even death, if they happen to land on a house, car, animal, or human.
> 
> Emphatically, NO!


Okay warning shots might have been a broad term. However I doubt in a self-defense situation, a person shooting in the direction of someone in hopes it Spooks them enough to throw them off versus killing them, will result in charges of unlawful discharge of a firearm. There's a million different stories how this could have actually went down but either way I'm guessing not all 10 bullets were found in the body. He could have simply shot close enough to him to try to Spook him or the bullets could have missed because of the struggle. There are multiple possibilities of how those 10 shots were fired off. The 10 shots doesn't mean he is automatically guilty. Some reports are reporting that there was a knife and gun found. if that's the case, that could change everything. Obviously there's something to his story if they have not slapped charges on him already. It's not a completely shut and closed case



NoPooPool said:


> Uber has absolutely zero control over the driver, in regard to what he does or does not say.


Especially since he is deactivated.


----------



## NoPooPool

Daisey77 said:


> Okay warning shots might have been a broad term. However I doubt in a self-defense situation, a person shooting in the direction of someone in hopes it Spooks them enough to throw them off versus killing them, will result in charges of unlawful discharge of a firearm. There's a million different stories how this could have actually went down but either way I'm guessing not all 10 bullets were found in the body. He could have simply shot close enough to him to try to Spook him or the bullets could have missed because of the struggle. There are multiple possibilities of how those 10 shots were fired off. The 10 shots doesn't mean he is automatically guilty. Some reports are reporting that there was a knife and gun found. if that's the case, that could change everything. Obviously there's something to his story if they have not slapped charges on him already. It's not a completely shut and closed case
> 
> Especially since he is deactivated.


The fact that the driver is deactivated is a good point, but not the actual point in stating that Uber has no control over the driver.


----------



## bsliv

NoPooPool said:


> Why would Uber supply legal council? They are only going to wash their hands of it, and contend that the driver broke the terms of service, which states that it is against Uber's policy for either a passenger or driver to possess a firearm in the car.
> 
> Whether the driver walks free and is never charged with murder 1 , murder 2, or even something like involuntary manslaughter, the driver's Uber account is going to be permanently deactivated.
> 
> As to Daisy 77 stating that some of the first few shots fired of the 10 rounds possibly having been warning shots, that is highly unlikely. Warning shots are, for the most part seen on tv and in movies. Any trained or even untrained lawful citizens know better than to do such a thing. Firing random rounds from a firearm, would carry with it a charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm, which is believe is a felony.
> 
> Even crazy reckless gun owners that fire rounds into the air on New Years, or Independence Day in celebration are breaking the law, and committing a felony. What goes up, must come down, and those random shots fired into the air, come back down to earth at over 1000 feet per second, and can cause serious damage, injury or even death, if they happen to land on a house, car, animal, or human.
> 
> Emphatically, NO!


Agree with your post except the terminal velocity of a .30 caliber rifle round is 300 fps. A 9mm's terminal velocity is about 200 fps. A .223's velocity at the muzzle is > 3000 fps. Of course, if shot at anything less than straight up, a bullet will never slow down to terminal velocity.

10 rounds seems excessive given the close quarters. But some handguns aren't very powerful. A .380's energy at the muzzle isn't much more than the energy of a slap shot in hockey. A .22lr's energy is only a bit more than a Tiger Woods drive. It may take a few slap shots to stop a determined attacker. As a comparison, the common 30-06 hunting cartridge has about 25 times the energy of a 22lr.

The brass should have stayed in the car, unless they landed on the people and the brass got outside the car when the people got out. Or the shots were fired outside the car.


----------



## NoPooPool

bsliv said:


> Agree with your post except the terminal velocity of a .30 caliber rifle round is 300 fps. A 9mm's terminal velocity is about 200 fps. A .223's velocity at the muzzle is > 3000 fps. Of course, if shot at anything less than straight up, a bullet will never slow down to terminal velocity.
> 
> 10 rounds seems excessive given the close quarters. But some handguns aren't very powerful. A .380's energy at the muzzle isn't much more than the energy of a slap shot in hockey. A .22lr's energy is only a bit more than a Tiger Woods drive. It may take a few slap shots to stop a determined attacker. As a comparison, the common 30-06 hunting cartridge has about 25 times the energy of a 22lr.
> 
> The brass should have stayed in the car, unless they landed on the people and the brass got outside the car when the people got out. Or the shots were fired outside the car.


I stand corrected. Muzzle velocity on 9mm is 1080-1125 FPS depending on the gun and the particular round. Terminal velocity is in the 200-300 FPS range.

Either way, it has enough energy to come down and kill a human, is my main point.

As to Daisy 77 stating that firing some shots in the general direction of an attacker to SPOOK him, it would still be foolish, and still would be looked at by law enforcement and the DA as a chargeable offense. The number of rounds fired, even if it is determined to indeed be self-defense, would still be looked at as overkill. There is a fine line between what is required to stop a threat, and what would be considered to be over zealous.

Do some informative reading on cases involving self-defense. You will find thousands of cases where a justified self-defense shooting resulted in charges on the shooter, for being overly aggressive well after the threat is thwarted.

Bottom line is that Michael Hancock is in need of some strong legal representation going forward. It


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> What we don't know is how many of those 10 Rounds hit the passenger.


What we REALLY don't know is whether ANY of the information in any of the news stories is true...including the number of shell casings, if any, actually found in the area of the car.

All we know for sure is that the car crashed into the wall, shots were fired, and the pax died. Everything else is speculation and hearsay.



Daisey77 said:


> Charges have not even been filed. The DA stated today the decision whether to file charges or not , will most likely happen by the end of the week.


That's just normal procedure. The prosecutors will take their time and get as much investigative info from the police as possible before deciding what charges to formally file. In some jurisdictions, murder cases have to go before a Grand Jury, so that could present additional delays. There is no rush.


> He has been arrested for investigation of first-degree murder. Although I can see Uber attempting to gag the driver, Uber doesn't have shit when it comes to first-degree murder charge. The legal system would laugh at Uber's gag order


Uber has no legal standing to do anything at all. This case is between the State of Colorado and the defendant. Uber is not involved in the criminal case.

Uber may be sued later by the family of the deceased, and in that case they'd have some rights in civil court -- but not in criminal court.


----------



## Kodyhead

There was a dateline episode of a guy who shot a kid breaking into his own house in Idaho called garage hopping in attempts to steal beer and liquor and the home owner got sentenced to 70 years I think because it was premeditared. There was evidence supporting that he planned to kill the next person to break into his house.

Castle doctrine or make my day isn't a license to kill. It will be an interesting trial if it gets there

Regardless let the cops do their thing


----------



## ntcindetroit

Would it be a better service if rideshare co. display three available drivers and vehicles for the rider to choose from instead of matching a killer/shooter for a rider? Is rideshare co. guilty of bad match?


----------



## NoPooPool

ntcindetroit said:


> Would it be a better service if rideshare co. display three available drivers and vehicles for the rider to choose from instead of matching a killer/shooter for a rider? Is rideshare co. guilty of bad match?


What a great idea! How does a would be rider choose from the three choices? Eenie, meenie, miney, moe?


----------



## Mista T

NoPooPool said:


> The fact that the driver is deactivated is a good point, but not the actual point in stating that Uber has no control over the driver.


I am surprised that Uber PR has not attempted to capitalize on this yet. They try to spin everything, don't they?

"All the more reason why we need SDCs"


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds

BurgerTiime said:


> https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/01/uber-driver-fatal-shooting-i-25-denver/
> 
> *Denver police question Uber driver who allegedly shot, killed a client on I-25 *
> *Southbound lanes of I-25 at University Boulevard will be closed though the rush hour, police say*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Denver police are questioning an Uber driver for investigation of allegedly fatally shooting a client early Friday morning on southbound Interstate 25, triggering a shutdown of the highway's southbound lanes at University Boulevard through the commute, according to media reports.
> 
> The shooting occurred at about 3 a.m.
> The vehicle, identified by Fox 31 Denver as a silver sedan, veered off the road and hit a wall on a highway ramp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police said the driver shot the passenger, an adult male, multiple times. According to emergency dispatch communications, the driver called 911 to report the shooting.
> 
> Officers on the scene attempted to perform CPR on the passenger but the man was pronounced dead.
> 
> The names of the Uber customer and driver have not been released. The shooting happened before 3 a.m. near the University exit. A car crashed into the concrete barrier at the median.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denver police declined to confirm reports by several media outlets that the incident involved an Uber driver.
> 
> Marika Putnam, Denver police spokeswoman, said the highway will be closed at least through the rush hour while police look for evidence.
> 
> Uber, on its website, says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.
> 
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."


This is bad for business! No repeat customers.


----------



## JimKE

Gone_in_60_seconds said:


> This is bad for business! No repeat customers.


Not none. Just one less.


----------



## yuck

ntcindetroit said:


> Would it be a better service if rideshare co. display three available drivers and vehicles for the rider to choose from instead of matching a killer/shooter for a rider? Is rideshare co. guilty of bad match?


bad enough they get our face pics, id rather have theirs then to just ignore all 4.7 or less & now most 5 as they just minors or banned accounts resigning up so i can ignore them on they muggs

4.8s or 4.9s only everyone else nope


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> All we know for sure is that the car crashed into the wall, shots were fired, and the pax died. Everything else is speculation and


Actually the car didn't "crash" into the wall. Have you looked at the pics? The car isn't smashed up. It basically came to rest at the wall.



JimKE said:


> That's just normal procedure. The prosecutors will take their time and get as much investigative info from the police as possible before deciding what charges to formally file. In some jurisdictions, murder cases have to go before a Grand Jury, so that could present additional delays. There is no rush


 yes, I know. My post was in response to someone who commented, " we will have to wait until the trial". I was pointing out the term trial is a little presumptuous since charges and not even been filed yet.



JimKE said:


> Uber has no legal standing to do anything at all. This case is between the State of Colorado and the defendant. Uber is not involved in the criminal case.
> 
> Uber may be sued later by the family of the deceased, and in that case they'd have some rights in civil court -- but not in criminal court


 again, yes I know and again, I was responding to someone who stated Uber has a gag order and that's why the accused is not talking.


----------



## RockinEZ

How many people can we have on one post that do not understand what Uber has at risk, and how much money and legal staff on hand to try to mitigate this incident?
Hell yes Uber has lawyers working on this case. 
We are talking one of the largest IPOs in history in the near future. This could screw the pooch. 
You folks have obviously not worked in the corporate world. 
Spending $2-3-or 4 million bucks for legal expenses would be a negligible expense.



NoPooPool said:


> Uber has absolutely zero control over the driver, in regard to what he does or does not say.


If you were an Uber driver that just shot a PAX would you refuse multi-million dollar lawyers working on your case?
Hell no, an Uber driver would end up with a public defender and 20 years in prison. 
I would jump all over an Uber offer to supply legal advise.

How freaking stupid are you guys?



KellyC said:


> I wouldn't put much past Uber but I'll eat my hat if they're paying for this guy's lawyer to keep him quiet, or for any other reason
> 
> Here's a link to the family's gofundme, btw. https://www.gofundme.com/justice4uberdriver


Start munching on that hat. Uber has a Billion dollars at risk for a company that makes no money. 
Yes they will lawyer up that dirver.... well they have.



KellyC said:


> I doubt Uber is doing jack for this guy. They don't have their drivers' backs on minor things, no way they're gonna stick up for a driver who shot a pax.
> 
> The driver's family has started a gofundme for his legal expenses.
> 
> I just wonder if the driver had a dashcam. None of the news stories I've seen has memtioned one.
> 
> In fairness, the other guy's story is non-existent because he's dead


There has been no information released.... Uber has this covered like a bad smell on a turd. 
I guarantee you a billion dollar IPO vs. a few mil to defend this jerk..
They have lawyers all over this asshole.



Mista T said:


> Gagged or not, the guy is gonna talk. And since Uber deactivated him, they can go suck an egg. He is facing 1st degree murder charges possibly. What is Uber gonna do, take away his birthday? I see a movie deal in the future.
> 
> Since he has not been charged yet (days later), and since the other guy's "story" is non existent so far, perhaps the driver was in the right and simply panicked. Who knows. I am truly curious, but this is one instance where assumptions are definitely not called for.


deactivated him was a given. That has nothing to do with what Uber has provided in to way of legal assistance they have provided to the driver. 
Notice no press release, no info at all. Uber has this wrapped up until it goes to trial. 
Just watch.


----------



## bsliv

RockinEZ said:


> How freaking stupid are you guys?


I might be pretty stupid. I'm not sure I'd accept an offer from Uber to be my lawyer. I'd have no problem having my attorney confer with Uber's attorneys.

The first reports I heard said the driver was not speaking to the police without an attorney. That is good whether he is guilty or innocent.

As you mention, Uber has their own agenda. Do they want the driver found not guilty?

If it goes to trial and if the driver is found not guilty, it may give the impression that drivers can be dangerous and there are no repercussions. That may alienate riders and harm business.

If it goes to trial and the driver is found guilty, it may give the impression that the law works and this driver was an aberration.

The most recent news I've seen says the family of the driver have raised $8000 for legal defense.


----------



## RockinEZ

bsliv said:


> I might be pretty stupid. I'm not sure I'd accept an offer from Uber to be my lawyer. I'd have no problem having my attorney confer with Uber's attorneys.
> 
> The first reports I heard said the driver was not speaking to the police without an attorney. That is good whether he is guilty or innocent.
> 
> As you mention, Uber has their own agenda. Do they want the driver found not guilty?
> 
> If it goes to trial and if the driver is found not guilty, it may give the impression that drivers can be dangerous and there are no repercussions. That may alienate riders and harm business.
> 
> If it goes to trial and the driver is found guilty, it may give the impression that the law works and this driver was an aberration.
> 
> The most recent news I've seen says the family of the driver have raised $8000 for legal defense.


I only read your first line and I have to ask have you ever paid a lawyer before?
Those are mortgage the freaking house payments. I know.

If Goober offered any assistance I would be all over that offer.

99% of the people on this forum would need a public defender. 
Public defender - jail time.

An Uber assist would seem like mana from heaven.


----------



## bsliv

RockinEZ said:


> have you ever paid a lawyer before?


Not that I can remember. But they pay me for my opinion. 

Read the rest of my post. I question Uber's motives no matter what they do. I see Uber trying to disassociate itself with this incident.


----------



## Daisey77

bsliv said:


> I might be pretty stupid. I'm not sure I'd accept an offer from Uber to be my lawyer. I'd have no problem having my attorney confer with Uber's attorneys.
> 
> The first reports I heard said the driver was not speaking to the police without an attorney. That is good whether he is guilty or innocent.
> 
> As you mention, Uber has their own agenda. Do they want the driver found not guilty?
> 
> If it goes to trial and if the driver is found not guilty, it may give the impression that drivers can be dangerous and there are no repercussions. That may alienate riders and harm business.
> 
> If it goes to trial and the driver is found guilty, it may give the impression that the law works and this driver was an aberration.
> 
> The most recent news I've seen says the family of the driver have raised $8000 for legal defense.


I'm with you. If Uber was supplying a legal team, I would be questioning a lot of things.

If they are really set to go IPO by the end of the year or the beginning of next year, that trial is going to happen after that so they're just trying to get through this year. Whatever that takes.

The GoFundMe page a couple days ago was over 10,000 but GoFundMe shut it down because it goes against their terms to raise money for someone who has been accused of a crime. They're opening up a different account or they're going to use a different site.


----------



## Mista T

Uber has lawyers all over this. They have a lot of skin in the game. But there is no way they are going to allocate those liars I mean lawyers to this guy's defense.

1. The man refused to speak to anyone but an attorney. I bet Uber's lawyers were on site within 6-12 hours. But he still has not spoken to an attorney.

2. The guy shot and killed a pax. Pax are more important to Uber than drivers. Uber will not allow itself to be seen defending a pax-killer.

3. Uber has not issued a statement. Why? Because the driver hasn't told them shit. Why? Because they don't represent him!

4. If you have free legal representation from Uber, you don't start a GoFundMe page.


----------



## yuck

havent heard anything from victims family cuz theyve been paid off a few million is literally what uber burns in 3 HOURS


----------



## Daisey77

Maybe because he was wrong. He's had three DUIs . on probation, court ordered to not be drinking. I wonder if anger or violence accompanied any of those alcohol-related offenses


----------



## ntcindetroit

*Anyone can't crash her/his uber car before shooting is unfit to drive for rideshare. True or False?*


----------



## Kodyhead

Its the drivers right to an attorney, of course this makes cops suspicious but if it was me I would refuse an attorney from uber as they are not working for the shooter, they are working for uber.


----------



## Daisey77

I'm confused why him refusing to give a statement, without an attorney present, is viewed as a bad thing. Isn't that our right? Isn't that something that is instilled in us as a society? Whether it was in books, TV shows, movies, or adult conversations, it was more or less instilled in us to never give a statement without your attorney present. anything you say after your rights are read, is admissable in court. I would have done the same thing. Especially when there is a company of such high caliber as Uber involved. He would have been crazy to talk without an attorney . Like there hasn't been dirty cops in the past? They could switch things around he said. Especially if Uber is pressuring them. Hell evidence could go missing. . . There are a ton of reasons to not speak without an attorney present


----------



## Kodyhead

Its doesn't mean guilt and it is our right as an attorney but I would assume it's like on the checklist for investigation. Just a fact or note 

If it was me I would want an attorney there unless it was a time sensitive thing and there is a chance of finding a missing loved one for example, I may cooperate from the beginniing


----------



## Daisey77

This doesn't provide any real details on the case but thought I'd share it.


----------



## KellyC

Daisey77 said:


> I'm confused why him refusing to give a statement, without an attorney present, is viewed as a bad thing. Isn't that our right? Isn't that something that is instilled in us as a society? Whether it was in books, TV shows, movies, or adult conversations, it was more or less instilled in us to never give a statement without your attorney present. anything you say after your rights are read, is admissable in court. I would have done the same thing. Especially when there is a company of such high caliber as Uber involved. He would have been crazy to talk without an attorney . Like there hasn't been dirty cops in the past? They could switch things around he said. Especially if Uber is pressuring them. Hell evidence could go missing. . . There are a ton of reasons to not speak without an attorney present


Agree 100%



Daisey77 said:


> Maybe because he was wrong. He's had three DUIs . on probation, court ordered to not be drinking. I wonder if anger or violence accompanied any of those alcohol-related offenses


Who, the victim?


----------



## JimKE

Kodyhead said:


> Its the drivers right to an attorney, of course this makes cops suspicious


It wouldn't make the police suspicious. It's NORMAL, and the smart thing to do.

The driver can cooperate with the police without talking to them; he just has his attorney give the police his side of the story. That doesn't incriminate him personally.


> but if it was me I would refuse an attorney from uber as they are not working for the shooter, they are working for uber.


Exactly. You want your attorney to work for YOU. Uber's interests and the driver's interests are very different -- *opposite* in many cases.

Mister T is also right above -- Uber will not represent or assist the driver because they can't risk the *PR disaster* of defending a driver who killed a rider.


----------



## Kodyhead

JimKE said:


> It wouldn't make the police suspicious. It's NORMAL, and the smart thing to do.
> 
> The driver can cooperate with the police without talking to them; he just has his attorney give the police his side of the story. That doesn't incriminate him personally. Exactly. You want your attorney to work for YOU. Uber's interests and the driver's interests are very different -- *opposite* in many cases.
> 
> Mister T is also right above -- Uber will not represent or assist the driver because they can't risk the *PR disaster* of defending a driver who killed a rider.


It's like human resources lol they are not there to help you, they are there to protect the company



JimKE said:


> It wouldn't make the police suspicious. It's NORMAL, and the smart thing to do.
> 
> The driver can cooperate with the police without talking to them; he just has his attorney give the police his side of the story. That doesn't incriminate him personally. Exactly. You want your attorney to work for YOU. Uber's interests and the driver's interests are very different -- *opposite* in many cases.
> 
> Mister T is also right above -- Uber will not represent or assist the driver because they can't risk the *PR disaster* of defending a driver who killed a rider.


Do I have to show you my law and order credentials again? Watching every episode makes me an expert in major crimes, you know murders and special victims that kind of stuff. I have a minor in dateline and 20/20 too.

Ice-t is my best friend......... lol


----------



## ntcindetroit

When Uber driver is arrested for investigation, do their family get financial relief?


----------



## Gov Moonbeam

RockinEZ said:


> If you were an Uber driver that just shot a PAX would you refuse multi-million dollar lawyers working on your case?
> .


No, I woudn't refuse Ubers lawyers, BUT, I am smart enough to know that they are UBERS LAWYERS, not mine. They are paid by and hired by Uber to do what? PROTECT UBER. If they needed to throw you out the window to do that, would they? Yes to the power of Hell. they would.

A principle of common law is that the person who pays, is the one who is the boss. Simple, but true.

What I would do is hire my own lawyer to work WITH Ubers lawyers and give her strict instructions to keep me educated and informed as to everything that is going on behind the scenes.


----------



## JimKE

ntcindetroit said:


> When Uber driver is arrested for investigation, do their family get financial relief?


You're joking...right?


----------



## ntcindetroit

JimKE said:


> You're joking...right?


No, Not really. Just have the thought of if asserting self-defense as an Uber driver is worth more than getting robbed or injured following the stories of 4 rideshare drivers got carjacked and/or robbed over one night in Detroit in the coming trial of June 12.


----------



## yuck

i have almost no doubt he was wrong, pretty sure the driver didn't plan this, guy did something to warrant the gun coming out & being used, but this is america all that matters is perception, uber pays family to muzzle them, so almost no news on that front, because its all about the evil dangerous drivers, when the unscreened riders are the ones causing most of thr issues


id guess a female driver working night shift is assaulted in one way or another every shift, same with males if not physically, verbally, or against their car/property


theres a reason cabs have partitions & its not to protect riders, 3rd shift is pretty much all drunks, going to get drunks, like this guy multiple duis, junkies, drug runners, prostitutes i dont see why anyone would risk it people not going to the airport at that time?


but again its all about protecting the riders charge actual costs & these non tippers, poor people & criminals that have no business with chauffeurs & private drivers that dont appreciate the service or humans providing it go away


----------



## NoPooPool

ntcindetroit said:


> When Uber driver is arrested for investigation, do their family get financial relief?





JimKE said:


> You're joking...right?


Sadly, I am afraid he was asking the question, and being serious, not joking.



ntcindetroit said:


> No, Not really. Just have the thought of if asserting self-defense as an Uber driver is worth more than getting robbed or injured following the stories of 4 rideshare drivers got carjacked and/or robbed over one night in Detroit in the coming trial of June 12.


Uber gives exactly zero $_hit$ about the drivers.


----------



## Daisey77

KellyC said:


> Who, the victim


yes, the victim AKA passenger


----------



## NoPooPool

RockinEZ said:


> I only read your first line and I have to ask have you ever paid a lawyer before?
> Those are mortgage the freaking house payments. I know.
> 
> If Goober offered any assistance I would be all over that offer.
> 
> 99% of the people on this forum would need a public defender.
> Public defender - jail time.
> 
> An Uber assist would seem like mana from heaven.


I would not be all over any such legal assistance coming from Uber, at all. All they and their paid attorneys will be interested in is protecting their own interests in any possible pending case, and throwing the driver under the bus.


----------



## JimKE

ntcindetroit said:


> No, Not really. Just have the thought of if asserting self-defense as an Uber driver is worth more than getting robbed or injured following the stories of 4 rideshare drivers got carjacked and/or robbed over one night in Detroit in the coming trial of June 12.


I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your logic. I don't see how either a criminal defense strategy available to the driver, or other drivers' bad experiences would generate "financial relief" for this driver and his family.

WHO would provide financial relief?

Certainly not Uber!

Uber would deny they every heard of the guy if they had the remotest chance of getting away with that lie! He's an inconvenient media story for them to deal with...nothing more. If they could lie about him being a driver and move on, they'd do it in a heartbeat!


----------



## Kodyhead

ntcindetroit said:


> When Uber driver is arrested for investigation, do their family get financial relief?


Of course but it depends on how many hours and rides you have completed in the last 2 months. Its a percentage of what you averaged so 30% of all badges earned in 10 weeks



Gov Moonbeam said:


> No, I woudn't refuse Ubers lawyers, BUT, I am smart enough to know that they are UBERS LAWYERS, not mine. They are paid by and hired by Uber to do what? PROTECT UBER. If they needed to throw you out the window to do that, would they? Yes to the power of Hell. they would.
> 
> A principle of common law is that the person who pays, is the one who is the boss. Simple, but true.
> 
> What I would do is hire my own lawyer to work WITH Ubers lawyers and give her strict instructions to keep me educated and informed as to everything that is going on behind the scenes.


Yes he can get a copy of the driver who clicked I AGREE to not having weapons in the car, but he gets free parking lol


----------



## JimKE

Kodyhead said:


> Of course but it depends on how many hours and rides you have completed in the last 2 months. Its a percentage of what you averaged so 30% of all badges earned in 10 weeks


Nope. That's LYFT. Lyft pretends to care, and creates criteria which guarantee they don't have to pay a penny.

Uber makes no pretense about not caring. They just spout PR feces about "caring deeply" and move on.

Uber is WAY smarter than Lyft.


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> Nope. That's LYFT. Lyft pretends to care, and creates criteria which guarantee they don't have to pay a penny.
> 
> Uber makes no pretense about not caring. They just spout PR feces about "caring deeply" and move on.
> 
> Uber is WAY smarter than Lyft.


Hello he said 30% of badges. Lyft doesn't give badges . . . just saying


----------



## NoPooPool

JimKE said:


> Nope. That's LYFT. Lyft pretends to care, and creates criteria which guarantee they don't have to pay a penny.
> 
> Uber makes no pretense about not caring. They just spout PR feces about "caring deeply" and move on.
> 
> Uber is WAY smarter than Lyft.


Love their canned response on these matters of the "caring deeply."


----------



## Kodyhead

Daisey77 said:


> Hello he said 30% of badges. Lyft doesn't give badges . . . just saying


With the current exchange rate 1 badge = 1.54789203 kudos. Thanks trump lol


----------



## JimKE

NoPooPool said:


> Love their canned response on these matters of the "caring deeply."


It's what they do. Everything millennial is "deeply." Think deeply. Care deeply. Love deeply. Fish deeply.

If you can work "deeply" into a sentence, that is a sure indicator of your deep sincerity. Words are cheap.


----------



## Daisey77

Well he has officially been charged with first-degree murder. They had until Tuesday to file charges period on Tuesday, they filed a motion with the court for an extension. The court granted them a 24-hour extension. They needed to subpoena phone records and stuff. Charges got filed


----------



## Kodyhead

Daisey77 said:


> Well he has officially been charged with first-degree murder. They had until Tuesday to file charges period on Tuesday, they filed a motion with the court for an extension. The court granted them a 24-hour extension. They needed to subpoena phone records and stuff. Charges got filed


And CNN just got hard lol


----------



## ntcindetroit

So, How an independent contractor ends up being charged a felony crime? Was it all because of a bad app or a bad match?


----------



## Daisey77

ntcindetroit said:


> So, How an independent contractor ends up being charged a felony crime? Was it all because of a bad app or a bad match?


Huh? Being an independent contractor has nothing to do with the law. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Why would being an independent contractor prevent you from being charged with a felony crime?


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> Huh? Being an independent contractor has nothing to do with the law. If you kill someone, you kill someone. Why would being an independent contractor prevent you from being charged with a felony crime?


Well, you know...

He's like...independent. And he's also a contractor. Isn't that a license to kill? Uber lied?


----------



## ntcindetroit

They talk like this is a social app of the 21st century, at least, that's how we perceive it is for. But it tricks users into legal traps with serious consequences. There're lacking apparent warnings for any experienced or naive users. Still have no idea how a 5-star driver could turn into a murder by accepting a ping.


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> They had until Tuesday to file charges period on Tuesday, they filed a motion with the court for an extension. The court granted them a 24-hour extension. They needed to subpoena phone records and stuff. Charges got filed


This whole sequence here is weird. The prosecutor doesn't have to have their whole case together to file charges. They just have sufficient probable cause to charge him with whatever crime they choose. I can't imagine what phone records would have to do with establishing PC for 1st degree murder.

They had 4+ days before the 24 hour extension. That should be plenty of time to determine whether you're filing 1st degree.


----------



## Mista T

JimKE said:


> I can't imagine what phone records would have to do with establishing PC for 1st degree murder


What call did he make first... to 911, or to someone else?


----------



## ntcindetroit

Mista T said:


> What call did he make first... to 911, or to someone else?


The driver did not call 911. The 911 call was made by a passer-by.


----------



## Mista T

The driver also called 911. The million dollar question is, did he call right away, or spend time thinking about how to cover it up or run or something?


----------



## ntcindetroit

Mista T said:


> The driver also called 911. The million dollar question is, did he call right away, or spend time thinking about how to cover it up or run or something?


Our understanding from the limited news coverage is some passerby called the 911 and handed phone over to Uber Driver. Driver talked to 911, but not on his uber phone. Maybe that's why DA is waiting for phone log before filing charge.


----------



## Daisey77

The witness called 911 and gave the phone over to the driver and the driver admitted what he did. The phone records are going to come into play to see if there was any contact between the driver and passenger previous to this incident. Some people were questioning whether this was on the app or not and whether they knew each other prior to this. If for some reason they're able to connect the two and prove they knew each other prior to the ride, that could give them a motive. Also I'm guessing they I want actual proof that this was an actual Uber ride. Any phone calls in the few hours prior to the ride or going to be scrutinized. Also text messages.


----------



## ntcindetroit

Daisey77 said:


> The witness called 911 and gave the phone over to the driver and the driver admitted what he did. The phone records are going to come into play to see if there were any contact between the driver and him previously. Some people were questioning whether this was on the app or not and whether they knew each other prior to this. If for some reason they're able to connect the two and prove they knew each other prior to the ride, that could give them a motive. Also I'm guessing they don't quite believe Uber so they want proof that this was an actual Uber ride. Any phone calls in the few hours prior to the ride or going to be scrutinized. Also text messages.


Guess it's tough to be a witness in this mystical case.

No description of what the witness observed?

Three years on Uber with CCW and no dashcam?


----------



## Daisey77

ntcindetroit said:


> Guess it's tough to be a witness in this mystical case.
> 
> No description of what the witness observed?
> 
> Three years on Uber with CCW and no dashcam?


No. It just says a motorist came up on the scene and the driver told him his passenger tried to attack them so he shot them. The motorist then called nine-one-one they ask to talk to the driver and he handed the phone over to the driver. The driver identified himself and admitted 2 shooting the passenger. No dash cam. someone asked the driver's sister and she said that Uber and Lyft do not provide them. I've been driving over 3 years and I do not have one. I'm not saying it's a smart idea but I don't have one


----------



## JimKE

Any statements the driver made on the scene -- to the motorist, to 9-1-1, or anyone else -- would potentially be important evidence, but I still don't see how the need to subpoena _phone records_ would be so urgent that the prosecutors had to ask for an extension of the filing deadline. They could subpoena phone records any time.


----------



## Irishjohn831

I hope the driver grabbed the crooks phone and gave himself a big tip and closed out the ride


----------



## Kodyhead

Hopefully he didn't Google HOW TO COVER UP A MURDER

I would think uber or phone carrier would not release any info without a subpoena I imagine its just a routine process for documentation


----------



## homelesslawnmowers

you knows what's really amusing? guilty or not & I personally don't believe a 3yr driver would just randomly decide to kill a pax on the highway, also wouldn't do that shift without a dash cam

but these mofos STILL not tipping 60% of the time, id think a driver emptying a clip into rider would least be good for a 10-20%+ bump in tippers

i mean damm what's it really going take for people to appreciate the service, screenshots everywhere of uber making more on rides than the driver with none of the costs or risks and now trying to call us "partners"


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> Any statements the driver made on the scene -- to the motorist, to 9-1-1, or anyone else -- would potentially be important evidence, but I still don't see how the need to subpoena _phone records_ would be so urgent that the prosecutors had to ask for an extension of the filing deadline. They could subpoena phone records any time.


Obviously I don't know what evidence they have but if it was to the point where the evidence was a gray line and they needed some thing to tip the scale as to whether they charge him or not charge him, those phone records could have been the deciding Factor. I don't know exactly how the filing of charges works. I don't know if you can change the charges once you charge someone but I'm guessing they wanted these to know where they stand with evidence so they know what to charge him with.

OR . . .

IT WAS ALL A BULLSHIT EXCUSE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TIME FOR SOMETHING ELSE


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> Obviously I don't know what evidence they have but if it was to the point where the evidence was a gray line and they needed some thing to tip the scale as to whether they charge him or not charge him, those phone records could have been the deciding Factor. I don't know exactly how the filing of charges works. I don't know if you can change the charges once you charge someone but I'm guessing they wanted these to know where they stand with evidence so they know what to charge him with.


I don't know the CO law or how the police and prosecutors work there.

Here in Miami, there is an on-call major crimes prosecutor on-scene with the police within an hour or so, and that prosecutor remains with the homicide team throughout the early stages of the investigation (which can sometimes run 72 hours straight). Anything the team needs, the prosecutor provides -- whether it's advice, subpoenas, warrants...whatever. That prosecutor is at their side continuously. In our jurisdiction, in most cases that covers the entire time up to filing the actual "information," which is our formal charging document.

First degree murder cases are almost never "close calls." In 99% of homicide cases, the issues are very clear cut and the evidence is obvious. The harder cases are the "who-done-its," but this is not one of those cases.

As I said above, any telephone info would likely be trivial information and no reason to delay filing charges...unless, like Kody said, the driver Googled "How to get away with a murder" or was Face Timing the shooting.

Yes, prosecutors can and do amend charges after the initial filing. Happens all the time.



> OR . . .
> 
> IT WAS ALL A BULLSHIT EXCUSE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TIME FOR SOMETHING ELSE


If you ever REALLY want to get in trouble with a judge, just ask them for an exception to some procedure and give a BS excuse when you really want something else. That's called perjury, and a judge WILL put you in jail for that.


----------



## Rat

Palm Beach Driver said:


> How about this. A human being lost their life today at the hands and decisions of someone else. The comments here are part of what is wrong with our country. It may be a son, father, friend, loved one and that should be enough. It is not funny to to mock death. Grow up.


How about this. A predator was removed due to his own choices.


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> If you ever REALLY want to get in trouble with a judge, just ask them for an exception to some procedure and give a BS excuse when you really want something else. That's called perjury, and a judge WILL put you in jail for that.


OK . . . Well I didn't mean give a bullshit excuse to the judge. I meant that may have just been the bullshit excuse they gave to the public or released to the media.
I honestly don't know why they filed an extension for phone records. That's why I stated " I'm guessing" in my comment.


----------



## Rat

transporter007 said:


> Nope. Uber corporate will require all drivers to sign an agreement: no guns in vehicle while active on uber driver app.
> Want ur gun, delete the drivers app
> Period
> 
> *And let's face it, uber doesn't need u, doesn't want u. plenty of drivers waiting to go on line.
> U leave, 100 waiting to replace u. *
> 
> *Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.
> 
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*
> 
> *Uber, on its website, also says guns are not allowed in its vehicles.
> 
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind in a vehicle while using our app."*
> 
> Nah, reference is to "using THEIR app"
> "Our goal is to ensure that everyone has a safe and reliable ride," it says. "That's why Uber prohibits riders and drivers from carrying firearms of any kind* in a vehicle while using our app."
> 
> U gals need guns to protect yourselves from the boogieman then don't use the uber app to lure Uber's clients into ur vehicle *


Except the law states Uber can not require you to give up a civil right. Their goal is not to ensure everyone has safe ride.



BurgerTiime said:


> Uber and Lyft cannot have control over your second amendment as an independent contractor PERIOD!
> You do not work for them you're not an employee unless the rules and laws change. They have the right to deactivate you but there's NO LAW BROKEN so protect yourself if must be. If the crazies know all Uber drivers are unarmed you will be a target. That's why schools and churches keep getting targeted by gunmen. Uber drivers will become soft targets for carjacking, robberies, rape and kidnapping and homicide. Don't think for one min these unfortunate events don't happen to drivers cause they do on a daily basis. Uber is the new taxi and taxi drivers have been protecting themselves for decades. People are under the influence of drugs and alcohol and that's why you can never trust a stranger and what they may do to you under duress and desperation.


In some states, maybe all, they DO NOT have the right to deactivate you.


----------



## RockinEZ

They formally charged the driver with murder yesterday.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/08/uber-driver-charged-with-murder-in-passengers-shooting-death/


----------



## Rat

Demon said:


> None of what you wrote has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment. The government isn't telling drivers they can't have a gun in their car. Uber has a constitutional right to tell drivers & pax not to have a gun during an Uber ride.


No, they don't. No more than a driver can demand they remove security at Uber headquarters.



peteyvavs said:


> Sorry to disappoint you but Uber has every right to tell drivers no guns allowed while driving for them. It's no different then any company saying that no weapons allowed on their premises, even the government states that no one can have a firearm on them entering their premises except law enforcement.
> The only thing the 2nd amendment guarantees is the right to bear arms, not impose them on others.


We aren't on Uber's premises. Sorry, but your arguments are nonsense


----------



## Daisey77

RockinEZ said:


> They formally charged the driver with murder yesterday.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/06/08/uber-driver-charged-with-murder-in-passengers-shooting-death/


Yes we know. Go back 20 some messages lol


----------



## Rat

peteyvavs said:


> Sorry you're wrong again, Uber has you sign an agreement that you will NOT have any weapons in the car while using their app. Uber will deactivate your contract and will not assist in your defense whatsoever.
> Once you turn on the app and have a weapon in the car you automatically void your contract and Uber can sue you for breach of contract as well as the victims family can sue you because of breach of contract and subjecting a passenger to gun violence.
> JUST BECAUSE THE 2nd AMENDMENT GIVES ONE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IT DOES NOT GIVE ONE BLANKET IMMUNITY FROM THEIR ACTIONS WITH SAID ARMS REGARDLESS IF THEY ARE INNOCENT OR GUILTY.
> All the responsibility of bearing arms falls on you the bearer and it can and most likely will have a very heavy cost to you if you have to draw your weapon on another.


The TOS specifically says "where allowed by law". You ignore what you don't want to know.



peteyvavs said:


> I actually do attend law school, so if you really want to challenge me go for it. The 2nd Amendment only allows you to bear arms, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS OVER OTHERS AS TO WHERE YOU CAN BEAR THOSE ARMS.
> As a matter of fact if you or anyone else carries guns while driving for Uber, Lyft or any public conveyance then you already voided your contract, YOU AGREED TO CARRY NO WEAPONS, WHICH IS BINDING IF UBER AND LYFT WANT TO SUE YOU FOR VIOLATING TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT YOU WILL LOSE.
> An owner of a business has every right to tell you no weapons allowed and you have 2 choices, you can comply or you can go elsewhere, Uber has every right to tell you no firearms allowed and you are not protected by 2nd Amendment if you violate the terms of your contract.
> 
> BTW, your vehicle is no longer a private vehicle once you use it to transport the public for profit.


The vehicle is still your private vehicle. The service is public, but you still own the vehicle. You seem to read this not the law what you want it to say, not what it actually says


----------



## Rat

peteyvavs said:


> I actually do attend law school, so if you really want to challenge me go for it. The 2nd Amendment only allows you to bear arms, IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS OVER OTHERS AS TO WHERE YOU CAN BEAR THOSE ARMS.
> As a matter of fact if you or anyone else carries guns while driving for Uber, Lyft or any public conveyance then you already voided your contract, YOU AGREED TO CARRY NO WEAPONS, WHICH IS BINDING IF UBER AND LYFT WANT TO SUE YOU FOR VIOLATING TERMS OF YOUR CONTRACT YOU WILL LOSE.
> An owner of a business has every right to tell you no weapons allowed and you have 2 choices, you can comply or you can go elsewhere, Uber has every right to tell you no firearms allowed and you are not protected by 2nd Amendment if you violate the terms of your contract.
> 
> BTW, your vehicle is no longer a private vehicle once you use it to transport the public for profit.


So we can assume you flunked out of law school? Or are you just a liar? You are claiming the law says things it does not say. You have not knowledge of the law at all, but claim your beliefs are the law.


----------



## AveragePerson

Rat said:


> So we can assume you flunked out of law school? Or are you just a liar? You are claiming the law says things it does not say. You have not knowledge of the law at all, but claim your beliefs are the law.


I think here is where the confusion lies for this argument...

The constitutional rights only applies to government, not private entities like Uber. While you have the right to bear arms, you can sign away those rights in a private contract because they are a private entity. If found to be in breach (of carrying arm), then it would be a civil case (violation/breach of contract) and uber would certainly have the grounds to terminate. If firearm is used like in this case, it has the potential for both a criminal and civil case.


----------



## Rat

peteyvavs said:


> Just because the government gives one the right to bear arms doesn't exempt them from being held liable when they agree to NOT have a gun while using their car for work purposes. This is like saying you have a right to do what you want in the privacy of your home until you use that home for criminal purposes.
> The constitution gives the individual certain rights, but does NOT give blanket immunity to those rights when it infringes on the rights of others.
> BTW, If you use a weapon while driving for a livery service don't expect any help from Uber, Lyft or any other service you work for, as far as they are concerned you are at fault for violating your contractual agreement.


Except the contract says "where allowed by law". It is not allowed By law. So no violation has occurred. FL specifically forbids termination, whether employee or contractor.


----------



## peteyvavs

Rat, just because the government gives you the right to bare arms does NOT mean an employer has to extend that right. When you work for a company, enter a private establishment you have to abide by their rules, you DO NOT have the right to supersede their right. 
If you ever have the misfortune of having to draw and use a firearm you better be sure where you use that weapon, it mostly will come back to bite you.


----------



## Rat

AveragePerson said:


> I think here is where the confusion lies for this argument...
> 
> The constitutional rights only applies to government, not private entities like Uber. While you have the right to bear arms, you can sign away those rights in a private contract because they are a private entity. If found to be in breach (of carrying arm), then it would be a civil case (violation/breach of contract) and uber would certainly have the grounds to terminate. If firearm is used like in this case, it has the potential for both a criminal and civil case.


Constitutional rights can not be signed away. Florida law specifically states no business can prohibit employees or contractors from carrying firearms, even if the business owns the vehicle. You are substituting what you want to believe for actual facts


----------



## peteyvavs

OK rat, you keep believing what you want, but remember the law is written with many if, ands, and buts. You better read the whole statues that pertain to gun laws in Florida, I mean the entire statue, NOT just the part that you like.


----------



## Rat

peteyvavs said:


> Rat, just because the government gives you the right to bare arms does NOT mean an employer has to extend that right. When you work for a company, enter a private establishment you have to abide by their rules, you DO NOT have the right to supersede their right.
> If you ever have the misfortune of having to draw and use a firearm you better be sure where you use that weapon, it mostly will come back to bite you.


Actually, we aren't talking about an employer or their private establishment. I have used my weapon and killed a passenger decades ago. I was not charged or even held for questioning



peteyvavs said:


> OK rat, you keep believing what you want, but remember the law is written with many if, ands, and buts. You better read the whole statues that pertain to gun laws in Florida, I mean the entire statue, NOT just the part that you like.


I did. Quit being stupid.


----------



## Markisonit

homelesslawnmowers said:


> not bad at all id rather have my life than an uber gig
> 
> gun saved his life he can still drive today, talk & make memories with his loved ones, the 2 tacos he was getting for the trip he can still enjoy


I disagree. You never know what kind of deranged animal will crawl in your car next. You have a right to life and a right to protect it.



Ozzyoz said:


> Personally I don't carry firearms and let God protect me, a gun may not be able to save me if another person is shooting at me.


I'm not willing to take that chance. I don't dial 9-1-1.


----------



## peteyvavs

Markisonit said:


> I disagree. You never know what kind of deranged animal will crawl in your car next. You have a right to life and a right to protect it.


I have been driving for 3 years and never had a need or want for a weapon, if you're that worried about pax then maybe it's time you found another line of work.



Rat said:


> Actually, we aren't talking about an employer or their private establishment. I have used my weapon and killed a passenger decades ago. I was not charged or even held for questioning
> 
> I did. Quit being stupid.


There is a retired cop who thought like you and he's facing trial in the coming months. You're mistake is thinking that what you read is going to protect you, Not in todays climate, think about it.


----------



## bsliv

peteyvavs said:


> enter a private establishment


Casinos here have signs on their entries say, "No Guns." I view the sign as a suggestion. It has no force of law. Since it is a private business, they can ask anyone to leave for any reason (except discrimination by gender, race, etc.). The most a casino can do to a gun toter is ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, they can be trespassed.

Forums have terms of service that state what is not allowed. I view the TOS as a suggestion. It has no force of law. If someone states something obviously false, I might respond. The most the forum operator can do is deactivate my account.

TNC have terms of service. I view the TOS as a suggestion. If a rider attacks me, I might respond. The most the TNC can do is deactivate my account.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The party that brings the suit must prove damages. Casinos aren't damaged by someone carrying a firearm. Forums aren't damaged by correct information being presented. TNC's aren't damaged by a driver defending them self. In fact, the contrary may be correct. I might be damaged by being prohibited from carrying a firearm.


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> OK . . . Well I didn't mean give a bullshit excuse to the judge. I meant that may have just been the bullshit excuse they gave to the public or released to the media.
> I honestly don't know why they filed an extension for phone records. That's why I stated " I'm guessing" in my comment.


Well, we're all speculating here. And the extension was probably unimportant anyway. The judge didn't seem to think it was a big deal.

We'll just have to see what happens at trial. Please keep us informed, because the national media will lose interest long before the trial.


----------



## ntcindetroit

Is it premature to draw the conclusion - Not all Rideshare drivers are safe drivers, not all Rideshare riders are safe riders either. No wonder no good guy can survive as a ridehare driver/rider without fear on every trip.


----------



## RockinEZ

Daisey77 said:


> Yes we know. Go back 20 some messages lol


Do you think I am going to plow through all those nonsense messages? I scanned the last few pages. 
Drunken Uber drivers spouting nonsense about things they do not understand.....

Better to have the link posted twice, than not at all. 
No forum member was harmed in that post.



ntcindetroit said:


> Is it premature to draw the conclusion - Not all Rideshare drivers are safe drivers, not all Rideshare riders are safe riders either. No wonder no good guy can survive as a ridehare driver/rider without fear on every trip.


Ain't that the truth. 
I have heard some scary stories about Uber drivers in San Diego from PAX. 
Mad dog driving. Running stop signs downtown at high speed. 
Middle Eastern drivers hitting on High School girls on the way to school. 
There are some people behind the wheel that should not be driving passengers for any company.

My advise to PAX is to check the number of trips the suggested driver has. 
If it is less than 1000 trips, find another.


----------



## transporter007

Rat said:


> Except the law states Uber can not require you to give up a civil right. Their goal is not to ensure everyone has safe ride.
> 
> In some states, maybe all, they DO NOT have the right to deactivate you.


Whenever I need legal advice I always seek out a Tallahassee Florida Uber Driver
Named Rat .

It's the smart thing to do

Bwahahahaha


----------



## RockinEZ

transporter007 said:


> Whenever I need legal advise I always seek out a Tallahassee Florida Uber Driver
> Named Rat .
> 
> It's the smart thing to do
> 
> Bwahahahaha


LOL!!

OK now there is more beer on my keyboard than in me.


----------



## Demon

Rat said:


> Constitutional rights can not be signed away. Florida law specifically states no business can prohibit employees or contractors from carrying firearms, even if the business owns the vehicle. You are substituting what you want to believe for actual facts


No such law exists. You're making things up.


----------



## bsliv

Demon said:


> No such law exists. You're making things up.


I believe Florida Revised Statutes 790.251 covers this: "(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.-This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen's lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law."


----------



## Demon

bsliv said:


> I believe Florida Revised Statutes 790.251 covers this: "(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.-This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen's lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law."





bsliv said:


> I believe Florida Revised Statutes 790.251 covers this: "(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.-This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen's lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law."


And which of those three is the driver?


----------



## Markisonit

peteyvavs said:


> I have been driving for 3 years and never had a need or want for a weapon, if you're that worried about pax then maybe it's time you found another line of work.


People that think like you are called SHEEP.


----------



## Mista T

peteyvavs said:


> I have been driving for 3 years and never had a need or want for a weapon, if you're that worried about pax then maybe it's time you found another line of work


I have lived in the same house for over a decade but never had a fire. Maybe I should cancel my insurance? Have never been robbed, maybe I should get rid of my gun at home?

Have not been in a car accident in many years. But I worry about it. Perhaps that means I should stop driving?

You logic is illogical. Keeping vigilant about protecting yourself is just common sense


----------



## bsliv

Demon said:


> And which of those three is the driver?


Employee is defined a bit earlier and includes independent contractors.


----------



## BurgerTiime

peteyvavs said:


> Rat, just because the government gives you the right to bare arms does NOT mean an employer has to extend that right. When you work for a company, enter a private establishment you have to abide by their rules, you DO NOT have the right to supersede their right.
> If you ever have the misfortune of having to draw and use a firearm you better be sure where you use that weapon, it mostly will come back to bite you.


Uber is not your "employer". Or do you think they are? Lol


----------



## Markisonit

Mista T said:


> I have lived in the same house for over a decade but never had a fire. Maybe I should cancel my insurance? Have never been robbed, maybe I should get rid of my gun at home?
> 
> Have not been in a car accident in many years. But I worry about it. Perhaps that means I should stop driving?
> 
> You logic is illogical. Keeping vigilant about protecting yourself is just common sense


T O U C H E ' ! ! ! !


----------



## transporter007

Markisonit said:


> People that think like you are called SHEEP.


"_People that think like you are called SHEEP"_

*That* coming from a skirt that needs a gun to get through the day 
What do they call you? Nevervous Nellie Markisonit

If you Can't handle the heat cowboy Markisonit get out of the kitchen 
Try cleaning bathrooms, toilets never attack, just overflow.
Problem solved

Bwahahahaha 



Mista T said:


> I have lived in the same house for over a decade but never had a fire. Maybe I should cancel my insurance? Have never been robbed, maybe I should get rid of my gun at home?
> 
> Have not been in a car accident in many years. But I worry about it. Perhaps that means I should stop driving?
> 
> You logic is illogical. Keeping vigilant about protecting yourself is just common sense


You live in fear Mista T 
Case in point: you're afraid to give your location
You choose "Gotham". I suspect it's more like "under your bed shaking"


----------



## Mista T

transporter007 said:


> You choose "Gotham". I suspect it's more like "under your bed shaking


I choose Gotham to make it a little harder for Uber and Lyft to identify me, you moron.


----------



## transporter007

Mista T said:


> I choose Gotham to make it a little harder for Uber and Lyft to identify me, you moron.


Fear of identification
F E A R
maybe ur gun will make u a man

Bwahahahaha

An Uber driver who police say gunned down a passenger in his car last week has been *charged with first-degree murder,* prosecutors said.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/08/uber-driver-charged-with-murder-in-passengers-shooting-death/

What do u think Michael Hancock, 25 is thinking right now in jail?
It was a good idea to have a gun in the car? STICK a fork in that guy, he's D O N E 

Who's next in the rape room Mista T Markisonit ?
What's your size for an yellow jump suit
This ain't no reality show
This is real world


----------



## Daisey77

Here's the probable cause statement


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> Here's the probable cause statement
> View attachment 236260


Too microscopic to read. Can you post a link?


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> Too microscopic to read. Can you post a link?


ummmm let me see. That takes some skill lol can you click on it and expand maybe?

Try this 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OVbR6xSK4i-q-O72aWfqr_92zAPZzgYC/view?usp=drivesdk


----------



## Mista T

Helpful, thank you


----------



## Daisey77

Mista T said:


> Helpful, thank you


No problem


----------



## bsliv

My browser doesn't expand it to readable size.
https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/unredacted-uber-probable-cause.pdf

At this point, I don't know if the driver reasonably feared great bodily harm or not.


----------



## Cdub2k

If he doesn't have a dash cam it's going to be hard to convince anybody of what happened. 
Firing a pistol 10 times doesn't sound like self defense to me.


----------



## bsliv

Cdub2k said:


> If he doesn't have a dash cam it's going to be hard to convince anybody of what happened.
> Firing a pistol 10 times doesn't sound like self defense to me.


One has to have a reasonable fear of at least great bodily harm before deadly force should be used. The statement says the driver was attacked. But that could be verbal or touching in an unwanted manor. The driver says the rider was, "feeling on him." I have a feeling on pleading to a lesser charge. Beyond reasonable doubt is a strong phrase to a good attorney. Ask OJ.


----------



## Daisey77

I was going to say I bet he takes a plea on a lesser charge. Then again, all his legal team has to do is convince one juror that it was self-defense and he'll be acquitted. If they can find a friend or co-worker that will testify saying he has done this to them or someone who has had interaction with him, if he is on the DL about his sexuality. . . this make it interesting


----------



## Kobayashi Maru

Illiterate Poor killing the educated middle class just ain't gonna fly.
Reminder: the population has low regard for uber drivers
We're guilty be4 proven innocent









Guy on the left fired 10 round at the guy on the right killing him dead. Hyun Soo Kim, 45 Leaves behind a wife & child.


----------



## Daisey77

Kobayashi Maru said:


> Illiterate Poor killing the educated middle class just ain't gonna fly.
> Reminder: the population has low regard for uber drivers
> We're guilty be4 proven innocent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy on the left fired 10 round at the guy on the right killing him dead. Hyun Soo Kim, 45 Leaves behind a wife & child.


 the victims not the only one leaving behind a wife and children. ThevUber driver has a wife and two children. He is also not illiterate and poor. In fact he's very well-liked and respected. He worked two jobs, was going to school, was a counselor for the troubled youth and very involved with his church. I believe his parents, or at least one of them, is a preacher/ minister. He also has no criminal background, unlike the victim


----------



## Kobayashi Maru

Daisey77 said:


> the victims not the only one leaving behind a wife and children. ThevUber driver has a wife and two children. He is also not illiterate and poor. In fact he's very well-liked and respected. He worked two jobs, was going to school, was a counselor for the troubled youth and very involved with his church. I believe his parents, or at least one of them, is a preacher/ minister. He also has no criminal background, unlike the victim


"The uber driver leaves behind....." you mean the guy that had the gun? The guy that made the decision to discharged that weapon 10 times?
Sympathy for the assailant will be very limited.

*U claim the victim Hyun Soo Kim has a criminal history. What is the victim, Hyun Soo Kim's, criminal history? Provide a link to this info you are quoting *


----------



## Daisey77

Kobayashi Maru said:


> "The uber driver leaves behind....." you mean the guy that had the gun? The guy that made the decision to discharged that weapon 10 times?
> Sympathy for the assailant will be very limited.
> 
> *U claim the victim has a criminal history. What is the victim's criminal history? Provide a link to this info you are quoting *


Oh quite the contrary. The Uber driver actually has a lot of support! I don't know where you're from, but I'm from Denver, where it happened. The family is receiving gifts and money daily, in the mail, from complete strangers. Even the passengers are siding with the driver. However, our taxi cab drivers are now harassing our customers and our drivers at hotels, when we're picking up passengers. They're telling them not to get in our cars because we will shoot and kill them!


----------



## Kobayashi Maru

Daisey77 said:


> Oh quite the contrary. The Uber driver actually has a lot of support! I don't know where you're from, but I'm from Denver, where it happened. The family is receiving gifts and money daily, in the mail, from complete strangers. Even the passengers are siding with the driver. However, our taxi cab drivers are now harassing our customers and our drivers at hotels, when we're picking up passengers. They're telling them not to get in our cars because we will shoot and kill them!


You Daisey77 stated the victim had a criminal background.
Proof? Link?

Or are you just whistling Dixie


----------



## Daisey77

Kobayashi Maru said:


> You Daisey77 stated the victim had a criminal background.
> Proof? Link?
> 
> Or are you just whistling Dixie


 First of all, I don't whistle Dixie. I don't just throw random shit out there or make shit up. 
He was on probation at the time. Alcohol-related . All I know is, he's had 3 DUI's . That's why he was Ubering that night. I don't know if there were any other charges associated with the DUI arrests or not. If there were or if he was combative at the time of his arrests or behaved in an angry manner at all, that could definitely come into play. It sets his mood or tone while he's under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## Kobayashi Maru

Daisey77 said:


> First of all, I don't whistle Dixie. I don't just throw random shit out there or make shit up.
> He was on probation at the time. Alcohol-related . All I know is, he's had 3 DUI's . That's why he was Ubering that night. I don't know if there were any other charges associated with the DUI arrests or not. If there were or if he was combative at the time of his arrests or behaved in an angry manner at all, that could definitely come into play. It sets his mood or tone while he's under the influence of alcohol.


*Daisey77 WHERE IS THE LINK TO THIS Slanderous INFORMATION?
How do u know? Are u in Alcoholics Anonymous? Does uber know of your alcohol abuse?
Without proof......*
..........I hear Dixie being whistled


----------



## Daisey77

Kobayashi Maru said:


> *Daisey77 WHERE IS THE LINK TO THIS Slanderous INFORMATION?
> How do u know? Are u in Alcoholics Anonymous? Does uber know of your alcohol abuse?
> Without proof......*
> ..........I hear Dixie being whistled


Wow. . . talk about slander! I'm not sure why you are so angry but the same could apply to you. Does Uber know you got anger issues?
How the hell am I supposed to provide a link to a conversation I had??? Quite frankly , I don't give two shits if you believe me or not. That's your choice. It doesn't affect me. I'm just providing information as I get it. Since I live in Denver, there's a good chance I'll get information sooner than you all will. So I'm just passing it forward￼


----------



## JimKE

Cdub2k said:


> If he doesn't have a dash cam it's going to be hard to convince anybody of what happened.
> Firing a pistol 10 times doesn't sound like self defense to me.


The defendant doesn't have to convince anyone of anything. The prosecution has to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense needs to do is establish reasonable doubt.

With a semi-automatic pistol, 10 rounds can be fired in a very few seconds (2-3?) so that one fact doesn't disprove self-defense.

Try it yourself. Use the stopwatch on your phone. Start, say pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, stop. It took me 3.02 seconds. I wasn't trying to go terribly fast, and I was using a two-shot sequence I've been trained to use. If he was firing one shot right after another, he could have fired 10 rounds in somewhat less time.

The question is whether a _reasonable person_ *would think they were still under threat *during that very brief period of shooting.

To me (law enforcement background, including homicide investigation experience), the key piece of physical evidence released so far is not the shell casings. It's the *trail of blood* from the site of the shell casings to where the car came to rest.

What does that tell us?

It tells us that the driver exited his car with the transmission still in Drive. To me, that is a driver *in fear.*
_"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask yourself this question: If you were in this driver's shoes -- *what would YOUR state of mind have to be* for you to exit your personal vehicle without first putting it in Park? Is that normally how you get out of your car? Or would you have to be in a hurry to get away from the car?"_

It also tells us that the shooting occurred some distance from where the car came to rest -- which means 1) that the driver probably shot the victim at close range -- not from a distance, and 2) he did not chase the slowly moving car still shooting. The shooting occurred in one place; the final rest of the car was in a different place, and the trail of blood shows the movement from shooting to rest. The exact distance will be revealed in court, but it was far enough that there was a "path" from where the shooting occurred to where the car finally stopped.
It also might tell us the rider was outside the car (trying to get to the driver) when the shooting started. There shouldn't be blood _outside_ the car unless the victim was at least partly outside -- either hanging out the window (not consistent with how the police found him, lying on the floorboard) or fully outside trying to get back into the car as it slowly rolled away.
Another factor that helps the driver is his statements and behavior immediately following the shooting. There is a legal principle that "contemporaneous statements" are presumed to be truthful (which is not the same thing as correct or accurate), and here's what the driver said:

He told the on-scene witness (who called 911) that the rider attacked him, and that he shot the rider
He told the 911 operator (undoubtedly on a recorded line) the same thing -- that he was attacked
the rider struck him in the face
the rider grabbed him
the rider was "feeling on him" (whatever that means or doesn't mean)
he stopped the car and exited the car to get away
the rider was reaching into his pocket for something and "tried to chase him" -- which further indicates the driver's initial reaction was to flee.
he also told the 911 operator the victim was still breathing and moving and requested EMS response to help the victim

On-scene actions
KEY point -- he *STOPPED* shooting. While it may seem that 10 rounds is a lot of shooting, it really isn't in this situation. But the much more important fact is that he STOPPED shooting. He fired 10 rounds, but he had *5 more* *still in the pistol* that he didn't shoot-- and *he had another magazine*, presumably with 15 more rounds. So he fired 10 rounds, but he had 20 more he could have fired.
he also made the weapon safe by clearing the round in the chamber and placing it in his pocket. That action shows two things:
this is not some freaked-out irrational person. This is a "reasonable man" who is assessing the situation rationally, and thinking about his actions.
This is someone who initially perceived a threat, now thinks the threat has passed, and is concerned about the safety of others, so he makes his weapon safe.


Obviously, none of us have anything like all the facts. Even the police don't have all the facts yet -- for example, they would probably have done toxicology on both the shooter and victim, and those results can take weeks.

But the driver has a pretty sound foundation for a self-defense argument.

The key will be the rest of the physical evidence in the case, none of which has been released (nor should it be) to the public.

One very important component of that will be the positioning of the two people, and the police should be able to accurately estimate that from physical evidence on the scene (blood spatter, gunpowder residue, bullet trajectories, etc.) . If Denver has a decent crime lab (or access to one), they should be able to develop all that evidence in great detail. If they don't, their case is going to be weakened.


----------



## Mista T

JimKE said:


> The defendant doesn't have to convince anyone of anything. The prosecution has to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense needs to do is establish reasonable doubt.
> 
> With a semi-automatic pistol, 10 rounds can be fired in a very few seconds (2-3?) so that one fact doesn't disprove self-defense.
> 
> Try it yourself. Use the stopwatch on your phone. Start, say pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, stop. It took me 3.02 seconds. I wasn't trying to go terribly fast, and I was using a two-shot sequence I've been trained to use. If he was firing one shot right after another, he could have fired 10 rounds in somewhat less time.
> 
> The question is whether a _reasonable person_ *would think they were still under threat *during that very brief period of shooting.
> 
> To me (law enforcement background, including homicide investigation experience), the key piece of physical evidence released so far is not the shell casings. It's the *trail of blood* from the site of the shell casings to where the car came to rest.
> 
> What does that tell us?
> 
> It tells us that the driver exited his car with the transmission still in Drive. To me, that is a driver *in fear.*
> _"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask yourself this question: If you were in this driver's shoes -- *what would YOUR state of mind have to be* for you to exit your personal vehicle without first putting it in Park? Is that normally how you get out of your car? Or would you have to be in a hurry to get away from the car?"_
> 
> It also tells us that the shooting occurred some distance from where the car came to rest -- which means 1) that the driver probably shot the victim at close range -- not from a distance, and 2) he did not chase the slowly moving car still shooting. The shooting occurred in one place; the final rest of the car was in a different place, and the trail of blood shows the movement from shooting to rest. The exact distance will be revealed in court, but it was far enough that there was a "path" from where the shooting occurred to where the car finally stopped.
> It also might tell us the rider was outside the car (trying to get to the driver) when the shooting started. There shouldn't be blood _outside_ the car unless the victim was at least partly outside -- either hanging out the window (not consistent with how the police found him, lying on the floorboard) or fully outside trying to get back into the car as it slowly rolled away.
> Another factor that helps the driver is his statements and behavior immediately following the shooting. There is a legal principle that "contemporaneous statements" are presumed to be truthful (which is not the same thing as correct or accurate), and here's what the driver said:
> 
> He told the on-scene witness (who called 911) that the rider attacked him, and that he shot the rider
> He told the 911 operator (undoubtedly on a recorded line) the same thing -- that he was attacked
> the rider struck him in the face
> the rider grabbed him
> the rider was "feeling on him" (whatever that means or doesn't mean)
> he stopped the car and exited the car to get away
> the rider was reaching into his pocket for something and "tried to chase him" -- which further indicates the driver's initial reaction was to flee.
> he also told the 911 operator the victim was still breathing and moving and requested EMS response to help the victim
> 
> On-scene actions
> KEY point -- he *STOPPED* shooting. While it may seem that 10 rounds is a lot of shooting, it really isn't in this situation. But the much more important fact is that he STOPPED shooting. He fired 10 rounds, but he had *5 more* *still in the pistol* that he didn't shoot-- and *he had another magazine*, presumably with 15 more rounds. So he fired 10 rounds, but he had 20 more he could have fired.
> he also made the weapon safe by clearing the round in the chamber and placing it in his pocket. That action shows two things:
> this is not some freaked-out irrational person. This is a "reasonable man" who is assessing the situation rationally, and thinking about his actions.
> This is someone who initially perceived a threat, now thinks the threat has passed, and is concerned about the safety of others, so he makes his weapon safe.
> 
> 
> Obviously, none of us have anything like all the facts. Even the police don't have all the facts yet -- for example, they would probably have done toxicology on both the shooter and victim, and those results can take weeks.
> 
> But the driver has a pretty sound foundation for a self-defense argument.
> 
> The key will be the rest of the physical evidence in the case, none of which has been released (nor should it be) to the public.
> 
> One very important component of that will be the positioning of the two people, and the police should be able to accurately estimate that from physical evidence on the scene (blood spatter, gunpowder residue, bullet trajectories, etc.) . If Denver has a decent crime lab (or access to one), they should be able to develop all that evidence in great detail. If they don't, their case is going to be weakened.


Good analysis and insights!

A shame we don't have more info. I understand that this case should not be tried in the court of public opinion, it is frustrating tho, I feel like I am partly invested. I can relate to both driver and pax.

I spent 30 minutes reading thru the online articles, no mention at all of ANYTHING about the pax. No history, no record or lack thereof, not even his pax rating. Nothing.

Hopefully we get some more info, this could really be a huge step in the No Guns issue. If the driver really was in mortal danger, it brings more to the table for Uber to deal with (for drivers) than just money issues.


----------



## JimKE

Mista T said:


> A shame we don't have more info. I understand that *this case should not be tried in the court of public opinion*, it is frustrating tho, I feel like I am partly invested. I can relate to both driver and pax.


Right, and that's exactly why the police don't release information -- NOT that people might talk about it, but because released information could be prejudicial to the defendant, could force a change of venue because the defendant can't get a fair trial, and could result in evidence being suppressed (NOT admitted into evidence for trial).

I know inquiring minds DO want to know, but the orderly and fair judicial process is much more important than the desires of the public.

The PC statement was probably written by the lead homicide investigator, and is pretty good.

I personally would have left out the details of the shell casings and blood trail, frankly. I see no need for that in the PC statement, and it raises the prejudicial publicity issue.

I'd just have said that preliminary evaluation of physical evidence at the scene supports the allegation that the defendant shot the victim. The shooter's statements to the witness, to 911, the fact that he had the gun on his person, the victim is found inside his personal vehicle, etc, are plenty to establish probable cause, IMHO. Maybe a nervous prosecutor suggested the addition of the shell casing/blood trail info...who knows?


----------



## Kobayashi Maru

Mista T said:


> Good analysis and insights!
> 
> A shame we don't have more info. I understand that this case should not be tried in the court of public opinion, it is frustrating tho, I feel like I am partly invested. I can relate to both driver and pax.
> 
> I spent 30 minutes reading thru the online articles, no mention at all of ANYTHING about the pax. No history, no record or lack thereof, not even his pax rating. Nothing.
> 
> Hopefully we get some more info, this could really be a huge step in the No Guns issue. If the driver really was in mortal danger, it brings more to the table for Uber to deal with (for drivers) than just money issues.


*whenever I want expert analysis, ballistic evaluation and legal advise I ALWAYS Seek Out An Uber Driver.*

*The Courts always accept the credentials of "uber drivers" as an expert testimony witness*


----------



## bsliv

Kobayashi Maru said:


> *whenever I want expert analysis, ballistic evaluation and legal advise I ALWAYS Seek Out An Uber Driver.*
> 
> *The Courts always accept the credentials of "uber drivers" as an expert testimony witness*


Does it surprise you that some here know more than you? It doesn't surprise me. Why are you trying to shut down this discussion? 
Some drivers have interests and knowledge of more than driving. That should be evident by the quality of some posts. Do we have to be considered experts by the courts to post here? I can show my qualifications as an expert witness in the State of Nevada. My name has been read by judges hundreds of times during the prior few years. Am I alone? Probably not.

Am I an expert in ballistics? No. But I can hold a conversion on the subject with those considered experts. How about you?
Do we need to be an expert to have an opinion? Do we need to be an expert to express our opinion?

Since I'm not a member of the Colorado legal forums, I'll continue to post here and I'll expect others to continue to post here. Thanks for your input, it adds to this thread.


----------



## Kobayashi Maru

bsliv said:


> Does it surprise you that some here know more than you? It doesn't surprise me. Why are you trying to shut down this discussion?
> Some drivers have interests and knowledge of more than driving. That should be evident by the quality of some posts. Do we have to be considered experts by the courts to post here? I can show my qualifications as an expert witness in the State of Nevada. My name has been read by judges hundreds of times during the prior few years. Am I alone? Probably not.
> 
> Am I an expert in ballistics? No. But I can hold a conversion on the subject with those considered experts. How about you?
> Do we need to be an expert to have an opinion? Do we need to be an expert to express our opinion?
> 
> Since I'm not a member of the Colorado legal forums, I'll continue to post here and I'll expect others to continue to post here. Thanks for your input, it adds to this thread.


Like watching dogs play a piano.
Funny and lots of nonsense followed by boredom 
Yawn


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> The defendant doesn't have to convince anyone of anything. The prosecution has to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense needs to do is establish reasonable doubt.
> 
> With a semi-automatic pistol, 10 rounds can be fired in a very few seconds (2-3?) so that one fact doesn't disprove self-defense.
> 
> Try it yourself. Use the stopwatch on your phone. Start, say pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, stop. It took me 3.02 seconds. I wasn't trying to go terribly fast, and I was using a two-shot sequence I've been trained to use. If he was firing one shot right after another, he could have fired 10 rounds in somewhat less time.
> 
> The question is whether a _reasonable person_ *would think they were still under threat *during that very brief period of shooting.
> 
> To me (law enforcement background, including homicide investigation experience), the key piece of physical evidence released so far is not the shell casings. It's the *trail of blood* from the site of the shell casings to where the car came to rest.
> 
> What does that tell us?
> 
> It tells us that the driver exited his car with the transmission still in Drive. To me, that is a driver *in fear.*
> _"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask yourself this question: If you were in this driver's shoes -- *what would YOUR state of mind have to be* for you to exit your personal vehicle without first putting it in Park? Is that normally how you get out of your car? Or would you have to be in a hurry to get away from the car?"_
> 
> It also tells us that the shooting occurred some distance from where the car came to rest -- which means 1) that the driver probably shot the victim at close range -- not from a distance, and 2) he did not chase the slowly moving car still shooting. The shooting occurred in one place; the final rest of the car was in a different place, and the trail of blood shows the movement from shooting to rest. The exact distance will be revealed in court, but it was far enough that there was a "path" from where the shooting occurred to where the car finally stopped.
> It also might tell us the rider was outside the car (trying to get to the driver) when the shooting started. There shouldn't be blood _outside_ the car unless the victim was at least partly outside -- either hanging out the window (not consistent with how the police found him, lying on the floorboard) or fully outside trying to get back into the car as it slowly rolled away.
> Another factor that helps the driver is his statements and behavior immediately following the shooting. There is a legal principle that "contemporaneous statements" are presumed to be truthful (which is not the same thing as correct or accurate), and here's what the driver said:
> 
> He told the on-scene witness (who called 911) that the rider attacked him, and that he shot the rider
> He told the 911 operator (undoubtedly on a recorded line) the same thing -- that he was attacked
> the rider struck him in the face
> the rider grabbed him
> the rider was "feeling on him" (whatever that means or doesn't mean)
> he stopped the car and exited the car to get away
> the rider was reaching into his pocket for something and "tried to chase him" -- which further indicates the driver's initial reaction was to flee.
> he also told the 911 operator the victim was still breathing and moving and requested EMS response to help the victim
> 
> On-scene actions
> KEY point -- he *STOPPED* shooting. While it may seem that 10 rounds is a lot of shooting, it really isn't in this situation. But the much more important fact is that he STOPPED shooting. He fired 10 rounds, but he had *5 more* *still in the pistol* that he didn't shoot-- and *he had another magazine*, presumably with 15 more rounds. So he fired 10 rounds, but he had 20 more he could have fired.
> he also made the weapon safe by clearing the round in the chamber and placing it in his pocket. That action shows two things:
> this is not some freaked-out irrational person. This is a "reasonable man" who is assessing the situation rationally, and thinking about his actions.
> This is someone who initially perceived a threat, now thinks the threat has passed, and is concerned about the safety of others, so he makes his weapon safe.
> 
> 
> Obviously, none of us have anything like all the facts. Even the police don't have all the facts yet -- for example, they would probably have done toxicology on both the shooter and victim, and those results can take weeks.
> 
> But the driver has a pretty sound foundation for a self-defense argument.
> 
> The key will be the rest of the physical evidence in the case, none of which has been released (nor should it be) to the public.
> 
> One very important component of that will be the positioning of the two people, and the police should be able to accurately estimate that from physical evidence on the scene (blood spatter, gunpowder residue, bullet trajectories, etc.) . If Denver has a decent crime lab (or access to one), they should be able to develop all that evidence in great detail. If they don't, their case is going to be weakened.


This is essentially what I keep telling people. Everyone who says it's a shut-shut & closed case and he used unreasonable Force, they forget that the defense just has to create that one Reasonable Doubt with just one juror. The fact that he tried to get out of the vehicle and get away, the fact he was "honest" with the witness, 911, and the police, the fact he did not unload every bullet, the fact the victim was still alive and breathing, the fact the victim asked him to call an ambulance and one was called, the fact he stayed on the scene, Etc all shows good intent on his part. That he wasn't necessarily acting in a malicious manner. It sounds like from the probable cause statement that he pulled the car over in a somewhat quick Manner and exited the vehicle to get away from the passenger. That's when the passenger started chasing him and reaching in his pocket. so the blood trail sounds like it was because of the passenger chasing him? That's how I took it but I could be wrong or it could be the blood trail going back to the car after the victim was shot and trying to get back to a " safe" place aka the car ?


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

JimKE said:


> The defendant doesn't have to convince anyone of anything. The prosecution has to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. All the defense needs to do is establish reasonable doubt.
> 
> With a semi-automatic pistol, 10 rounds can be fired in a very few seconds (2-3?) so that one fact doesn't disprove self-defense.
> 
> Try it yourself. Use the stopwatch on your phone. Start, say pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, pop-pop, stop. It took me 3.02 seconds. I wasn't trying to go terribly fast, and I was using a two-shot sequence I've been trained to use. If he was firing one shot right after another, he could have fired 10 rounds in somewhat less time.
> 
> The question is whether a _reasonable person_ *would think they were still under threat *during that very brief period of shooting.
> 
> To me (law enforcement background, including homicide investigation experience), the key piece of physical evidence released so far is not the shell casings. It's the *trail of blood* from the site of the shell casings to where the car came to rest.
> 
> What does that tell us?
> 
> It tells us that the driver exited his car with the transmission still in Drive. To me, that is a driver *in fear.*
> _"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask yourself this question: If you were in this driver's shoes -- *what would YOUR state of mind have to be* for you to exit your personal vehicle without first putting it in Park? Is that normally how you get out of your car? Or would you have to be in a hurry to get away from the car?"_
> 
> It also tells us that the shooting occurred some distance from where the car came to rest -- which means 1) that the driver probably shot the victim at close range -- not from a distance, and 2) he did not chase the slowly moving car still shooting. The shooting occurred in one place; the final rest of the car was in a different place, and the trail of blood shows the movement from shooting to rest. The exact distance will be revealed in court, but it was far enough that there was a "path" from where the shooting occurred to where the car finally stopped.
> It also might tell us the rider was outside the car (trying to get to the driver) when the shooting started. There shouldn't be blood _outside_ the car unless the victim was at least partly outside -- either hanging out the window (not consistent with how the police found him, lying on the floorboard) or fully outside trying to get back into the car as it slowly rolled away.
> Another factor that helps the driver is his statements and behavior immediately following the shooting. There is a legal principle that "contemporaneous statements" are presumed to be truthful (which is not the same thing as correct or accurate), and here's what the driver said:
> 
> He told the on-scene witness (who called 911) that the rider attacked him, and that he shot the rider
> He told the 911 operator (undoubtedly on a recorded line) the same thing -- that he was attacked
> the rider struck him in the face
> the rider grabbed him
> the rider was "feeling on him" (whatever that means or doesn't mean)
> he stopped the car and exited the car to get away
> the rider was reaching into his pocket for something and "tried to chase him" -- which further indicates the driver's initial reaction was to flee.
> he also told the 911 operator the victim was still breathing and moving and requested EMS response to help the victim
> 
> On-scene actions
> KEY point -- he *STOPPED* shooting. While it may seem that 10 rounds is a lot of shooting, it really isn't in this situation. But the much more important fact is that he STOPPED shooting. He fired 10 rounds, but he had *5 more* *still in the pistol* that he didn't shoot-- and *he had another magazine*, presumably with 15 more rounds. So he fired 10 rounds, but he had 20 more he could have fired.
> he also made the weapon safe by clearing the round in the chamber and placing it in his pocket. That action shows two things:
> this is not some freaked-out irrational person. This is a "reasonable man" who is assessing the situation rationally, and thinking about his actions.
> This is someone who initially perceived a threat, now thinks the threat has passed, and is concerned about the safety of others, so he makes his weapon safe.
> 
> 
> Obviously, none of us have anything like all the facts. Even the police don't have all the facts yet -- for example, they would probably have done toxicology on both the shooter and victim, and those results can take weeks.
> 
> But the driver has a pretty sound foundation for a self-defense argument.
> 
> The key will be the rest of the physical evidence in the case, none of which has been released (nor should it be) to the public.
> 
> One very important component of that will be the positioning of the two people, and the police should be able to accurately estimate that from physical evidence on the scene (blood spatter, gunpowder residue, bullet trajectories, etc.) . If Denver has a decent crime lab (or access to one), they should be able to develop all that evidence in great detail. If they don't, their case is going to be weakened.


This is gonna get morbid... but...

I've seen someone take multiple bursts (3 rounds per trigger pull while in burst fire ) of m16 center mass and still keep shooting for a few seconds.

I can see it taking 10...

Honestly 1 round of small callibur in the wrong place (while still shooting them) might just piss someone off, especially if they are on cocaine or meth.

but We don't have any details and this looks like it is going to trial.

We have no details and no information.

He could end up getting released without charges depending on how the specialists determine everything happened in the investigation.

Or it could come down to s jury believing the guy when he said his life was in danger.

Too many details are being withheld to do anything but speculate.

And the LEOs in charge of this should NOT give any details to the press.


----------



## Daisey77

They did say they're waiting for toxicology reports on the victim . . .


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn

Daisey77 said:


> They did say they're waiting for toxicology reports on the victim . . .


We don't know because they didn't say hardly anything and they probably won't. And if they are smart they won't.


----------



## Daisey77

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> We don't know because they didn't say hardly anything and they probably won't. And if they are smart they won't.


 the medical examiner did do a toxicology report on the victim. He stated it will take 2 weeks to get those results back and that was on June 6th So within the next few days


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> the medical examiner did do a toxicology report on the victim. He stated it will take 2 weeks to get those results back and that was on June 6th So within the next few days


I doubt if they release the results.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

Rat said:


> The TOS specifically says "where allowed by law". You ignore what you don't want to know.
> 
> The vehicle is still your private vehicle. The service is public, but you still own the vehicle. You seem to read this not the law what you want it to say, not what it actually says


Uber is providing two stories that clearly conflict. The TOS seems to open the door for the application of local laws. However, in 4 separate conversations with Uber, the answer was a resounding "NO Weapons Period". This includes security officers & and police.

Uber needs to clarify this in the TOS.


----------



## Daisey77

UBERPROcolorado said:


> Uber is providing two stories that clearly conflict. The TOS seems to open the door for the application of local laws. However, in 4 separate conversations with Uber, the answer was a resounding "NO Weapons Period". This includes security officers & and police.
> 
> Uber needs to clarify this in the TOS.


In all honesty, how often can you get phone support and whoever else at Uber to agree on something? Shit phone support alone, if you call four times, will give you four different answers. Uber needs to clarify probably every policy they have


----------



## bsliv

Daisey77 said:


> Uber needs to clarify probably every policy they have


Vague rules/laws are not limited to Uber. Vague rules/laws are open to interpretation. Enforcers of the rules/laws will interpret the action to best serve their purposes at the time.


----------



## Daisey77

bsliv said:


> Vague rules/laws are not limited to Uber. Vague rules/laws are open to interpretation. Enforcers of the rules/laws will interpret the action to best serve their purposes at the time.


I wasn't talking about vague rules and laws. I was responding to the comment that Uber needs to clarify their weapons policy. I said Uber needs to clarify a lot of their policies.


----------



## bsliv

Daisey77 said:


> I wasn't talking about vague rules and laws. I was responding to the comment that Uber needs to clarify their weapons policy. I said Uber needs to clarify a lot of their policies.


If they are not clear they are vague. I believe they are vague for a reason.


----------



## Kobayashi Maru

A federal judge tossed (threw out) a class action lawsuit alleging Uber's no-firearms policy violates drivers' rights finding that the plaintiff failed to show how he had been injured by the policy.

Lead plaintiff Jose Mejia alleged in his class action lawsuit that the ride share company violated his and other Uber drivers' rights under Florida law by banning guns while working for the company.

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit...irearm-class-action-lawsuit-tossed-no-injury/


----------



## Daisey77

bsliv said:


> If they are not clear they are vague. I believe they are vague for a reason.


Oh I completely agree with you on that. it allows wiggle room for little worms to squirm their way out of things LOL


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

We now have some answers. The daughter of a local Judge...

“ the Uber driver and his passenger knew each other. A gang relationship. Judge ------- mentioned it in an email to my Dad. They did a social media sweep and bingo. The 911 call really hung the kid….really both of them.”

The daughter thought is was out to the media or will be soon. The source appears good. 

The driver…..
Clean record. In college. Kids. Looses his license April 2018. Knows Uber will can him once the suspension is caught. Bills to pay. Got in with the wrong crowd?

Sucks. 

Drive safe.


----------



## JimKE

Kobayashi Maru said:


> A federal judge tossed (threw out) a class action lawsuit alleging Uber's no-firearms policy violates drivers' rights finding that the plaintiff failed to show how he had been injured by the policy.


And rightfully so, but nobody should confuse this as an endorsement of Uber's policy on firearms.

This is a simple ruling on Uber's argument that the plaintiff had no legitimate reason to file the lawsuit in the first place. It has nothing to do with* Uber's policy.*

The driver wanted to carry a gun, but he says he complied with Uber's policy and never did carry. Uber took no action against him because he hadn't done anything wrong. He had suffered no consequences of Uber's policy, and therefore had nothing to sue FOR. No harm, no foul.

If he wants to actually *test* Uber's policy, he needs to carry his gun, get caught, and get deactivated. Then he will have legal standing to sue Uber and can actually get a court ruling on Uber's policy...which I suspect the court will uphold.



UBERPROcolorado said:


> The daughter thought is was out to the media or will be soon.


Well, if it gets out in social media, that changes EVERYTHING!

smh


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> I'm not sure how fake the troll accusation is But from what I've seen, you sure don't add a lot of positive or informational things to The Forum.


That's what the Ignore feature is for...just sayin'.


----------



## transporter007

June 20th update: Murder victim Hyun Kim's family hired the Chicago law firm of Corboy & Demetrio
Lawyers for murdered victim Hyun Kim Claim uber was negligent for not enforcing its own rule of No guns in cars.

This would of prevented deranged murder, sociopath and uber driver Michael Hancock from killing Mr. Kim
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/20/victims-family-accuses-uber-negligence/


----------



## Daisey77

transporter007 said:


> June 20th update: Murder victim Hyun Kim's family hired the Chicago law firm of Corboy & Demetrio
> Lawyers for murdered victim Hyun Kim Claim uber was negligent for not enforcing its own rule of No guns in cars.
> 
> This would of prevented deranged murder, sociopath and uber driver Michael Hancock from killing Mr. Kim
> https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/20/victims-family-accuses-uber-negligence/


Unfortunately I can't read the article because I've reached my limit of 2 free articles a month LOL so they want to charge me to read this article now I know why the staff all quit and started their own news publishing LOL but if it's anything like this article,
http://via.kdvr.com/73OJV, it's completely pointless. So they're going to POSSIBLY go after Uber for negligence? If that's the case shouldn't everyone be suing the schools and such places where shootings have happened, that have a no weapons policy? I honestly don't know what else Uber could have done to prevent this. The guy had no criminal record. It's not like they ignored his criminal background and allowed him to drive anyways. So should all of the schools, were school shootings have happened, be sued for not enforcing their no weapons policy? The attorney even States she doesn't know if Uber can be held accountable for Michael Hancock's actions but they are looking into it.

So . . . They released this "statement" just so the public knows they have an attorney? I like how she nonchalantly throws in, _how devastating it must be to go to bed while your husband is out to dinner with an associate or colleague. Only to wake up to find out he's been shot and killed. _Riiiiiight . . . Out to dinner at 1 in the morning with an "associate"? She talks about it like this isn't the first time we're hearing this. Is this the official statement for the victim's family? Weak! Personally, I think it would have been better for her to keep her mouth shut. Sorry just my honest opinion.


----------



## transporter007

Daisey77 said:


> Unfortunately I can't read the article because I've reached my limit of 2 free articles a month LOL so they want to charge me to read this article now I know why the staff all quit and started their own news publishing LOL but if it's anything like this article,
> http://via.kdvr.com/73OJV, it's completely pointless. So they're going to POSSIBLY go after Uber for negligence? If that's the case shouldn't everyone be suing the schools and such places where shootings have happened, that have a no weapons policy? I honestly don't know what else Uber could have done to prevent this. The guy had no criminal record. It's not like they ignored his criminal background and allowed him to drive anyways. The attorney even States she doesn't know if Uber can be held accountable for Michael Hancock's actions but they are looking into it.
> 
> So . . . They released this "statement" just so the public knows they have an attorney? I like how she nonchalantly throws in, _how devastating it must be to go to bed while your husband is out to dinner with an associate or colleague. Only to wake up to find out he's been shot and killed. _Riiiiiight . . . Out to dinner at 1 in the morning with an "associate"? She talks about it like this isn't the first time we're hearing this. Is this the official statement for the victim's family? Weak! Personally, I think it would have been better for her to keep her mouth shut. Sorry just my honest opinion.


Clear your browser history then u can read all the articles u like.
NY Times the same limited. I clear my browser history and NYT 
assumes I'm new


----------



## Daisey77

transporter007 said:


> Clear your browser history then u can read all the articles u like.
> NY Times the same limited. I clear my browser history and NYT
> assumes I'm new


 I don't even have my web activity turned on. So it doesn't store anything. What am I missing? Lol


----------



## Miguel59

Is there a study of how Uber drivers feel towards their jobs, specially when riders start abusing verbally and most of them they don’t even tip for the driver’s effort and service to supply a good experience. There is an anger issue developing everywhere, Why ?.. is No tipping a factor, or lowering the rates and quests motivation a factor?


----------



## JimKE

transporter007 said:


> Clear your browser history then u can read all the articles u like.
> NY Times the same limited. I clear my browser history and NYT
> assumes I'm new


OMG!!! A helpful, constructive tip on UP! I don't believe it!

Thanks...seriously.



Miguel59 said:


> Is there a study of how Uber drivers feel towards their jobs, specially when riders start abusing verbally and most of them they don't even tip for the driver's effort and service to supply a good experience. There is an anger issue developing everywhere, Why ?.. is No tipping a factor, or lowering the rates and quests motivation a factor?


Yes. 81.4% of all Uber drivers actually LIVE for the abuse. We don't mind getting driving assholes around, as long as we get verbally and/or physically beaten up at least once per shift.

Incidentally, the numbers varied from a low abuse tolerance of 0.0014% in Idaho to a high of 136.993% in CA. Oregon and Washington state were similar to CA -- apparently something is a little skewed out there.


----------



## transporter007

Daisey77 said:


> I don't even have my web activity turned on. So it doesn't store anything. What am I missing? Lol


They're tracking your use of their site by cookies. That's how they know u reached ur article limit.
Clear them and any cached images and site data.
Easy if ur using chrome or safari



JimKE said:


> OMG!!! A helpful, constructive tip on UP! I don't believe it!
> 
> Thanks...seriously.
> 
> Yes. 81.4% of all Uber drivers actually LIVE for the abuse. We don't mind getting driving assholes around, as long as we get verbally and/or physically beaten up at least once per shift.
> 
> Incidentally, the numbers varied from a low abuse tolerance of 0.0014% in Idaho to a high of 136.993% in CA. Oregon and Washington state were similar to CA -- apparently something is a little skewed out there.


That Miami sun is cooking ur brain. Up ur SPF be4 it's too late.
Oh wait, ur an uber driver 
Too late

Bwahahahaha


----------



## ntcindetroit

Daisey77 said:


> Unfortunately I can't read the article because I've reached my limit of 2 free articles a month LOL so they want to charge me to read this article now I know why the staff all quit and started their own news publishing LOL but if it's anything like this article,
> http://via.kdvr.com/73OJV, it's completely pointless. So they're going to POSSIBLY go after Uber for negligence? If that's the case shouldn't everyone be suing the schools and such places where shootings have happened, that have a no weapons policy? I honestly don't know what else Uber could have done to prevent this. The guy had no criminal record. It's not like they ignored his criminal background and allowed him to drive anyways. So should all of the schools, were school shootings have happened, be sued for not enforcing their no weapons policy? The attorney even States she doesn't know if Uber can be held accountable for Michael Hancock's actions but they are looking into it.
> 
> So . . . They released this "statement" just so the public knows they have an attorney? I like how she nonchalantly throws in, _how devastating it must be to go to bed while your husband is out to dinner with an associate or colleague. Only to wake up to find out he's been shot and killed. _Riiiiiight . . . Out to dinner at 1 in the morning with an "associate"? She talks about it like this isn't the first time we're hearing this. Is this the official statement for the victim's family? Weak! Personally, I think it would have been better for her to keep her mouth shut. Sorry just my honest opinion.


Didn't Uber take care of Kim's family like they did in Elaine's case? We'd think rideshare app. should be banned for ppl who CCW, no matter it's Rider or driver.


----------



## transporter007

ntcindetroit said:


> Didn't Uber take care of Kim's family like they did in Elaine's case? We'd think rideshare app. should be banned for ppl who CCW, no matter it's Rider or driver.


Need a car metal detector. If it detects a weapon driver can not start car.
If pax gets in car with a weapon car is rendered inoperable.

Of course until the packing passenger wastes the driver, dumps his corpse and places piece in trunk allowing vehicle to operate, then car jack the uber ride.

Possibly continue using deceased drivers app accepting ride requests.

Snuff an Uber driver, make extra $$$$

Cleaning fee???


----------



## ntcindetroit

Daisey77 said:


> Unfortunately I can't read the article because I've reached my limit of 2 free articles a month LOL so they want to charge me to read this article now I know why the staff all quit and started their own news publishing LOL but if it's anything like this article,
> http://via.kdvr.com/73OJV, it's completely pointless. So they're going to POSSIBLY go after Uber for negligence? If that's the case shouldn't everyone be suing the schools and such places where shootings have happened, that have a no weapons policy? I honestly don't know what else Uber could have done to prevent this. The guy had no criminal record. It's not like they ignored his criminal background and allowed him to drive anyways. So should all of the schools, were school shootings have happened, be sued for not enforcing their no weapons policy? The attorney even States she doesn't know if Uber can be held accountable for Michael Hancock's actions but they are looking into it.
> 
> So . . . They released this "statement" just so the public knows they have an attorney? I like how she nonchalantly throws in, _how devastating it must be to go to bed while your husband is out to dinner with an associate or colleague. Only to wake up to find out he's been shot and killed. _Riiiiiight . . . Out to dinner at 1 in the morning with an "associate"? She talks about it like this isn't the first time we're hearing this. Is this the official statement for the victim's family? Weak! Personally, I think it would have been better for her to keep her mouth shut. Sorry just my honest opinion.


Honest opinion or not, who really cares? At least, we readers know that's American English teacher's writing style. Actually, Uber can keep her mouth shut if they really want to. It's time for Uber to release how its algorithm works to insure the driver and riders' safety before all these homicide match.


----------



## Daisey77

ntcindetroit said:


> Didn't Uber take care of Kim's family like they did in Elaine's case? We'd think rideshare app. should be banned for ppl who CCW, no matter it's Rider or driver.


IDK I haven't heard anything about them taking care of Kim's family. According to the article I read, the attorney says she doesn't even know if Uber can be held accountable for Hancock's actions. However, she thinks they can hold them liable for negligence for not "enforcing" their no weapons policy.

So an app is supposed to ban everyone from the platform who has a concealed weapons permit? Yet people who carry guns illegally are allowed to utilize the service?


----------



## ntcindetroit

Daisey77 said:


> So an app is supposed to ban everyone from the platform who has a concealed weapons permit?


Policy is just another lip service in carry out business before next inccident, accident or homicide?


> Yet people who carry guns illegally are allowed to utilize the service?


 What do you think? I certainly would not give a ride to anyone who carry weapons. My greeting from now on will be
* "No weapon allowed in my personal property." *
Where rideshare companies failed to secure their own biz model.


----------



## JimKE

transporter007 said:


> June 20th update: Murder victim Hyun Kim's family hired the Chicago law firm of Corboy & Demetrio
> Lawyers for murdered victim Hyun Kim Claim uber was negligent for not enforcing its own rule of No guns in cars.
> 
> This would of prevented deranged murder, sociopath and uber driver Michael Hancock from killing Mr. Kim
> https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/20/victims-family-accuses-uber-negligence/


Denver family hires Chicago law firm...hmmm. No lawyers in Denver?

I'm guessing the Chicago law firm tracked the family down and solicited the lawsuit. Yes, that's an ethical violation, but remember these are LAWYERS we're talking about.

The lawyers just see a company with lots of investors who has a reputation for being an easy touch with quick, quiet cash settlements. Uber doesn't have the cash to pay its drivers, but they'll pay this lawyer.


----------



## bsliv

ntcindetroit said:


> Policy is just another lip service in carry out business before next inccident, accident or homicide?
> What do you think? I certainly would not give a ride to anyone who carry weapons. My greeting from now on will be
> * "No weapon allowed in my personal property." *
> Where rideshare companies failed to secure their own biz model.


Maybe place signs on your car saying, "Gun Free Zone." But then again, criminals don't pay attention to laws, much less signs that attempt to control their behavior. In the view of some, advertising a GFZ is an advertisement that one is defenseless and an invitation for criminals to do as they wish.

When someone has something valuable to protect they often hire an armored vehicle. Armored vehicles do not have GFZ signs. Just the opposite, they have, "Armed Security" signs. I consider my life valuable.


----------



## ntcindetroit

JimKE said:


> Denver family hires Chicago law firm...hmmm. No lawyers in Denver?
> 
> I'm guessing the Chicago law firm tracked the family down and solicited the lawsuit. Yes, that's an ethical violation, but remember these are LAWYERS we're talking about.
> 
> The lawyers just see a company with lots of investors who has a reputation for being an easy touch with quick, quiet cash settlements. Uber doesn't have the cash to pay its drivers, but they'll pay this lawyer.


We think the Chicago law firm or lawyer was picked up because they are experienced in victimied Uber drivers. Apparently, there are victimized rider(s) by Uber as well.


----------



## transporter007

ntcindetroit said:


> We think the Chicago law firm or lawyer was picked up because they are experienced in victimied Uber drivers. Apparently, there are victimized rider(s) by Uber as well.


If you're going to start using logic and common sense there's no place for U on this forum.
Move along....


----------



## Daisey77

ntcindetroit said:


> Policy is just another lip service in carry out business before next inccident, accident or homicide?
> What do you think? I certainly would not give a ride to anyone who carry weapons. My greeting from now on will be
> * "No weapon allowed in my personal property." *
> Where rideshare companies failed to secure their own biz model.


You would not give a ride to anyone who is carrying a weapon... Who says you haven't? Do you body search every passenger? I guess you could ask every passenger. I'm sure they would never think to say they didn't have a, weapon, when they in fact did


JimKE said:


> Denver family hires Chicago law firm...hmmm. No lawyers in Denver?
> 
> I'm guessing the Chicago law firm tracked the family down and solicited the lawsuit. Yes, that's an ethical violation, but remember these are LAWYERS we're talking about.


 I definitely would put money on the fact the law firm tracked the family down. In the first and only statement given, they pretty much did not even address the incident. However, they did take the opportunity to state the family reached out to the law firm. Yes, that's the most important thing to address right now she in fact refused to give comment on the alleged attack , saying it would be gross speculation on her part and she will leave that up to the prosecuting attorney thank you Miss lawyer. I'm not sure what the whole point of this statement was, other than to market your own name and firm.


----------



## ntcindetroit

Now, looking back, we'd think a dashcam is much better than a Lyft Amp. I got a free Amp after 2 or 3 weeks on Lyft, I'd trade my Amp for a Lyft logoed dashcam or even an Uber logoed Dashcam.


----------



## ntcindetroit

Daisey77 said:


> You would not give a ride to anyone who is carrying a weapon... Who says you haven't? Do you body search every passenger? I guess you could ask every passenger. I'm sure they would never think to say they didn't have a, weapon, when they in fact did
> I definitely would put money on the fact the law firm tracked the family down. In the first and only statement given, they pretty much did not even address the incident. However, they did take the opportunity to state the family reached out to the law firm. Yes, that's the most important thing to address right now she in fact refused to give comment on the alleged attack , saying it would be gross speculation on her part and she will leave that up to the prosecuting attorney thank you Miss lawyer. I'm not sure what the whole point of this statement was, other than to market your own name and firm.


Do this Uber driver have a designated supervisor or manager in Uber corp.? What was his performance review and work history? Is it Uber's responsibility to rate the driver's ride or the rider(s)?



Daisey77 said:


> You would not give a ride to anyone who is carrying a weapon... Who says you haven't? Do you body search every passenger? I guess you could ask every passenger. I'm sure they would never think to say they didn't have a, weapon, when they in fact did
> I definitely would put money on the fact the law firm tracked the family down. In the first and only statement given, they pretty much did not even address the incident. However, they did take the opportunity to state the family reached out to the law firm. Yes, that's the most important thing to address right now she in fact refused to give comment on the alleged attack , saying it would be gross speculation on her part and she will leave that up to the prosecuting attorney thank you Miss lawyer. I'm not sure what the whole point of this statement was, other than to market your own name and firm.


According to statement in the news article : *The firm, which has acquired more than $4 billion in settlements and verdicts for its clients, also represents the family of Chicago Uber driver Grant Nelson who was killed by a teenage passenger in 2017.
$4 billion is a lot of money. *


----------



## Daisey77

So this was just released today. I think both sides could use this to their advantage but so far it seems the evidence corroborates the driver's statements. Everything the driver has said lines up with the evidence. I also think the prosecutors can argue the fact that with this alcohol level, he should have been able to incapacitate him with less force. However, the toxicology report does not release any other findings, other than alcohol. Interesting thing, I had a passenger who was in an Uber shortly after this incident and his driver had actually been driving behind the suspects vehicle before coming to a stop on the highway. She did not stop due to having a passenger in the car and not knowing what was going on, obviously did not want to put the passenger's safety in jeopardy, but she said she was behind the vehicle when it's suddenly started driving erratically before coming to a stop against the wall of the highway
https://kdvr.com/2018/07/30/autopsy-uber-shooting-victim-was-drunk-at-time-of-death/


----------



## Jo3030

.308?
You are BLITZED at that level.


----------



## Daisey77

Jo3030 said:


> .308?
> You are BLITZED at that level.


Nah you're a professional and just have a high tolerance LOL it's interesting because they haven't specifically stated everything else was negative. I'm curious if there were other things that perhaps were positive as well. I think these results could be argued to benefit both sides but so far, evidence is lining right up with what the driver has stated. Rumor has it that the passenger was on probation for his third DUI and that's why he was taking an Uber.


----------



## JimKE

There may be some *really weak reporting* in this case.

The story cited by Daisey77 above claims that the decedent was struck six times by bullets...and that ALL of those shots were in the back.

Another link posted by Mista T (*https://www.9news.com/article/news/...-25-had-high-blood-alcohol-level/73-578719301 *) says that only *ONE* of the six shots struck the decedent in the back. YUGE difference!

First of all, firing 10 shots at close range and only hitting the target six times indicates to me that the shooter was firing very rapidly -- *frantically*.

And if the info about only ONE of those shots hitting the victim in the back is correct -- that, to me, strongly supports the self defense argument.

The story posted by Daisey77 above also says there were no "burn marks" indicating shots fired in close proximity.

But you wouldn't have "burn marks" on either the skin or clothing unless the muzzle of the gun was almost in contact with the victim...and in that scenario, you'd have other evidence that is much more accurate in estimating distance.

You would have powder patterns or "stipling" and/or irregular wounds that would give _competent forensic scientists_ a very accurate estimate of the distance from the gun muzzle to the clothing or bare skin.

I don't know anything about the capabilities of the crime labs out there, but GSW residue analysis is pretty technical (it's done with a scanning electron microscope), and based on the info they've released so far, I'm not that confident.


----------



## chitownXdriver

OrlUberOffDriver said:


> Pax looks like was seating in the front seat and wanted to change radio tunes.
> Driver: no ****, you wanna die today?


----------



## 58756

It is funny how some pax ask me or tell me if I should have a piece on me in my own car, and I am like "yeah right no thanks". Pax actually wanna bekibel we are all concealing a weapon.


----------



## Mista T

Ozzyoz said:


> It is funny how some pax ask me or tell me if I should have a piece on me in my own car, and I am like "yeah right no thanks". Pax actually wanna bekibel we are all concealing a weapon.


You mean you are not???


----------



## 58756

Mista T said:


> You mean you are not???


Nay to conceal carrying. I think I've already seen the worst. I had a mentally ill normal looking white dude of around 48 years of age ask me if I am sending the drug dealers after him to assassinate him.


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> There may be some *really weak reporting* in this case.
> 
> The story cited by Daisey77 above claims that the decedent was struck six times by bullets...and that ALL


Well I think the weak reporting is because there is not much information being released. He had court on Friday. So I'm sure they're just releasing whatever details were made available at that court hearing.

My article did not say he was shot 6 times in the _back_. It said he was shot 6 times _from behind_. The probable cause statement states he was shot in the wrist, and right side of his chest.

It sounds like from Mista T's article, the one shot in the "back", might not even technically be in the back but more on the side? However then the guy goes on to say that the defense is going to have a hard time claiming self-defense with a bullet wound to the back?? So . . . IDK


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> Well I think the weak reporting is because there is not much information being released. He had court on Friday. So I'm sure they're just releasing whatever details were made available at that court hearing.
> 
> My article did not say he was shot 6 times in the _back_. It said he was shot 6 times _from behind_. The probable cause statement states he was shot in the wrist, and right side of his chest.
> 
> It sounds like from Mista T's article, the one shot in the "back", might not even technically be in the back but more on the side? However then the guy goes on to say that the defense is going to have a hard time claiming self-defense with a bullet wound to the back?? So . . . IDK


Yeah, they are not releasing much info -- nor should they. Nothing good can come from releasing information prior to trial.

Actually, a shot in the back (or even several) would not preclude a self-defense argument, and might even bolster it. You'd have to see the entirety of the evidence to really evaluate whether a shot in the back was cold-blooded or just panicked.


----------



## UBERPROcolorado

Don't forget the "premeditated" part of the charge. In Colorado, "premeditated" requires a plan and intent prior to the act. 

The part that still has not been released is the social media sweep that that PD ran. It showed the driver and rider knew each other. 

Just saying


----------



## AcuraDrvr

Wow... looking at the pic of the victim..., I seriously think I might have partied with him and a bunch of Denver friends at Winter Music Conference in Miami a while back. Gonna send some emails. Crazy!


----------



## KellyC

Jo3030 said:


> .308?
> You are BLITZED at that level.


Holy crap, how was he even able to walk?


----------



## Daisey77

KellyC said:


> Holy crap, how was he even able to walk?


 I'm guessing he probably tested positive for some other things as well. That's just my opinion. They haven't discussed the rest of the toxicology report though



UBERPROcolorado said:


> Don't forget the "premeditated" part of the charge. In Colorado, "premeditated" requires a plan and intent prior to the act.
> 
> The part that still has not been released is the social media sweep that that PD ran. It showed the driver and rider knew each other.
> 
> Just saying


All first-degree murder charges in Colorado are filed as first degree murder with deliberation. it doesn't mean they knew each other and it doesn't necessarily fall in the lines of what most of us consider as "premeditated". 
https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/CO_homicide/CO_first_degree_murder.html
Even if they did know each other, that doesn't say a whole lot considering we're in Denver. Everyone knows everyone here.


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> I'm guessing he probably tested positive for some other things as well. That's just my opinion. They haven't discussed the rest of the toxicology report though


BAC isn't part of the tox report. It's a separate (quick, simple) test.


> All first-degree murder charges in Colorado are filed as first degree murder with deliberation. it doesn't mean they knew each other and it doesn't necessarily fall in the lines of what most of us consider as "premeditated".


Don't get carried away with terms like "premeditation" and "with deliberation." All they really mean is that the driver _meant_ to shoot the rider. Premeditation is satisfied simply by grabbing a gun, pointing it, and pulling the trigger.

It doesn't mean the guy plotted for months to kill his victim -- it just means it wasn't accidental.


----------



## Daisey77

JimKE said:


> BAC isn't part of the tox report. It's a separate (quick, simple) test.Don't get carried away with terms like "premeditation" and "with deliberation." All they really mean is that the driver _meant_ to shoot the rider. Premeditation is satisfied simply by grabbing a gun, pointing it, and pulling the trigger.
> 
> It doesn't mean the guy plotted for months to kill his victim -- it just means it wasn't accidental.


BAC can be done separate but it can also be done as part of a post-mortem toxicology report. They can also use other specimens, other than blood. They often times use a combination of blood and urine but can also use bile, bone marrow, brain, spinal fluid, and a few other specimens. They can even use a testicle! LoL

I am completely with you on the premeditation part. Everyone is so quick to say but they got him for premeditation. That's how every first degree murder charge is in Colorado. It really doesn't mean anything. I am really surprised they did actually charge him with first-degree murder though. The guy was still alive when he stopped shooting and in fact asked the driver to call an ambulance. Which was done. He did end up dying from the injuries but at the time when the driver quit shooting, the passenger was still alive and was able to speak.


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> I am really surprised they did actually charge him with first-degree murder though. The guy was still alive when he stopped shooting and in fact asked the driver to call an ambulance. Which was done. He did end up dying from the injuries but at the time when the driver quit shooting, the passenger was still alive and was able to speak.


None of that has anything to do with premeditation.

PREmeditation is what goes through the defendant's brain BEFORE they start shooting, and there doesn't even have to be any expressed thought. Just grabbing a gun and shooting is sufficient to establish that you wanted it to go BOOM.

The fact that he stopped shooting when the threat had ceased, and all the other stuff he did after the shooting (called ambulance, remained on the scene, cooperated with the police to whatever degree) all can be used to strengthen his self-defense argument, though.


----------



## bsliv

JimKE said:


> The fact that he stopped shooting when the threat had ceased


That is a very important consideration. And its not easy to do as demonstrated by 'professionals' who will empty their magazines if they feel threatened.


----------



## Daisey77

Told you guys that there was a witness!

http://via.kdvr.com/QHREG


----------



## Kodyhead

Why is this guy still in jail?

Actually at this point better of staying longer as he has a nice golden parachute from a big lawsuit


----------



## Uber's Guber

Kodyhead said:


> Why is this guy still in jail?


Because Denver is governed by a bunch of gun-hating liberals who love to coddle their criminals.


----------



## Daisey77

Kodyhead said:


> Why is this guy still in jail?
> 
> Actually at this point better of staying longer as he has a nice golden parachute from a big lawsuit


That is exactly the question that has Ben being asked since the beginning. Why is he not being given the opportunity post bond? Why is he being charged with first degree murder with deliberation? He had his preliminary hearing I believe today. Police Testified that the driver actually flagged down the witness that did stop to help as well as the driver did ask them about the passenger? He asked if the passenger was going to be okay. None of this makes any sense. I don't know if some underlying factor is influencing the prosecution or judge but something's not adding up.


----------



## Mista T

Kodyhead said:


> Why is this guy still in jail?


Because if he was eventually found guilty of ANYTHING and they had let him go, they would never hear the end of it.


----------



## Kodyhead

Mista T said:


> Because if he was eventually found guilty of ANYTHING and they had let him go, they would never hear the end of it.


I get that in the beginning but it seems all the evidence is in the drivers favor


----------



## Daisey77

It's all because the prosecution says the driver was outside the vehicle and shot the passenger while he was in the vehicle. Yet that's not been proven. That's the prosecution's' stance. Well duh the prosecution's stance is always going to be opposite of the defenses stance regardless of the situation. Everything needs to be taken into Factor. otherwise a verdict is essentially being made with no trial


----------



## Mista T

Kodyhead said:


> I get that in the beginning but it seems all the evidence is in the drivers favor


No disagreement from me. He should have been released long ago, IMO.


----------



## Daisey77

This judge sucks. I only hope their bench position changes before this trial. I think here they only serve two years


----------



## Daisey77

Who is this judge? She decides it should go to trial because and I quote* shows Hancock COULD have committed first-degree murder* 
Exactly! He could have BUT he didn't.
http://via.kdvr.com/JREAw


----------



## JimKE

Kodyhead said:


> Why is this guy still in jail?


Typically, first degree murder, kidnapping, rape, and terrorist charges are not bondable. Even attempted murder can be non-bondable. It varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but they usually stay in jail until trial.

Shortly after the arrest, there is usually a probable cause hearing before a judge. If the judge thinks the PC is sufficient, no bond.


----------



## Kodyhead

I just saw an article that says they have evidence that the shooter was outside the car and shot him as the guy was inside the car which explains the charges


----------



## Daisey77

Kodyhead said:


> I just saw an article that says they have evidence that the shooter was outside the car and shot him as the guy was inside the car which explains the charges


That's what the prosecution is saying. That's their argument in the case. I don't know if there's any evidence that's been released that backs this up


----------



## JimKE

Daisey77 said:


> That's what the prosecution is saying. That's their argument in the case. I don't know if there's any evidence that's been released that backs this up


If the prosecutors are talking like that, they are on a very slippery slope. Prejudicial pretrial publicity can create a nightmare for them.


----------

